By Tom Fowdy
There was one thing that was clearly apparent long before Jimmy Lai's verdict was delivered on Monday in Hong Kong, that is: Certain officials, figures and institutions in western countries had already decided the outcome was illegitimate, and they would oppose it no matter what, and subsequently frame his sentencing as a diminishing of freedom and the rule of law in the territory.
Lai, former owner of the Apple Daily Newspaper, had been convicted under the National Security Law of sedition and collusion against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China (SAR) by having used his influential position to court and both lobby high-ranking officials in the United States to impose sanctions against the SAR and China as a whole. Lai had met with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, an individual who we now understand with hindsight to have an extreme anti-China agenda, US National Security Advisor John Bolton, also an extreme hawk, and Vice President Mike Pence.
These meetings were not conspiracy theories or speculative; they were publicly visible, photographed, and given widespread attention. Lai, of course, denied that he instructed them to sanction or take action against Hong Kong, but we must ask ourselves that if he denied doing so, what was the purpose and goal of those meetings in the first place? Did Lai go to the highest officials of the US administration intending nothing? Feeling nothing? With no purpose? How does such a disposition make any sense?
After all, we can see how in the same period during the 2019-2020 riots, Joshua Wong and other leading figures, of whom Lai supported, also travelled to Washington D.C and actively lobbied Congress to impose sanctions on Hong Kong. Do you think that Lai disagreed with that or was not a party to that agenda? Do you think for one moment, when the US imposed sanctions on Hong Kong officials, Lai opposed it? After all, I remember Lai's Twitter (X) discourse very well from that time. He spoke about China as if it were an unwanted foreign entity. When the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, he actively said the pandemic was a form of divine retribution against the country that mirrored the calamities of the Qing Dynasty
As the judge noted in Hong Kong, Lai had an overwhelming hatred of the PRC, and in the 855-page verdict, something not taken lightly, it was obvious what he intended to do. Despite this, the immediate response of the British government and others was to effectively dismiss it all as a "show trial" and "politically motivated." We have to ask ourselves, would the United Kingdom tolerate one of its own media moguls collaborating with the heads of state of hostile foreign powers to stir up dissent with the view to undermining the state? This answer should be obvious.
Imagine if the editor of a major British newspaper went to that certain country in Europe Britain currently despises and met with their head of state. It would be a career-ending move. In fact, British police and authorities subject people to interrogations even if they as much as visit that country, right now, and this plays into a broader sentiment of paranoia present in contemporary British politics. In recent months, the United Kingdom has seen an elected official jailed for receiving bribes from a foreign power, created mass hysteria over "Chinese spying," claimed that other countries are interfering in its electoral processes, amongst others. If you questioned this, the United Kingdom would respond saying it is within its sovereign rights to stop foreign powers interfering in its politics. This is correct. However, why aren't those same rights afforded to Hong Kong? Why does the SAR have no right to take action against those clearly working with foreign powers to facilitate domestic unrest?
The United Kingdom, these days, is famous for jailing protesters, including those who advocate certain slogans such as "Palestine Action", yet this same government wants us to believe that Hong Kong should permit what it itself clearly prohibits. Thus, attempting to frame the Jimmy Lai verdict as illegitimate is a challenge to the rule of law. The Sino-British declaration may require that Hong Kong's autonomy be respected, but that does not mean Britain continues to exert sovereignty over the city, or, for that matter, that it is denied the same sovereign rights exercised by every other state.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | The problematic politicisation of the Tai Po fire tragedy
Opinion | The era of detente has begun, ending the anti-China epoch of 2019-2024
Opinion | Would Trump oppose 'Taiwan independence' for a trade deal
Opinion | Trump's deal over TikTok is the least worst choice, I'd take it
Comment