There is a curious interpretation of the rule of law gaining currency among some Western governments: courts should be "independent", except when they deliver verdicts that foreign politicians dislike. The so-called joint statement by 10 countries, including the Five Eyes allies, demanding an immediate end to what they unfoundedly call "unjust prosecutions" under Hong Kong's National Security Law, following Joshua Wong Chi-fung's 10-year prison sentence, is a case in point.
What the 10 countries stand for is not the rule of law. It is political interference dressed up as "concern for justice".
Wong was convicted of conspiring to collude with a foreign country or external elements to endanger national security. The Hong Kong High Court handed down its sentence on Thursday after considering the evidence and the gravity of the offense. Wong pleaded guilty. As Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun noted, the facts and evidence were overwhelming.
These are not details that can be brushed aside by a diplomatic statement. A guilty plea and a judicial finding based on evidence are central elements of due process. The question is not whether foreign governments approve of Wong's political views, but whether his conduct violated the law. A court, rather than a coalition of foreign ministers, is entrusted with answering that question.
Freedom of expression cannot serve as a blanket license for conduct endangering national security. Wong's activities involved conspiring with foreign governments to exert coercive pressure on the SAR, conduct that is not exempt from legal scrutiny simply because it is presented as "democratic activism".
Recasting criminal convictions as persecution for political expression or participation is a fundamental sleight of hand. The Hong Kong SAR government has rightly rejected the 10-country statement as a distortion of facts and an attempt to undermine the city's judicial process. Pointing out that everyone is equal before the law, regardless of political stance, background or status, it stressed that rights and freedoms protected under the Constitution, the Basic Law and the National Security Law must be exercised within the legal framework, not used as a pretext for undermining national security.
The signatories' position is particularly difficult to reconcile with their own national security practices. The United Kingdom and the United States, among others, maintain extensive legislation against foreign interference and prosecute individuals accused of acting for foreign powers. Would they tolerate foreign governments demanding the release of defendants convicted of comparable offenses in their own courts? National security is not an exclusively Western entitlement. Every sovereign state has the inherent right to protect its constitutional order and public security.
The Chinese embassies in the countries concerned, including Canada, the UK, France and the Netherlands, have rightly condemned the statement as interference in the SAR's judicial affairs and China's internal affairs. They stressed that the trial was conducted according to the law, the defendant's legal rights were protected and the verdict rested on facts and evidence. Beijing's position is that foreign governments should respect China's sovereignty and the rule of law in Hong Kong and stop making irresponsible remarks about judicial proceedings.
If the signatories genuinely believe in the rule of law, they should respect the distinction between expressing disagreement and attempting to interfere with another court's jurisdiction.
Hong Kong endured a period of turmoil in 2019. Restoring stability has been essential to protecting residents' livelihoods and the city's economic future. The National Security Law provides a legal framework for addressing conduct that threatens national security. Its enforcement should be judged on the facts of individual cases, not on whether those prosecuted enjoy political support abroad.
The deeper problem with the joint statement is that it treats Hong Kong's judiciary as an arena for geopolitical contest rather than a legal institution operating within China's constitutional order. Hong Kong is part of China; its affairs are China's internal affairs. Foreign governments are not entitled to a veto over its courts. The determination to safeguard national security and uphold the successful implementation of "one country, two systems" will not be shaken by diplomatic declarations. The rule of law cannot mean that defendants are accountable only when their political affiliations are unpopular in Washington, London or Ottawa.
