The new National Security Law for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, which came into force on June 30, closed previous loopholes in the city’s law that allowed given groups to receive foreign funding, support and encouragement in perpetuating unrest in the city, as well as to pursue acts of politicized violence against public infrastructure and property unabated. The law codifies the criminal offenses of secessionism, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign or external forces endangering national security.
Yet the Western media of course were quick to misportray the new law as the end of the “one country, two systems” arrangement in Hong Kong. Rather than taking these specific facts and considerations seriously, they aggressively pushed a one-sided narrative stating that the law constituted a form of “political oppression” and represented the end of the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
The Western media are reflecting double standards in simply exaggerating the scope, scale and insincerity of their misinformation campaign against China and portraying the country as an aggressor in what is its own legal and lawful territory
They were quick to play up any signs of unrest and amplify leading voices of dissent. There was little to no scope given concerning China’s side of the argument, or even a balanced rendition of the law’s details.
To begin with, the first charge of terrorism under the National Security Law was against an individual suspected of having deliberately rammed a motorbike into policemen while carrying a banner calling for Hong Kong independence. The mainstream media seem to doubt this, yet if we take the definition of terrorism as officially recognized by the United States federal government: “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” — what else could we conclude such an act was? This coincides with Hong Kong activists who have deliberately sought to disable public transport with fires and destruction, as well as several people who even planted bombs in hospitals during the COVID-19 crisis, as reported by the city’s English-language media.
Second in turn, treason. The US Constitution defines it as follows: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort”. Here “adhering to their enemies” is often interpreted as collaborating with a foreign government. Federal law mandates a sentence which can range from a minimum of five years, up to life imprisonment and the death penalty, significantly harsher than the National Security Law for the HKSAR. The mainstream media outlets in the West have again sought to misinterpret this in the city. They first ignore that the law sets out different categories of offenses under this label and that minor breaches can receive smaller sentences of up to three years in prison.
In addition, the offense of collusion with foreign or external forces, as set out in the law, is hardly ambiguous, especially when it sets it out in terms of funding or direct support. The Western mainstream media happily ignore that local political group Demosisto reportedly said it was setting up a “backup fund” in the US, and that its leading figures have met with US politicians, lobbying the US Congress for sanctions and more. Moreover, the US-based National Endowment for Democracy publicly lists on its website large amounts of funding to various Hong Kong organizations and causes. In the US, none of these activities are legal and those who were caught would be banned from office and subject to severe penalties. Demosisto in Hong Kong was dissolved right before the National Security Law for Hong Kong went into force.
In this case, there is substantial evidence to argue the point that the Western mainstream media are fundamentally and deliberatively misrepresenting the content of the new National Security Law for the HKSAR and painting it in a sinister and malign way. This is simply not true. The legislation is not only in line with Hong Kong’s Basic law, but in addition is in within China’s sovereign rights to have national security powers within what is its own territory.
All of what is set out above would be defined as crimes in the Western countries, and the highest penalties within Hong Kong’s new law are also being presented as the only and logical outcome. The Western media are reflecting double standards in simply exaggerating the scope, scale and insincerity of their misinformation campaign against China and portraying the country as an aggressor in what is its own legal and lawful territory.
The author is a British political and international relations analyst.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
