Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

Beijing Doesn’t Buy the Notion of Social Reconciliation

Blog

Beijing Doesn’t Buy the Notion of Social Reconciliation
Blog

Blog

Beijing Doesn’t Buy the Notion of Social Reconciliation

2025-07-03 13:56 Last Updated At:13:56

This year marks the 28th anniversary of Hong Kong's return to China, as well as the fifth anniversary of the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law. The city celebrated these milestones with much fanfare—and predictably, it didn't take long for the usual suspects to rain on the parade.

The EU's Predictable Intervention

Some foreign governments seized the occasion to target Hong Kong, because apparently they can't help themselves. The European External Action Service issued a statement on June 30, claiming:

"The past five years have seen a continuous erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong, and a severe restriction of the space for the political opposition and independent civil society. … The European Union urges the authorities to shift their emphasis towards reconciliation in Hong Kong society and again strengthen what has made Hong Kong so unique and successful by fostering openness, diversity and the respect for fundamental freedoms."

China wasn't having any of it. In response to the EU's meddling, Beijing struck back forcefully. The Chinese Mission to the EU issued a statement, declaring, "China strongly deplores and firmly opposes the EEAS’s unwarranted comment in its statement on the Hong Kong National Security Law and its blatant interference in China’s internal affairs." The mission further stated, "Hong Kong affairs are purely China's internal affairs and brook no external interference. We urge the EU to abide by the principles of international law and the basic norms governing international relations, respect China's sovereignty and Hong Kong's rule of law, and stop interfering in Hong Kong affairs and China's internal affairs in any form."

The National Security Law has effectively severed the channels for foreign interference in Hong Kong's politics, which naturally draws strong opposition from the US and the West. Former Foreign Minister Qian Qichen once remarked, "Those who oppose Article 23 national security legislation—do they have something to hide?!"

America's Blacklist, China's Honor Roll

As I've noted before, in the eyes of central leaders, "Anyone who ends up on America's blacklist is, in fact, on the nation's honor roll. Their unyielding spirit of struggle embodies the integrity of the Chinese people. The US sanctions list is the list of those supported by the nation."

Take a look at this year's July 1st honors list in the SAR—it reads like a who's who of Washington's most wanted. Nine current and former national security officials who have been sanctioned by the US became the focus. Secretary for Justice Paul Lam, former Commissioner of Police Siu Chak-yee, National Security Committee Executive Director Edwina Lau, National Security Committee Secretary-General Au Chi-kwong, and Deputy Commissioner of Police Kan Kai-yan received the Gold Bauhinia Star; Director of the Police National Security Department Kelvin Kong received the Silver Bauhinia Star; Assistant Commissioners of Police responsible for national security, Dick Wong and Margaret Chiu, as well as Chief Superintendent of the National Security Department Li Kwai-wah, received the Bronze Bauhinia Star. Chief Executive John Lee praised these nine officials for remaining steadfast and fearless in fulfilling their duties despite external targeting and malicious suppression.

Awarding honors to these nine courageous officials sanctioned by the US perfectly illustrates the saying, "To be on America's blacklist is to be on the nation's honor roll."

The Reconciliation Trap

As for the EU's call for social reconciliation, it's highly misleading—and frankly, a bit naive. There's always a group of moderates in Hong Kong society who advocate for grand reconciliation. On the surface, the idea of reconciliation appears open-minded, politically correct, and harmless—perhaps even a tactic to win over opponents. Yet, the underlying implication of reconciliation is to halt all robust law enforcement actions. This is where calls for amnesty arise. Those who oppose reconciliation are then branded as politically incorrect, stubborn, or even villainous.

Let's look at the current EU foreign minister, whose official title is "High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy," Kaja Kallas. She's the former Prime Minister of Estonia and a politician who champions political correctness, with a distinct anti-communist, left-liberal stance. The EU's statement fully reflects Kallas's political views—it's basically her ideological fingerprint all over it. Behind it lies a rejection of the National Security Law and Hong Kong's law enforcement actions, an attempt to open the door for foreign interference in Hong Kong, and to "support" local radical elements.

Many advocates of reconciliation are so-called moderate opposition figures, some of whom are my friends. In private political discussions, I often ask them: when political violence in Hong Kong reached a fever pitch in 2019—such as the horrific act of setting a person on fire in Ma On Shan on November 11—why didn't you speak out against it? Most of them have no answer, and that silence is pretty telling.

Beijing's Hard Line Makes Sense

Those who support reconciliation often do so out of a desire to avoid confronting conflict—it's the path of least resistance. Yet, the side effect of reconciliation is to embolden opposition forces. Like wildfire, they're never truly extinguished—when unrest flares up again, will the reconciliation camp step forward to stop the violence? Or will they call for reconciliation today, only to shrink away when trouble arises tomorrow?

Beijing doesn't buy into the idea of social reconciliation, and frankly, you can see why. Instead, it believes that safeguarding national security must be an ongoing effort, and that economic development must proceed in parallel. With determined action, these two seemingly contradictory goals can be achieved simultaneously—there's no need to choose one over the other.

Lo Wing-hung




Bastille Commentary

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Trump's Venezuela play just gave Western progressives a masterclass in American hypocrisy.

Steve Bannon, Trump's longtime strategist, told The New York Times the Venezuela assault—arresting President Nicolás Maduro and all—stands as this administration's most consequential foreign policy move. Meticulously planned, Bannon concedes, but woefully short on ideological groundwork. "The lack of framing of the message on a potential occupation has the base bewildered, if not angry".

Trump's rationale for nabbing Maduro across international borders was drug trafficking. But here's the tell: once Maduro was in custody, Trump stopped talking about Venezuelan cocaine and started obsessing over Venezuelan oil. He's demanding US oil companies march back into Venezuela to seize control of local assets. And that's not all—he wants Venezuela to cough up 50 million barrels of oil.

Trump's Colonial Playbook

On January 6, Trump unveiled his blueprint: Venezuela releases 50 million barrels to the United States. America sells it. Market watchers peg the haul at roughly $2.8 billion.

Trump then gleefully mapped out how the proceeds would flow—only to "American-made products." He posted on social media: "These purchases will include, among other things, American Agricultural Products, and American Made Medicines, Medical Devices, and Equipment to improve Venezuela's Electric Grid and Energy Facilities. In other words, Venezuela is committing to doing business with the United States of America as their principal partner."

Trump's demand for 50 million barrels up front—not a massive volume, granted—betrays a blunt short-term goal. It's the classic imperial playbook: invade a colony, plunder its resources, sail home and parade the spoils before your supporters to justify the whole bloody enterprise. Trump isn't chasing the ideological legitimacy Bannon mentioned. He's after something more primal: material legitimacy. Show me a colonial power that didn't loot minerals or enslave labor from its colonies.

America's Western allies were silent as the grave when faced with such dictatorial swagger. But pivot the camera to Hong Kong, and suddenly they're all righteous indignation.

The British Double Standard

Recently, former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith penned an op-ed in The Times, slamming the British government for doing "nothing but issuing 'strongly worded' statements in the face of Beijing's trampling of the Sino-British Joint Declaration." He's calling on the Labour government to sanction the three designated National Security Law judges who convicted Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai of "collusion with foreign forces"—to prove that "Hong Kong's judiciary has become a farce." Duncan Smith even vowed to raise the matter for debate in the British Parliament.

The Conservatives sound principled enough. But think it through, and it's laughable. The whole world's talking about Maduro right now—nobody's talking about Jimmy Lai anymore.

Maduro appeared in US Federal Court in New York on January 6. The United States has trampled international law and the UN Charter—that's what Duncan Smith would call "American justice becoming a farce." If Duncan Smith's so formidable, why doesn't he demand the British government sanction Trump? Why not sanction the New York Federal Court judges? If he wants to launch a parliamentary debate, why not urgently debate America's crimes in invading Venezuela? Duncan Smith's double standards are chilling.

Silence on Venezuela

After the Venezuela incident, I searched extensively online—even deployed AI—but couldn't find a single comment from former Conservative leader Duncan Smith on America's invasion of Venezuela. Duncan Smith has retreated into his shell.

Duncan Smith is fiercely pro-US. When Trump visited the UK last September amid considerable domestic criticism, the opposition Conservatives didn't just stay quiet—Duncan Smith actively defended him, calling Trump's unprecedented second UK visit critically important: "if the countries that believe in freedom, democracy and the rule of law don’t unite, the totalitarian states… will dominate the world and it will be a terrible world to live in."

The irony cuts deep now. America forcibly seizes another country's oil and minerals—Trump is fundamentally an imperialist dictator. With Duncan Smith's enthusiastic backing, this totalitarian Trump has truly won.

Incidentally, the Conservative Party has completely destroyed itself. The party commanding the highest support in Britain today is the far-right Reform Party. As early as last May, YouGov polling showed Reform Party capturing the highest support at 29%, the governing Labour Party languishing at just 22%, the Liberal Democrats ranking third at 17%, and the Conservatives degraded to fourth place with 16% support.

The gutless Conservative Party members fear offending Trump, while voters flock to the Reform Party instead. The Conservatives' posturing shows they've become petty villains for nothing.

Lo Wing-hung

Recommended Articles