Ill be back tomorrow. Mike will be here at the top of the hour. Now on bbc news. Hardtalk with stephen sackur. Welcome to hardtalk. Im stephen sackur. The International Outcry prompted by chinas imposition of a draconian new National Security law in hong kong has been long and loud, but will it make any difference . Inside the territory itself, protests have been muted and the main pro democracy activist movement, well, its disbanded itself. My guest today was one of the founders of that movement, nathan law. He is now in exile here in london. So, is chinas hardline hong kong strategy working . Nathan law, welcome to hardtalk. Thank you for the invitation. Lets begin with your current situation. Why did you decide to flee hong kong . Well, as we all know, the hong kong government, well, at least accepted, or the Central Government directly enacted, the National Security law in hong kong, which. It is written in such a broad and fake term that could well possibly be used as a legal weapon to prosecute political activists that they wanted to do so, so, for now, i think most of the democratic activists in hong kong are in such a grave danger, so. But you have been prosecuted before, youve tasted imprisonment before, so its not as though there was not a threat to your freedom under the old laws. Why did the National Security law, as imposed by beijing, why did it make such a fundamental difference to you . Well, the National Security law targets the freedom of expression of people, so if we Say Something that, for example, create hatred towards the Central Government, or we have been doing the International Advocacy work, that could lead us to years or even lifelong imprisonment, which at this time are not well defined, so it is a legal weapon for them to really prosecute people with such a long time of imprisonment, and also you could be possibly extradited back to china, so i think these are the worries that the political activists, that they share. You announced on social media that you were no longer in hong kong right after the imposition of the new law. Im not entirely clear whether you decided to flee because you feared imminent arrest or simply because you felt that it was no longer tenable to be a political activist inside hong kong. Well, first, we all felt a possible danger about the National Security law, but for me, it is more than a personal choice. Its just like a strategic move, because under the law, you just cant do the International Advocacy work that youve been doing. With respect, you dont know yet because its the first few days of the imposition of the law. We dont quite know how its going to be implemented. You said yourself that the terms of it, in terms of the definitions of terrorism or supporting secession or colluding with foreign interests, theyre all very vague. Perhaps you could have found a way to operate inside hong kong. Well, there are terms saying that if you are asking, like, sanctions, colluding with foreign forces, which, while for the commentators, it is exactly tailor made for our advocacy work for, for example, pushing forward the magnitsky act or the hong kong human rights and democracy legislation in the us, so, for us, we need to have a voice on the International Level, as a public figure, to continue this advocacy work. Otherwise, our movement, the International Front, will be largely limited. Youre now open about the fact youre in london thats the reason that were able to interview you face to face. Are you now going to stay in the United Kingdom . Are you clear what youre going to do next . Well, it is not decided yet because fleeing is a tough choice and there are no planning ahead for a person who fled out from their hometown. So, for now, the future is quite uncertain for me. How do you feel, on a personal level, about the fact that some of your closest colleagues im thinking, for example, ofjoshua wong, who has been so much a figurehead leader of the Pro Democracy Movement with yourself hes still there and youre now here. How do you feel about that . Well, weve talked about it, weve discussed about each of our decision. These political activists, likejoshua wong and some other of my friends, martin lee, theyre very brave to continue their work there, but, well, all of us agree that we need to have a public figure with an International Profile to speak on the International Level so that the International Fronts of our movement could be sustained, and this advocacy work needs to be done by someone outside. So you now see yourself as the leader of an International Front, do you . Well, i dare not to say as a leader, but at least as a voice, and people will listen. Yes, thats going to leave you open to a great deal of criticism, targeting from pro china people in hong kong and, of course, from beijing itself. I spoke to ronny tong, a senior pro china voice in hong kong, a former leader of the bar association. He said this to me, he said of you, he said, ah, his exile is just a political ploy. Hes free to go and hes free to come back. There is no warrant against him. Theres nobody persecuting or prosecuting him. Hes just using this for politics. Well, i would say not yet, because the implementation, we still dont know how it will operate. The secret police agencyjust started to operate in hong kong and we still dont know how far they will go, how Many Political activists they will arrest. Maybe one day they could use the National Security law to arrest all the leading figures in hong kong. So i think this is not something that we fantasise. The threat does exist. Well, you say the threat exists. I just would put to you that some of the language you and joshua wong use is extremely melodramatic. I mean, joshua wong said the other day, this new security law marks the end of hong kong. From now on, hong kong enters a reign of terror. You said that this new law marks the start of a bloody cultural revolution with obvious echoes to what happened in china decades ago. Is this language reallyjustified . Well, if you look at the implementation of the National Security law, on the very first day, there were more than ten people arrested. Some of them were just carrying flags that have the slogans on them. This is all an obvious case that it will target your freedom of expression. In none of the other democratic countries, you see such a law exist. And, well, for me, it is not only about implementation, but if you look into the clause, very detailedly, theyve got kind of like a reporting system, so if you turn someone out or you report your fellow to the government, then you will get a cut in your sentencing, so isnt it a really cultural revolution style of turning someone out and, well, creating a politics of terror . But let me turn the argument around and look at it from the point of view of people like chief executive of hong kong, carrie lam. She says that what weve seen over the last year is the reality that hong kongs security laws, as they currently are constituted, were not working. She points to the violence that surrounded all of the anti extradition law protests from last summer. We saw clashes with police that left both policemen and civilians very seriously injured. A few people were killed as well. She described it as a gaping hole in hong kongs National Security and she went on to say, many, many countries point the finger at china, but they have their own National Security legislation. Why should china alone be inhibited from enacting serious National Security legislation to protect every corner of its territory . Well, its obvious that the National Security law from the other country does not restrain peoples freedom of expression, and you can see that the sole targets of the law is not those violent protesters because theyve got a lot of weapons in their criminal ordinance that they could target those. For example, the riots or subversion acts, these are actually in list, in the armoury, legal armoury list. But, for now, if you look into how it is written for the National Security law, it targets people who express the message, who are really carrying those messages that the government, they consider inappropriate, but it should not be the case that you could be criminalised because you said something and this is definitely not how democratic or western democracy works. You say that there have been protests since june 30th, since the implementation of the National Security law, and you just told me that, you know, i think around ten people have currently been charged under the new law, but isnt the reality that the demonstrations have been really quite muted . Theyve been quite small afterjuly ist, and most hong kongers appear to be getting on with their daily lives and really not worrying about this new law too much. Well, the poll data doesnt show that fact. In fact, a majority of hong kong people are really concerned or worrying that the law will kill hong kongs one country, two systems. And also, for the past few months, the police has not been granted any permit to our rallies. Theyve literally banned all the application for rallies, even though. But maybe a lot of hong kongers were fed up with the constant disruption, the clashes on the streets, the fact that the public transport system and the airport, too, had been closed down last year. Maybe they were fed up with all of that. Maybe theyd like a bit of stability. Well, if we look at the poll data, the support towards the movement is still majority and, most importantly, all the peaceful rallies are being rejected and none of the Police Officers have been under any form of investigation because of their misbehaviour for the past few years, and we all could see that. That is the case if we are living in a city that there is no accountability for the government and people cannot express their opinion peacefully, then there will be problems. You are sitting with me in london. Ijust wonder, again, coming back to this notion of how easy it is to run advocacy organisations from exile, do you worry about the idea that you encourage your fellow pro democracy activists to take to the streets, to challenge the authority of the new security law while youre thousands of miles away in safety . Well, we all know that a part of ourselves have committed into the movement and, for me, i do not encourage any forms of violence and people, they really do need to voice out when there are injustice. And, for me, im doing my part. And, as you know, if you take reference from the exercise of the National Security law in mainland china, it does not only target you. It targets your family, your friends. A lot of human rights lawyers in mainland china, after they fled out or after they were locked injail, theirfamilies are being harassed and they suffer from it. So everyone takes risk. For me, my risk is i can never go back to hong kong and also people around me, they may suffer. There is also an extra territorial element to the new security law as its described, which means, in essence, that the new law allows the authorities to go after anybody who is deemed to have broken that law, wherever they are in the world. Yeah. And, of course, that would mean on social media posts and all sorts of other ways, too. Do you still feel that youre in the crosshairs, that you are a target for the chinese authorities . Well, of course. Its crystal clear. When i departed to yale last year in august, theyve launched a huge smearing campaign. Just to remind people who wont remember, you went to study at yale university. Yes, yes. And i. Well, there were so many personal threats imposed on me, and i had to go for the help from the authority at yale. So ive been targeted, and my name and the organisation that i had been with occasionally show up as targets of the state media. So these signal that, actually, the International Front and the advocacy work that weve been doing are causing troubles to the authoritarian china, and thats what well continue to do. Nathan law, youre actually 27 today, arent you . Yeah. Youre a young man. You, for the last decade, have lived with the reality of being targeted by the authorities in hong kong for what they regard as criminal behaviours, what you regard as pro democracy advocacy. Ijust wonder, if you reflect on the last few years, do you think the movement that youve been a leader of has made mistakes . Well, i would definitely say that nothings perfect, especially such a mobile and fluid movement. There were mistakes. People recognised it. But most important is how we see the role of government, how the government should govern its own city when there are people voicing out really loudly about something that justifiable, and they should deserve to enjoy it. If we can see for the past years the demands of people, including democracy and autonomy, actually promised in the sino british joint declaration 1984, and it is tabled in united nations, and this is an obligation that the Chinese Government should fulfil these demands. Were not asking something out of thin air, its something that china and hong kong promised, but failed to commit. So this is. Like, this for me shows the government has no accountability, and we need more of it. But lets unpick the idea of mistakes a little deeper. Would you say that it has been a mistake for some of the protesters in hong kong to embrace violent tactics . Because we have seen violence from the demonstrators as well as, it has to be said, from the police in hong kong. We have seen petrol bombs being thrown, attacks, physical attacks on police in hong kong from your side. Yeah. From the protesters. Would you now acknowledge that has been a mistake . Well, of course, the authorities talked to all the people who were injured, and this is not. But, with respect, the injuries dont come by accident. Weve seen video footage of protestors attacking police. This is not the direction i would love to see it going. But, i think, if you look at the very first few months of the protests, which were peaceful, and you could see how the government or the Police Officer responded in such a brutal way, and none of them are in any forms of investigation. Thats the key point, because for now, the system does not hold them accountable. They could just escape all the misbehaviours theyve done, and people are angry about it. You cannotjust say, oh, you should not be violent because violence is wrong. Yeah, we all know that. But how we can hold them accountable, how we can protect our fellow protestors when the system failed us . And that is the point. Some people are so lenient towards the people who are in power, but so restrained to the people who are powerless, and that disappoints me. I understand what you were just saying, but it is important that we recognise the reasons, the root cause, why people react in that way. Let me ask you about a different way of perhaps assessing mistakes made. Do you think it has been a mistake for the Pro Democracy Movement, including demosisto, the movement you founded withjoshua wong and others, to embrace Self Determination for hong kong, which naturally leads to a Pro Independence mentality . That is a total red flag to china, and you embraced it. Was that a mistake . Well. A while ago, weve already renounced that. We do not uphold Self Determination any more. So it was a mistake . That was an adjustment. Hang on, this is important. So that was a mistake . And when we still see today protesters on the streets of hong kong waving banners calling for independence, you are now renouncing that, are you . Well, for demosisto, yes. We did it a while ago. But for us, were not so influential that we could influence all the hong kong people to embrace that idea. First of all, that is not the mainstream demands of hong kong for now. But. Hang on, lets go further. Is it, in your view, counter productive to talk of Self Determination or independence . No. I think if we talk about it, that is our right. We are entitled to talk about any position, any political faults, and that is healthy, for us to see or think how hong kong would go. We cannotjust censor ourselves because china draw the red lines. We have to really loudly say that that red line is wrong. And secondly, the main cause or the rise of localism or independence. Well, that would definitely be the problem of beijing not listening to hong kong peoples demands. But nonetheless, you know, if one, if you, as you have with me, if you advocate adherence to the one country, two systems agreement, you have to remember the one country element of that deal. Well. One country, not secession, not independence. One country. Well, peoples state of mind is really clear. If the country, or the ccp, does not respect two systems, so why should we respect one country . And that is the rationale behind the whole sort of idea of independence. Im not saying that that is right. Im saying that. Well, you seem to be suggesting it is right. It is clear that the one country, two systems has not been living up to peoples expectation. And the things that, while, as i said, that we are asking for the movement and for the mainstream idea, is autonomy and democracy, and these are promised. We all agree that these are elements in one country, two system. And for the movement itself, its demands should focus on that perspective. And i agree that, of course. But the problem is, if the government continue to reject a very mild demand, or peaceful protest, then the situation will definitely go into the opposite way, and thats how it operates. Lets just talk about another sensitivity for you. Just days ago, by video link