Late at night on June 30th Hong Kong’s national security law was revealed to the public after being enacted earlier the same day by China’s legislature. By refusing to publish and discuss drafts, Beijing signalled its contempt for international opinion, for the people from Hong Kong and even for the Hong Kong executive which was humiliated by having to defend a law which it had been not allowed to see before its enactment.
As many commentators have noted the law has very little to do with China’s national security and much to do with suppression of democratic freedoms and stifling of debate in Hong Kong. The four offences which it creates, secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces are vaguely defined and subject to the interpretation of the Chinese regime. This is truly a liberticide law. For instance, simply advocating Hong Kong independence or even self-determination can carry a penalty of life imprisonment.
Liberal democracies have a duty to respond and to stand with the people of Hong Kong. We can certainly expect a more forceful reaction than that of the European Commission. Saying that “the European Union is concerned that the law risks seriously undermining the high degree of autonomy of Hong Kong” when the law destroys this autonomy is beyond diplomatic niceties. One possibility would be to show a greater commitment to the defence of the probable next target of Beijing, Taiwan. Europe could, for instance, visibly reinforce its presence through the European Economic and Trade Office in Taiwan.
There is another important concern with the so-called National Security law, which directly impacts European fundamental interests: it infringes on the rights of foreigners in general and those of European citizens in particular. Its article 38 states “This Law shall apply to offences under this Law committed against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region from outside the Region by a person who is not a permanent resident of the Region.” Yes, a European citizen who in her home country argues in favour of self-determination for Hong Kong (or Taiwan, or Tibet for that matter) falls afoul of the law and could be imprisoned. The same holds for a European parliamentarian who calls for sanctions against China. And by writing this column, so have I.
It is not enough for Beijing to muzzle European citizens; it also attempts to impose obligations on non-Chinese political organizations. According to article 43 of “When handling cases concerning offense endangering national security, … the department for safeguarding national security of the Police Force of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may also take the following measures: … (5) requiring a political organisation of a foreign country or outside the mainland, Hong Kong or Macao… to provide information”. This also applies to agents of such organizations. If members of a European political party or an NGO meet with a Hong Kong dissident, the party or its leaders can be held responsible if they do not provide information about the contents of the discussion!
Extraterritoriality is complex and I certainly do not want to suggest that a government cannot, for instance, punish terrorists who are plotting an attack while in another country. But threatening the exercise of free speech by European citizens in Europe is totally unacceptable and, shockingly, the EU statement on the law does not even mention it.
Liberal democracies must act. We have already, to our credit, accepted a very asymmetric flow of information between China and the West, where western media and information exchange platforms are banned by Beijing, and where even the Chinese instruments of state propaganda are allowed free reins on our televisions. But we cannot accept censorship of the views expressed in Europe and the rest of the world and cannot wait until the law has actually been used against a European citizen. Its existence by itself is outrageous, and we cannot, like the legendary frog, wait for the water to boil.
To his credit, vice-President Biden has taken a courageous stand against this aspect of the law. According to Reuters, he said that if elected he would “prohibit U.S. companies from abetting repression and supporting the Chinese Communist Party’s surveillance state” and would “impose swift economic sanctions” if Beijing “tries to silence U.S. citizens, companies, and institutions for exercising their First Amendment rights.”
The European Union must also act. Asking for a repeal of the law will not be successful and has no bite, but we can make it costly for China and for Chinese officials to restrict the freedoms of European citizens. We can amend European and national laws to hold personally responsible foreign individuals who conspire against the rights of European citizens by passing laws of the same type as the national security law or by participating in the enforcement of such laws, including the current one. Yes, there would be a degree of extraterritoriality, but those who participate actively in the trampling of the rights of European citizens must be held accountable.
Jacques Crémer