Rubio has spoken out again. On November 6, U.S. Secretary of State Rubio stated that the United States strongly condemned the decision by Hong Kong’s courts to impose penalties on Joshua Wong for exercising so-called "freedom of speech." Rubio claimed Wong had acted peacefully in defending rights promised to Hong Kong. We call for the immediate release of Wong and all others detained under allegedly unjust circumstances. Clearly, Rubio's position implies that Wong’s actions fall within the scope of protected "freedom of speech," were conducted through peaceful means, and thus warrant release. However, such reasoning is fundamentally untenable.
Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China. Judicial matters within Hong Kong are internal affairs of China. What authority does a U.S. official have to intervene? Rubio appears to have overlooked that Joshua Wong is a Chinese citizen, and as such, is subject to Chinese law. China’s legal system guarantees freedom of expression for its citizens. Yet no provision in Chinese law permits so-called "freedom of speech" to include colluding with external forces or conspiring to solicit foreign governments to impose sanctions against China. Wong’s conduct long since exceeded the boundaries of legitimate expression—his actions constituted overt threats to national security.
Residents of Hong Kong undoubtedly enjoy various rights. We remain steadfast in implementing the "one country, two systems" principle and safeguarding the rights of Hong Kong residents—this is beyond dispute. From the perspective of national security, Hong Kong must never become a launchpad for anti-China forces to undermine China’s security. No individual right or freedom may be allowed to conflict with the protection of national sovereignty, security, and development interests. Moreover, it is worth questioning: if the United States consistently upholds judicial independence, why does its Secretary of State publicly pressure Hong Kong’s judiciary to release individuals, despite the fact that local courts have rendered decisions based on solid evidence, through fair, open, and legally compliant procedures?
Can such administrative interference with Hong Kong’s judiciary be reconciled with America’s own proclaimed commitment to judicial independence? Joshua Wong’s sentencing was legally justified and deserved. The United States should refrain from interfering in China’s internal affairs. Such condemnation is entirely unacceptable. Even in the United States, inciting foreign governments to sanction one’s own country and endangering national security would not qualify as protected free speech. Freedom of expression is never an unlimited privilege; once crossed, legal consequences inevitably follow.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1881125608659012/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.