2. Britain will not retaliate against people in Britain and China. But it does not rule out taking the opportunity to attack other interests of China;
3. This problem is put aside for the time being;
There is no human feelings in politics, only interests. As stated in the preface, Akmal is only a superficial phenomenon, and Britain uses the topic, so there is no such thing as human feelings. In addition, as many people have said, there is no room for compromise in judicial independence attached to national sovereignty. Moreover, in other words, if China wanted to extradite him or let him live, it would not publicize it in some official media.
Regarding the third question, it is more complicated. The countries mentioned in the question should be looked at separately: First, the two "engine" countries of the European Union, France and Germany, have limited information at present, but combined with the frustration of the EU in Copenhagen before, France and Germany may have follow-up actions. Let's wait and see; Secondly, America, Europe and America are not necessarily on the same front. As far as the present situation is concerned, at least I can't judge the purpose of Britain's borrowing money from Akmal. If it is related to Copenhagen, then the United States will not stand with the European Union, but it does not rule out that the United States will also seek other interests through this; Once again, Japan. Japan is more dependent on China economically than Europe and America, and China is very important to Japan. I don't think Japan will expect anything casually or take a stand, because it has nothing to do with him. Even if it is related to Copenhagen, it can be ignored and dealt with in a low profile. Japan and the United States are not on the same side. As for NATO, it means Europe and the United States. On the issue of directly targeting China, NATO will basically not come forward. After all, the interests of China and China are different, and Europe and the United States also have their own conflicts of interest.
Finally, to sum up, as far as media information is concerned, this matter is not over yet. I am personally concerned about the actions of Britain and other countries. Britain itself is basically unreasonable on this issue, because the abolition of the death penalty itself is very controversial. Britain will not be stupid enough to go its own way, but it must have other purposes. I guess the United States will not take any action, because the United States is also a death penalty country, and it is unlikely to stand on the side of Britain on the surface, but it does not rule out that it will coordinate some follow-up actions of Britain. The EU has generally abolished the death penalty, so other EU countries may have a great reaction, but my personal guess is that even if there is a reaction, it will be some small EU countries. For Sarkozy's visit to China next year, France finally let Fillon pave the way, and it is unlikely that there will be any more waves. Personally, I don't think Japan will take a stand on this matter, because Japan is also a country with the death penalty, and its values on the death penalty are similar to those of China. Moreover, Japan needs China's help economically, so it won't take a stand and there will be no countermeasures in essence.