Last week, two US congressmen, Chris Smith and Tom Suozzi, proposed legislation to rename the street surrounding the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Washington, DC, after Jimmy Lai.

The man in question, who is currently undergoing a trial pertaining to national security charges in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, is described in Smith’s press release concerning the legislation as “A 76-year-old democracy advocate and media entrepreneur.” The press release dismisses the charges against Lai as “completely fabricated” and states that he “peacefully” acted on his beliefs.

It is a common tactic around the world to utilize the “politics of memory” in order to immortalize a person or event, especially in conveying a long-term political message or ideological disposition. Politics is always deliberate, and thus there are always intentions behind the decision to either forget or continually remember something. This of course can be both for good and evil purposes, which can also build the fabric of a national or community identity. The practice is as old as history itself, which is why the Catholic Church created the process of glorifying saints and martyrs. Placing emphasis on people and events is designed to convey messages, especially when there is a sense of “sacrifice” behind it, the idea of someone suffering or dying for the cause.

At the same time, however, this process can also be used as a weapon against other countries, to draw attention to causes dedicated to attacking or undermining their respective regimes. The weaponization of “immortalization” has long been used as a means of attacking China. The Hong Kong rioters aptly understood this political art at the height of their movement and attempted to etch every single date and event in stone to try to solidify their cause permanently. Thus, it is no surprise that we see attempts in the US to make Jimmy Lai an effective martyr to try to make the Hong Kong cause against Beijing “permanent”.

Hong Kong will ever return to the way it was, because it is now ultimately coming to terms with its existence as a territory of the People’s Republic of China, and the separatist, imperial-nostalgic chapter has finally been brought to a close

It has been a favorite narrative of the media at large to frame Jimmy Lai as an innocuous supporter of democracy who wanted the best for Hong Kong, pretending that the charges against him are solely politically motivated and that he is the victim. Anyone who knows the facts, however, will be aware this is not true. Jimmy Lai, as an influential Hong Kong media mogul, apparently used his position to coordinate with foreign powers to promote unrest and disorder in the city throughout the period of the riots. It is publicly documented that Lai met with several senior members of the Trump administration, including then-secretary of state Mike Pompeo, then-national security adviser John Bolton (who was notorious for his pro-regime change and interventionist politics) and then-vice president Mike Pence.

When meeting Bolton, Lai said: “We in Hong Kong are fighting for the shared values of the US against China. We are fighting their war in the enemy camp.” To my mind, if this does not meet the threshold for “foreign collusion”, then what does? He was meeting with a high-ranking foreign official and seemingly declaring war against his own country. Would it be acceptable if the owner of a highly influential Western media company, for example, met Vladimir Putin and said something like that? Would their career survive? Despite this, Western media and politicians continually seek to undermine law and order in Hong Kong in an attempt to weaponize the territory against China.

Hong Kong suffered a very serious foreign-backed insurrection, and measures needed to be taken to address that. Thus, in glorifying Jimmy Lai, the goal of US politicians is to try to immortalize this legacy and to weaponize it against China over the long term. However, it is very unlikely that Hong Kong will ever return to the way it was, because it is now ultimately coming to terms with its existence as a territory of the People’s Republic of China, and the separatist, imperial-nostalgic chapter has finally been brought to a close.

The author is a British political and international-relations analyst.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.