UN rights chief gets it wrong on security law

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein issued a statement on July 7 saying China's new National Security Law "raises many concerns due to its extraordinarily broad scope, coupled with the vagueness of its terminology and definitions". He also said that the law will further restrict the rights and freedoms of Chinese citizens, and that he was worried about the lack of independent oversight in the application of the law.

As the UN human rights chief, Al Hussein should have based his statement on facts and reason. China's National Security Law, which covers conventional and unconventional security fields to serve the fundamental interests of the Chinese people, not only satisfies the needs of China's national security, but also is in line with the development of security concepts across the world. Al Hussein's concern over the law's "extraordinarily broad scope" exposes his ignorance of the latest security challenges confronting the world today.

As a basic law in the field of security, the National Security Law is supposed to spell out the principles, missions and institutional framework, and it is up to the supportive laws and regulations to give detailed explanations on different kinds of security threats. For example, the Anti-Terrorism Law of China, passed earlier this year, exemplifies the terrorism threats stated in Article 28 of the National Security Law. And the judicial explanations (or interpretations) of some laws issued from time to time by the Supreme People's Court and the top legislature have given clear stipulations on the crimes threatening national security, which can also serve as the legal bases to deal with related cases.

As a legal expert, Al Hussein should have known that laws play different roles at different levels before jumping to his "vague" conclusion.