Editor's note: Tom Fowdy is a British political and international relations analyst and a graduate of Durham and Oxford universities. He writes on topics pertaining to China, the DPRK, Britain and the U.S. The article reflects the author's opinion and not necessarily the views of CGTN.
This week marked one year since the imposition of the national security law (NSL) in China's Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). The law was passed by China's National People's Congress.
Unpredictably, a number of U.S. politicians on Twitter including Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley berated it, accusing the Chinese mainland of "crushing democracy" in the city.
The law effectively criminalized subversion, treason, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces, initiated as a response to extremely violent riots in 2019 which had been openly encouraged and backed by a number of leading U.S. figures who met with the ringleaders. It made the status quo untenable.
The purpose of the law was not a simple question of "democracy vs. authoritarianism," the city's autonomous status, or for that matter even China's ruling party. Rather, the national security law was first and foremost about upholding the sovereignty and order of Hong Kong as a part of China. This was a bill which was always mandated by the Basic Law. Now, one year later it is quite evident that its imposition was a necessary response to the events which destabilized the city, and subsequently restored order, stability and prosperity.
In 1997 the Hong Kong territory was returned to China from British colonialism and transformed into a special administrative region of the country. It was made clear in the Sino-British declaration that the city would retain a "high degree of autonomy" in its own affairs.
Critics have accused the NSL of violating this, but one must question, did the proposition that Hong Kong was to be "autonomous" meant that China had no sovereign rights over the territory in the dynamic of national security? Or for that matter no say in its governance whatsoever? This assumption carries Western thinking on the issue, who see the treaty as a means to "restrain" and "protect" China from interfering in what is its own sovereign territory altogether.
Violent protesters go after a police vehicle (not pictured) in North Point, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, August 5, 2019. /Xinhua
Hong Kong, of course, still remains autonomous. It has its own administrative, social and economic system which remains vastly different from the Chinese mainland. The Basic Law however mandates that the Chinese mainland has exclusive jurisdiction over national security, foreign policy and defense matters concerning the region, and likewise provides for such a national security law to be implemented, as it was in Macao back in 2009, which also remains autonomous.
The Sino-British declaration did not infer that the city was to be a national security loophole against China whereby foreign forces could utilize it as a "Trojan horse" platform to undermine the country as a whole. Yet this is effectively what it became.
And this is what the national security law was intended to put a stop to. Its existence has been necessary to restore order and normality to the city that had previously become dysfunctional throughout the riots and the protesters had themselves made the status quo untenable through the scale of destruction and violence they pursued.
A resident signs during a street campaign in support of the national security law for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, May 23, 2020. /Xinhua
Much has been said concerning the closure of the Apple Daily newspaper. However, little attention is given to the fact that Jimmy Lai openly met with senior U.S. government figures, including Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Mike Pence and engaged in acts of collusion. Would the owner of any major newspaper in the U.S. be allowed to meet with an adversary's leadership and conspire on a common political agenda? Absolutely not. Likewise, many leading riot and protest figures had also engaged in such behavior, including Joshua Wong.
Now that the chaos in the city is over, Hong Kong has quickly recuperated itself as a global financial center. Many in the West claimed the legislation would "undermine the rule of law" within the city and diminish its status, but these were narrative and ideologically-driven wishcasting which overlooked the fact that the key premise for the functioning of any financial center is stability and certainty, and that is what it guarantees.
In this sense, the NSL has not "ended" Hong Kong as often decried by the Western mainstream media, but has harmonized the place and addressed the longstanding colonial legacy that it did not truly belong to China.
"One Country, Two Systems" is a formula that appreciates the difference between the city and the Chinese mainland, but that was never a code word for China having no sovereign rights over it.
(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)