Editor's Note: Philip Nash is a guest professor at Tianjin University and professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology. The article reflects the author's opinion and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Under British colonial rule, Hong Kong had a governor appointed by the government in the UK. There was nothing democratic about that. As an Englishman, I was not told about this episode of our history in school. Britain remains to this day trying to meddle in China's internal affairs. People should not be waving the British flag as if it was a banner of freedom.

Violent protesters' actions cannot be condoned by any civilized society. Blocking roads prevents emergency services, such as fire and ambulance, from reaching vulnerable people in need. Also, the disruption of the economy and the destruction of public property are against the interests of all residents in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong police have acted in a highly professional and restrained manner when dealing with the violence.

Using criticism from foreign media and governments to restrain the Hong Kong police from taking legitimate law enforcement actions is part of the violent protesters' playbook. The Hong Kong police have been accused of using excessive force. It is amazing how U.S. media barely report the killing of 300 protesters in Iraq, while a policeman opened fire to defend himself in Hong Kong is given blanket media coverage. This is because there is an agenda being followed by the Western media to demonize the Chinese government. The choice of language used by the media is quite deliberate. It is to manufacture a certain perception, rather than reporting facts in a neutral way.

Here is an example from the BBC referring to violent protesters: "Others fought back with bows and arrows." The choice of the words "fought back" implies the aggression is from the police, and the violent protesters are using legitimate self-defense tactics. This is an example of the media attempting to manipulating public opinion.

Violent protesters are taking advantage of this, trying to restrain law enforcement, and giving free rein to their violent actions against the police, the public and property. If activities such as throwing petrol bombs, destruction of property and attacks on civilians and journalists occurred in the U.S., the police would have been sterner and stronger in their response.

Since the violent acts are against the interests of the residents of Hong Kong, it raises the question of whose interests the violent protesters are acting in? Their actions, whether intended or not, play into the hands of the U.S. and the UK who want to constrain China's development, given that its political system has become more effective in raising people's living standards than the capitalistic democracy of the West. 

The U.S. and the UK are hypocritical in many aspects of their attacks on China. They tell foreign countries "don't meddle in our political affairs" while meddling in other countries' affairs. The "national security interest" and "human rights and democracy" are weaponized against countries that challenge U.S. hegemony.

By passing another law aimed at China and clearly giving support to violent protesters, the U.S. has lost all moral credibility. Great Britain became a dominant empire with a simple strategy: divide and conquer. Set the people against each other so outsiders can conquer them. Margaret Thatcher saw Hong Kong as a gateway to the Chinese mainland and hoped that it could be used to change China to a Western style of democracy. This is pervasive in the West. China has the wisdom and foresight not to succumb to this strategy. Those in the West who believe they can halt or slow China's development and progress are doomed to fail.

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