The recent UK government report on Hong Kong has stirred controversy and condemnation from local authorities over its assessment of the city’s national security measures. The report, published on Thursday, highlighted concerns about the impact of Hong Kong’s focus on national security on its international reputation, labeling it as “undermining.” However, the Hong Kong government has vehemently denied these claims, calling them “absurd and false.”
UK Government’s Perspective
The UK government’s report on Hong Kong, a regular six-monthly assessment, detailed various political, judicial, and constitutional developments in the city from January through June. The UK has emphasized its commitment to upholding the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, which guaranteed Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy after its handover from British to Chinese rule in 1997.
During the period covered in the report, significant events unfolded in Hong Kong, including the enactment of a new security law, the banning of a popular protest song, and the resignation of two British judges from the city’s apex court due to the political situation. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy expressed concerns about Hong Kong’s perceived drift away from the commitments outlined in the Joint Declaration, particularly noting the impact of the city’s national security focus on its international reputation.
Lammy emphasized that while Hong Kong’s economic and financial systems remain distinct, the continued emphasis on national security could be detrimental to its standing on the global stage. He also raised concerns about the extraterritorial application of Hong Kong law, suggesting potential implications for international relations.
UK’s Commitment to Hong Kong
Foreign Secretary David Lammy reiterated the UK’s commitment to Hong Kong’s future, describing the city as “a city like no other.” He affirmed the British government’s support for Hongkongers who have made the UK their home, particularly in light of Beijing’s imposition of the national security law in 2020. The UK introduced an immigration route for Hongkongers holding British National (Overseas) passports, with a significant number of visas granted to date.
Regarding the enactment of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, also known as Article 23, the report highlighted concerns raised by Lammy’s predecessor, David Cameron. The UK expressed reservations about the potential impact of the legislation on international organizations in Hong Kong and raised issues related to “external interference” and its implications for diplomatic activities.
Cameron emphasized the importance of genuine consultation with the people of Hong Kong and urged the SAR government to reconsider its proposals. He underscored the democratic legitimacy of UK national security legislation, contrasting it with the process surrounding Article 23 in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong’s Response
In response to the UK government’s report, the Hong Kong government issued a strong statement refuting the claims made in the document. Drawing parallels between the protests in Hong Kong and racial riots in England and Wales, a spokesperson criticized the UK for its perceived double standards in handling internal security issues.
The Hong Kong government denounced the UK’s characterization of the protests as “pro-democracy” and defended its law enforcement and judicial authorities against accusations of human rights violations. The spokesperson highlighted the UK’s own National Security Act and criticized its alleged hypocrisy in condemning Hong Kong’s security measures.
The spokesperson also pointed to overwhelming support for Article 23 legislation during the consultation period, dismissing the UK’s criticisms as unfounded. Additionally, the extraterritorial application of Hong Kong’s security laws was defended as consistent with international law, particularly in pursuing individuals suspected of violating national security outside the city.
In light of the ongoing tensions between the UK and Hong Kong over national security issues, the Hong Kong government called for a more reasonable and sensible approach from the UK government. Emphasizing the importance of respecting each other’s sovereignty, the spokesperson urged the UK to cease its continuous attacks on Hong Kong’s national security laws.
Conclusion
The ongoing debate between the UK and Hong Kong regarding national security measures underscores the complex dynamics at play in the city’s governance. As both sides defend their positions and assert their respective commitments to upholding the rule of law and protecting national security, the need for constructive dialogue and mutual understanding becomes increasingly crucial.
While the UK government raises valid concerns about the implications of Hong Kong’s national security focus on its international reputation, the Hong Kong government maintains that such measures are essential for safeguarding the city’s stability and sovereignty. Finding common ground and fostering cooperation between the two parties is essential to resolving the differences and ensuring a harmonious relationship moving forward.
