Editor's note: Ssemanda Allawi is a PhD candidate specializing in international relations and diplomacy, and the author of "Global Governance and Norm Contestation: How BRICS is Reshaping World Order." The article reflects the author's views, and not necessarily those of CGTN.

On September 26, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Relations Committee passed the so-called Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. The passed act directs State Department to assess the political situation in Hong Kong so they can assess if there is need for the U.S. to change her so-called unique treatment of Hong Kong.

Ironically, the above came at a time when the U.S. Congress announced and launched an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. The primary reason the House speaker Nancy Pelosi gave for the inquiry was that Trump's courting of a foreign country for assistance is equivalent to a "betrayal of National Security." Prior to this, we had also witnessed two years of inquiry by special counsel, who investigated, among others, if Russia was involved in the U.S.' internal affairs, particularly 2016 polls.

It is, therefore, bizarre that a country which claims to be strongly against foreign intervention in its affairs is the very country directly meddling in the affairs of another independent country.

On the contrary, China has been very consistent with her policy of non-interference in the affairs of other independent countries. Therefore, it is unacceptable for any country to interfere in the Hong Kong issue for any reason.

Whereas Hong Kong protesters may be branded pro-democracy activists, as they like to be called, closer analysis of these protesters is that it is a cobweb of politics. It is inconceivable to laud a person holding and pelting stones at police as a peaceful protester. It is intellectual dishonesty to demand and expect that when a protester pelts stones and petrol bombs at police officers, as we have seen most of the Hong Kong protesters doing, that police should respond with gloves or maybe throwing flowers back.

The undeniable fact is that under "One Country, Two Systems," Hong Kong has enjoyed better rule of law when it was returned to China than it did under the 156 years of colonial rule. For example, just a year before the Island was returned to China in 1996, Hong Kong's rule of law ranked slightly below 60. A year later (1997), the city was handed back to China and has since registered progress that in 2018, its record of rule of law ranked the 16th in the world — far better than the U.S.

There is no doubt that this was great improvement which can be attributed to good leadership and the mainland's willingness to see her territory and people enjoy freedoms and good rule of law. It is also this environment that explains why the island quickly turned into the world's business hub. 

Therefore, to attribute woes in Hong Kong to poor leadership or lack of rule of law is akin to Manichean interpretation; thinking that it is a contest between "honorable" and the "dishonorable." Of course, foreign voices lauding protesters, some of who have become violent, are advancing reasons like China should give Hong Kong "real" semi-autonomous powers. However, many reason that China committed herself to doing this under the "One Country, Two Systems" model after the United Kingdom handed back the territory to China.

It is worth noting that, despite China having granted Hong Kong special status under the "One Country, Two Systems" policy, this does not in any way remove the fact that Hong Kong is part of China and therefore interfering in the affairs of Hong Kong is not different from interfering in the affairs of China — a sovereign and independent country.

Of course, that is not only unacceptable but also against Chinese laws, international laws and norms. It is upon that background that there can never be any justification for a foreign country in interfering with Hong Kong affairs. Put differently, Hong Kong's affairs are domestic affairs and should therefore be left to the Hong Kong people and China, unsolicited support and advice does not only contradict and deviate from international laws and norms but are also an insult to the Hong Kong people and China.

Whereas international laws and indeed China's laws allow people to express themselves, it is not justifiable for protesters to turn violent as the state is looking on. Pictures don't lie. We have on many occasions seen how violent some of Hong Kong protesters have become. On many occasions they are filmed pelting petrol bombs and stones at police officers, vandalizing offices and attacking public goods like transport systems. It is worth noting that whereas protesters would want to express themselves, security officials also have duty to protect interests of those who are not in protests. Police denying protesters access to some places should not be interpreted as violating their rights and neither should violent protesters not be condemned.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com)