Last week, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s courts found 14 activists guilty under the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) on charges of State subversion. The 14 were among 47 accused of attempting to organize an illegal “primary election” to select candidates for the Legislative Council, 45 of whom have now been convicted.

They sought to bypass official electoral regulations with the goal of bringing the council to a standstill, blockading the budget and other bills, and subsequently imposing their demands on the region. Their acts would have, according to the courts, created a constitutional crisis as designed.

Not surprisingly, as soon as the verdict came in, the mainstream media in the West swept forth a narrative to emphasize how “pro-democracy” activists had been persecuted and how the outcome represented an attack on the rule of law in the HKSAR. Soon after, the United States Department of State announced it would impose visa restrictions on officials in both the HKSAR and the Chinese mainland who it deemed responsible, demanding in a statement that China “upholds Hong Kong’s judicial independence, ceases the use of vague national security laws to curb peaceful dissent, and restores the openness that was so crucial to Hong Kong’s vitality and competitiveness as an international business hub”.

This is yet another blatant example of double standards by the US and contrary to what it claims is in fact the direct source of interference against the HKSAR’s judicial independence, rule of law, and external interference. The US has for several years now sought to actively undermine law, order, and stability in the HKSAR by promoting dissent and then challenging all attempts to address that dissent. It fails to honestly articulate the reasons why the NSL was implemented in the first place, the crisis that beset Hong Kong and, of course, its own role in promulgating and exacerbating that crisis.

In terms of state subversion, do we think for one moment that the US would permit those it deemed to be backed by “foreign forces” to actively interfere in and undermine congressional elections by flouting the rules with the goal of subverting the political system and constitutional order as a whole? Of course, the US would insist that it has what it describes as “free and fair” elections, but that does not mean that its electoral system is not subject to any specific rules or order, not least against those that it deems as its adversaries. After all, when Donald Trump refused to concede defeat in the 2020 election, insisted it was rigged and pushed a narrative to squarely undermine the result, which resulted in his supporters storming the Capitol building to try to stop the verification process, it was roundly condemned as an insurrection and an attack on the rule of law.

Yet, when the US backed Hong Kong protest figures who actively tried to undermine their own political system, it was not condemned as an insurrection; rather it was promoted and even encouraged. The goal of the entire Hong Kong riot movement from 2019-20 ultimately sought to break the constitutional order of the HKSAR and impose its demands, most often by violence. It had no interest in peaceful and constructive debate, only in creating political crisis. The Legislative Council election reform was imposed precisely because these political figures were using the council as a vehicle to bring the governance of the city to a standstill in order to impose their ideological goals and cripple its executive functions. It was for all intents and purposes an attempt at State subversion, and one that had been openly backed by some politicians in the US.

It is for these exact reasons that the wider NSL and the Article 23 laws were created — to restore stability to the HKSAR, as mandated in the Basic Law system. Those fighting against it were not seeking to reform the system. They had already decided their goal was to cripple it completely and therefore undermine the national sovereignty of the country as a whole. Such actions would not be tolerated in the US, or any other state in the world for that matter. Thus, the real attempts to undermine the “independence of the judiciary” are not in fact coming from within, but rather from external forces whereby certain actors are deliberately seeking to deprive the HKSAR of any right to national security by sugarcoating it in the name of “democracy”.

The author is a British political and international-relations analyst.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.