In April this year, the British government issued its six-monthly report on Hong Kong, in which it criticized the territory's implementation of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, also known as Article 23 of the Basic Law. The UK report asserted that this legislation does not align with international human rights standards and infringes on the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents.
In the preface to the report, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron remarked that nearly all opposition voices in Hong Kong had been silenced following the enactment of the national security law.
Ironically, the British government is now demonstrating its own methods of suppressing dissent.
According to a report by The Times of Israel, British journalist Richard Medhurst said that he was arrested by British police upon his arrival at London’s Heathrow Airport due to his news reporting on Palestine. He was detained and interrogated immediately upon landing.
Richard Medhurst
Medhurst reported that the British police informed him he was suspected of violating Section 12 of the UK's Counter-terrorism Act, which criminalizes anyone who “invites support for a proscribed organization” or “expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive” of such a group.
During the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Medhurst criticized Israel’s military actions in the Gaza Strip, describing them as "genocide" against Palestinians. He has written articles and delivered lectures on the distinctions between various Palestinian resistance groups, including Hamas, which the British government has designated as a terrorist organization. On August 19, Medhurst posted on the social media platform X, claiming that he was "the first journalist to be arrested under this section of the law" in the UK.
Medhurst provided a detailed account of his experience at the airport, stating that he was handcuffed by six British police officers as he exited the plane and was subsequently detained and interrogated for nearly 24 hours. According to him, officers first confiscated his phone and prevented him from notifying his family for several hours. He was searched twice within a 10-minute span, and his personal belongings, including equipment essential for his work as a journalist, were thoroughly examined. He was held in a separate cell, which he described as unfit for human habitation, and was monitored by cameras even while using the restroom.
Medhurst said that despite identifying himself as a journalist, the whole process appeared to be designed to "intimidate, humiliate, and dehumanize" him. Furthermore, many of his basic needs, including access to drinking water, were deliberately delayed by the police, exacerbating his distress.
"It was done intentionally on purpose to try and rattle me psychologically .. I am not a terrorist. I’m a product of the diplomatic community, and I’m raised to be anti-war," Medhurst said in a video statement. "I condemn terrorism... but people like me, who speak out and report on the situation in Palestine, are being targeted." He believes that Western journalists covering sensitive topics, such as Israeli military operations, are facing increasing censorship and repression.
"The humanitarian crisis in Gaza remains one of the most pressing news stories in the world. Yet it seems any statement... can be twisted into a crime of the highest order." He further stated, "Freedom of the press and freedom of speech really are under attack. This state is cracking down and escalating to try and stop people from speaking out against our government’s complicity in genocide."
According to The Times of Israel, Medhurst’s profile shows that he was born in Damascus, Syria, and is fluent in English, French, German, and Arabic. He is an independent journalist who had contributed to Lebanon’s Al-Maidan TV station, which was shut down by the Israeli government, and had also worked for Iran's PressTV and Russia Today (RT).
The British government is not shy from showing the world in a perfect manner what it means by double-standards, by unjustifiably interfering in Hong Kong's internal affairs while simultaneously suppressing dissent at home.
Ariel
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
The New Year barely begins, and Washington drops a flashbang on global diplomacy. A sitting president is forcibly detained and taken out of his own country — a move that blows past diplomatic convention and rams straight into international law’s red lines. On Taiwan, the chatter instantly turns into self-projection, as some people try to shoehorn a faraway conflict into the island’s own storyline. Anxiety spreads fast.
Maduro in cuffs, in a US federal courtroom — the raid’s image problem. (AP)
The South China Morning Post says the US action against Venezuela ignites a fierce debate on the island. Some commentary links the raid to the PLA’s recent encirclement drills around Taiwan, arguing parts of those exercises look, at least in form, like the US’s so-called “decapitation operations”: essentially a leadership-targeting operation. Some American scholars also warn this kind of play could set a dangerous precedent and invite copycats.
“Justice Mission-2025” rolls on as the Eastern Theater Command drills.
That debate doesn’t stay academic for long. It pumps up the island’s unease, with some people asking whether the same kind of military method could one day be copied and pasted into the Taiwan Strait. Even if it mostly lives in public talk, a high-tension political environment turns speculation into something that feels like risk.
People on the island don’t read the US move the same way. A small minority treats it as a US power flex, packed with intel integration, precision strike, and long-range reach. But the more clear-eyed view is harsher: such action chips away at the basic consensus of international order — because if major powers can raid at will and topple other countries’ leaders for their own aims, “rules” stop acting like rules.
Anxiety turns into politics
That worry quickly lands in Taiwan’s political arena. On Jan 5, multiple Taiwan legislators pressed Deputy Defense Minister Hsu Szu-chien at the legislature, asking how he views the US action against Venezuela and whether the PLA might replicate a similar model in the Taiwan Strait. Hsu doesn’t answer head-on. Rather, he merely mentioned preparing and drilling for all kinds of sudden contingencies.
Then he pivots to money. He urges the legislature to pass military budget appropriations quickly and plays up the urgency of delays eating into “preparation time.”
That kind of sidestep, unsurprisingly, only deepened public unease.
SCMP, citing multiple security experts, says the DPP authorities try to play down the association — but outsiders don’t fully rule it out. The reason, those experts argue, is the PLA’s continuing push to improve its ability to shift from exercises to real combat. On the island, that alone works like an anxiety amplifier.
Back in the real world, the PLA Eastern Theater Command has been running “Justice Mission-2025” exercises since Dec 29 last year. Official statements spell out the purpose: a stern warning to “Taiwan independence” separatist forces and external interference, and a move aimed at safeguarding national sovereignty and unification. The message is public and clear, there’s no gray area.
Some US think-tank voices pull a more confrontational takeaway from the US action. American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Hal Brands warns the US raid on Venezuela could create a “demonstration effect,” and he speculates China would watch those tactics closely. Some military commentators on the island seized the moment to hype fears, claiming the mainland might act during a “window” when US power is stretched thin.
That line of talk sounds like analysis, but it functions like a panic pump. US scholar Lev Nachman even says bluntly on social media that if a sudden military action hits the Taiwan Strait, the island could suffer “instant collapse” — not just militarily, but as a psychological shock to society.
KMT Chairperson Cheng Li-wun, in an interview, points to Donald Trump repeatedly stressing a shift of strategic focus toward affairs in the Americas. She says the Venezuela incident should be examined through the framework of international law, and she calls for disputes in any region to be resolved by peaceful means rather than force.
Cheng also reiterates the KMT position: uphold the “1992 Consensus,” oppose “Taiwan independence,” and urge Lai Ching-te to clearly oppose “Taiwan independence,” not touch legal red lines, and avoid continuously raising cross-strait conflict risks.
Rules talk meets reality
International reaction also turns critical of Washington’s approach. Multiple governments and regional organizations speak up quickly, condemning the action as a violation of the UN Charter, which explicitly prohibits using force to threaten or violate another nation’s territorial integrity and political independence. The telling part is the silence: the Western countries that often talk about “international rules” either zipped their mouths, or danced around the question this time.
Reuters says that even though China, Russia, and others clearly condemn the US behavior, the Trump administration is unlikely to face strong pressure from allies as a result. That selective muteness, by itself, drains the credibility of the international order.
On Jan. 5, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian commented again, saying the US actions clearly violate international law and the basic norms of international relations, and violate the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. China calls on the US to ensure the personal safety of President Maduro and his wife, immediately release them, stop subverting the Venezuelan government, and resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation.
