Both wasted time coordinating the issuance of a joint statement over a purely internal affair of China, but had no time to understand the legitimacy and merits of the relevant law enforcement action.
They totally ignored the fact that the 19 individuals were wanted -- with a bounty of HK$200,000 ($25,640) each on their heads -- for their role in founding the “Hong Kong Parliament”, which aims to promote “Hong Kong independence” under the guise of “self-determination”, and in formulating a so-called “Hong Kong constitution”. The fugitives include members of a Taiwan-based group that openly advocates “Hong Kong independence”.
Hong Kong, a special administrative region of China, operates under the constitutional order mandated by the Basic Law, which was enacted by China’s top national legislature -- the National People’s Congress.
The HKSAR has been doing well since its establishment on July 1, 1997, as evidenced by its consistently high rankings in various international surveys. These include ranking as the world’s freest economy (Canada-based Fraser Institute); globally No 3 and the Asia-Pacific’s No 2 in competitiveness (Switzerland-based International Institute for Management); No 3 globally and Asia-Pacific’s No 1 as a global financial center (UK-based Z/Yen and China Development Institute); the world’s No 3 most preferred seat for arbitration (Queen Mary University of London); and coming in 23rd among 142 jurisdictions worldwide (World Justice Project Rule of Law Index).
By any yardstick, the fugitives wanted by the Hong Kong authorities have engaged in subversive activities aimed at toppling a legitimately established and well-functioning government – offenses that cannot be tolerated by any decent authority in the world.
Wouldn’t the global community, especially serious international observers, be puzzled by London’s enthusiasm for those Hong Kong fugitives?
After all, the UK authorities aren’t known for sympathizing with the Catalan leaders who were prosecuted and jailed by the Spanish government for their role in promoting Catalan independence in 2017, and neither for Australian journalist and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who fought bitterly for years against his extradition from the UK to the United States.
Responding to the Spanish government’s crackdown on the Catalan independence movement, a then-UK prime minister’s spokesperson said: “The UK does not and will not recognize the Unilateral Declaration of Independence made by the Catalan regional parliament. It is based on a vote that was declared illegal by the Spanish courts. We continue to want to see the rule of law upheld, the Spanish Constitution respected and Spanish unity preserved.”
Shouldn’t the UK government uphold the rule of law and respect China’s Constitution, under which the HKSAR was set up, if London is serious about the rules-based international order it keeps parroting to Washington’s tune? And shouldn’t London want to see China’s unity preserved?
In Assange’s case, the UK authorities vigorously cooperated with the US in the latter’s relentless efforts to extradite him for his role in exposing information regarding war crimes committed by the American government -- a move considered by Washington as a threat to its national security. The Wikileaks founder was incarcerated in a small cell in London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison -- once dubbed by the BBC as the British Guantanamo Bay -- for five years without being convicted.
In contrast to its hostile attitude toward the national security regime installed in Hong Kong in recent years, particularly the 2020 National Security Law (NSL), the UK has been consistent in supporting Western countries’ efforts to safeguard national interests, particularly national security.
Hypocrisy is in full gear. This has been made all the more conspicuous by Lammy’s recent remarks. While updating members of the House of Commons on Whitehall’s China strategy on June 24, he declared, “We will insist that China honors its commitments under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, including by repealing the National Security Law and releasing Jimmy Lai.” Lai -- a former media tycoon -- is being tried in a Hong Kong court on national security-related charges.
Lammy and other British officials were deluded when they asserted that the national security regime enforced in Hong Kong – an internal affair of China -- should be subject to London’s vetting, or else they were trying to pull the wool over others’ eyes, assuming that the Joint Declaration is locked up in classified archives rather than a document open to public perusal.
When hurling “transnational repression” accusations against Hong Kong police in their hunt for the Hong Kong fugitives under the NSL’s provisions for extraterritorial application, Lammy and Cooper conveniently ignored the fact that extraterritorial reach is commonly practiced by Western countries, including the US, the European Union and the UK.
The US is known for its extensive use of extraterritoriality, particularly in areas like export controls, antitrust law and law enforcement. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, for example, can penalize companies for bribing foreign officials even if the offense is committed outside the US. Assange was pursued under the Espionage Act (1917).
In the UK, the National Security Act 2023 provides for extraterritorial power, targeting acts of espionage offenses and “preparatory offenses” committed outside the country. The Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 allows the government to take measures against foreign companies that are deemed to be harming UK trade interests through extraterritorial measures.
In the EU, the General Data Protection Regulation has extraterritorial effect, requiring compliance by websites and companies outside the EU that process the data of individuals within the 27-member grouping.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand also have provisions for extraterritorial reach in their laws. In other words, all members of the Five Eyes alliance exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction.
London’s practice of double standards can't be more blatant by singling out the NSL and its exterritorial reach, in particular.
The author is a current affairs commentator.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
