In March 2024, the Hong Kong government introduced a new security law, the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance. Also known as ‘Article 23 legislation’, it exacerbates the impact of the 2020 National Security Law by introducing a number of new crimes and longer sentences for existing crimes. Practically speaking, the two pieces of legislation are complementary legal tools for cracking down on dissent since the 2019 pro-democracy protest movement.
[...]
EU governments should advocate for the rules-based international order and the upholding of international law; principles which are enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon, EU institutions, and across domestic policies and legislation. While it is not perfect, the EU stands for fundamental rights and freedoms, which it seeks to promote at home and abroad. Furthermore, speaking out about human rights violations in Hong Kong and China is a clear way of reiterating those values in the face of Beijing’s quest to reshape international human rights norms and language. This is particularly important when Beijing’s actions have an impact within the EU itself.
Intimidation and division among Hong Kongers in the EU
In July and December 2023, the Hong Kong government issued arrest warrants and HKD 1 million (USD 128,100) bounties, under the 2020 National Security Law, for 13 activists based in the UK, US, and Australia. All these individuals reside outside Hong Kong and China and several hold foreign citizenship. Most recently, in June 2024, the Hong Kong government cancelled the passports of six activists based in the UK. Article 96 of the new Safeguarding National Security Ordinance allows for the cancellation of “absconders” passports, enacted in this instance. Exemplified by the government’s latest round of threats against activists abroad, these measures constitute an innovative new type of transnational repression against Hong Kong citizens.
[...]
Novel threats from the Hong Kong government are already causing real consequences for Hong Kongers in the EU — activists and more ‘ordinary’ citizens alike — and they are creating new challenges for advocacy from both the civil society and diplomatic channels.
[...]
The arrest warrants, bounties, and now passport cancellations, show that Hong Kong (and China) is entering uncharted territory in its transnational repression and violations of international law. The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office (HKETO) has also been used in similar ways.
[...]
Although none of these repressive measures have been employed against European citizens or residents so far, they send a signal to Hong Kongers based in the EU that these actions can be used against them too. More broadly, they signal that the Hong Kong government (and Beijing) can take extraterritorial action with little consequences. This is a test to measure the international response: if they can do this with little accountability, they know that they can commit further harassment, and other forms of human rights violations, abroad. This is noted by other undemocratic countries, who may be inspired by this impunity and consider forms of extraterritorial human rights violations they can commit themselves. Thus, a strong pre-emptive response is vital to deter extraterritorial human rights violations against people in the EU.
[...]
Strategically, EU member states should adopt a more consistent and unified approach towards China, particularly its violations of international human rights law and the rules-based international order.
[...]
Furthermore, China and Hong Kong need to be held accountable and face real consequences for their human rights violations and violations of international law. This could include targeted sanctions against key government officials and entities, trade restrictions on items that support the Hong Kong government’s oppression, and legal challenges at international courts.
[Edit typo']