Opinion | Two protests, two standards, one hypocrisy

By Tom Fowdy

When protests swept China last week calling for an end to the government's longstanding zero-covid policy it was unsurprisingly seized upon by western media and politicians who sought to advance an anti-government agenda. The BBC in particular has maximized this angle to the extreme in the almost transparent hope that the protests will lead to something more, fitting them with the signature line of "the most severe protests since Tiananmen" and even going to the extent of framing recently deceased leader Jiang Zemin's entire legacy and obituary in light of it.

Yet despite British politicians, and not least the Prime Minister himself Rishi Sunak, having also made comments with respect to the right to protest in China, that sentiment does not appear to be shared when it comes to events at home. As he was quoted in a recent interview with Sky News, the Prime Minister is exploring "currently giving the police new powers" to allow them to clamp down on what he defines as "illegal protests". The irony of having two enormously contrasting positions in such a short space of time was not lost on Twitter.

This phenomenon is rooted far more deeply than Rishi's comments of course. Another tangible act of hypocrisy over China and protesting was identified in remarks by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau too, who was widely criticized for having wielded emergency powers to shut down protests by truck drivers who occupied the city center of Toronto earlier this year as part of the "Freedom Convoy" which opposed mandatory vaccinations. If the standard was not clear already: it is that Chinese people should be afforded the right to protest, but when such happens in western countries it is perfectly acceptable to wield a crackdown with the force of the law.

When disruptive protests occur in the west, they are quickly branded as a public threat and nuisance, and often vilified in the press. In turn, it is completely acceptable to use legal force to curtail and arrest such protests, and public opinion at large often supports doing so unless they are deeply sympathetic to the cause. Nowhere has this been more obvious than the police response to "Just Stop Oil" and "Extinction Rebellion" protests in the United Kingdom whereby activists have sought to forcefully blockade roads and other infrastructure, as well as engage in acts of vandalism against public places, properties and works of art. Most of those who have done so have been arrested, or jailed.

Yet when such protests repeat themselves in "adversary" countries, such as China in this case, they are heralded as a cause for freedom and liberty, and any attempts by the state to curtail or suppress these protests are condemned as acts of authoritarian aggression. While the west designates itself the right to restore social order and suppress disruptive protests, enemy countries are deprived of such a right in the name of "liberty and democracy" accordingly. This double standard was much, much more explicit during the Hong Kong riots of 2019-2020, whereby activists were praised by the west as they committed acts of sporadic violence, and destroyed infrastructure and the police were condemned for attempting to stop it, and likewise with the imposition of the National Security Law.

Although it is indeed true that China needs to adapt and move forwards from its strict zero-covid approach, a strategy which has been in the long-term successful, but is increasingly unsuitable to today's conditions; the hijacking of these protests by western voices to push an anti-government agenda has been rooted in abject hypocrisy, cynicism and opportunism. Many people in China are frustrated by the never-ending cycle of tough lockdowns and mass testing regimes, which have grown in scope as variants have become more transmissible, but that does not mean they are out to overthrow the entire system. On this note, it has been wishful thinking on an astronomical scale to portray this all in an anti-Xi light.

However, one has to ask finally, would the same standard be applied at home? When people protested covid restrictions and lockdowns in the west (although we must accept they were not of the same magnitude) they were branded "conspiracy theorists" and "covidiots". How is it thus in turn, that only Chinese people have the right to protest their government's handling of covid? And such attitudes were never valid in light of western countries? When protests against lockdowns in European countries, such as Belgium and the Netherlands, got violent, they were even described as "riots". So we have to ask, why is there such a double standard? And why are the rights that those in the west seem so desperate for Chinese to have, never applied at home? We see two sets of protests, two standards, but one hypocrisy, all fuelled by the raging desire to have a swipe at the Chinese government whenever so the opportunity presents itself.

The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.

Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:

Opinion | Rishi Sunak's China Policy is an incoherent Mess

Opinion | UK U-turn on Wafer Feb puts America first, Britain last

Opinion | China's diplomatic offensive, and a mini-detente

Opinion | Ukraine lied about the Poland strike, so what else?