no they are not! For a start you are reading a report of his statement but apart from that in diplomatic circles you don't go around stomping your foot angrily in public, especially when you are a minnow of around 5 million people dependent on an outside world. you pick your way carefully through the landmines and choose the words.
i take it you have never prepared speeches for any minister of parliament. let me assure you that speeches that are delivered are pored over and picked over to get the right tone. The risky speeches are the ones where an untrained and ill disciplined mind opens their mouth without thinking.
Y
ou might like to actually read the statement released and jointly signed by four countries. it is hardly any different from the NZ statement.
N
ew Zealand has a strong interest in seeing confidence maintained in the 'one country, two systems' framework under which Hong Kong is assured of a high degree of autonomy," he said in a statement."That framework has underpinned freedoms and prosperity in Hong Kong since the territory's return to China in 1997. Since that time, Hong Kong's open governance, judicial independence, and strong rule of law have been key to its success as a global financial and economic hub."Direct imposition of national security legislation by the Beijing authorities, rather than through Hong Kong's own institutions, curtails the liberties of the Hong Kong people and erodes Hong Kong's autonomy and the system that made it so prosperous and which China in 1997 asked New Zealand and other countries to support.here is the joint statement - I have underlined a very critical word in it for you. You might see that they did not use the word condemnation either.
Statement from UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne, Canadian Foreign Minister François-Philippe Champagne, and US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo:
Signatories to this statement reiterate our deep concern regarding Beijing’s decision to impose a national security law in Hong Kong.Hong Kong has flourished as a bastion of freedom.
The international community has a significant and long-standing stake in Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability. Direct imposition of national security legislation on Hong Kong by the Beijing authorities, rather than through Hong Kong’s own institutions as provided for under Article 23 of the Basic Law, would curtail the Hong Kong people’s liberties, and in doing so, dramatically erode Hong Kong’s autonomy and the system that made it so prosperous.
China’s decision to impose the new national security law on Hong Kong lies in direct conflict with its international obligations under the principles of the legally-binding, UN-registered Sino-British Joint Declaration. The proposed law would undermine the One Country, Two Systems framework. It also raises the prospect of prosecution in Hong Kong for political crimes, and undermines existing commitments to protect the rights of Hong Kong people – including those set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
We are also extremely concerned that this action will exacerbate the existing deep divisions in Hong Kong society; the law does nothing to build mutual understanding and foster reconciliation within Hong Kong.Rebuilding trust across Hong Kong society by allowing the people of Hong Kong to enjoy the rights and freedoms they were promised can be the only way back from the tensions and unrest that the territory has seen over the last year.
The world’s focus on a global pandemic requires enhanced trust in governments and international cooperation. Beijing’s unprecedented move risks having the opposite effect.As Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity are jeopardised by the new imposition, we call on the Government of China to work with the Hong Kong SAR Government and the people of Hong Kong to find a mutually acceptable accommodation that will honour China’s international obligations under the UN-filed Sino-British Joint Declaration.
