Mark Pinkstone/Former Chief Information Officer of HK government
The United Nations Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) could not be more clear: Foreign missions “have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of the [host] State.” Yet, the US ambassador in Beijing, Nicholas Burns, and its Consul General in Hong Kong, Gregory May, continue to violate that treaty.
Repeatedly, both lambast their host in the conduct of internal policies which have absolutely no consequence to the US. No other diplomatic mission in either Beijing or Hong Kong have openly criticized their host in such a hostile manner. They adhere to diplomatic decorum and maintain a low profile befitting their post.
The Vienna Convention stipulates the rules and obligations of foreign missions and is effectively a guideline on how their business is conducted. For example, Article 55 states: “Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of the State.”
The Convention says in its preamble that the charter is designed to maintain international peace and security and promote friendly relations among nations. But the rhetoric between the US and China/Hong Kong could hardly be called “friendly.” Time and time again Beijing and Hong Kong authorities are called upon to the rebut slanderous and unwarranted comments made by the US diplomats.
Only recently, the Chinese Foreign Ministry in Hong Kong hit out at the US consulate in Hong Kong for making slanderous comments that the central government was violating human rights in the city. The consulate posted on its official X (Twitter) page that a UN review on China showed that “Beijing broke promises to people in Hong Kong when they took away its autonomy and democratic institutions. The National security law, Article 23 legislation and politically motivated prosecutions contravene the Basic Law, the Sino-UK Joint Declaration and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights obligations.”
The consulate comments were totally unnecessary, unwarranted and is a real interference in China’s internal affairs. The UN review had nothing to do with the US and if there is to be a response to the review, it should come from Beijing, not the US.
Two months earlier at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies seminar, Consul General Gregory May publicly called for Hong Kong authorities to withdraw bounties on overseas activists, release Jimmy Lai facing sedition and colluding with foreign governments charges, withdraw National Security Law 47 and the release of others in detention facing charges against national security. He said he had witnessed soft repression in Hong Kong when various freedoms have been curtailed by the authorities.
Who does he think he is? What right does he have to tell Hong Kong people what we should do and not do? What May has demonstrated is total arrogance and disrespect towards his host. Hong Kong has its own issues and will handle them accordingly, without the help of foreign governments. Imagine the uproar in the US, should China’s ambassador in Washington call for the prosecution of Donald Trump or call the January 6 assault on the Capitol Building a peaceful demonstration.
May has also violated another clause in the Vienna Convention’s Article 55 in that consuls should “respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State”. By calling for Hong Kong to withdraw its laws and free defendants facing criminal offences, May is again showing disrespect for Hong Kong’s laws in total violation of the Vienna Convention.
Ambassador Burns in Beijing is a bit more diplomatic but is still obliged to toe the State Department’s anti-China line. In a recent Wall Street Journal interview he said China was “interrogating and intimidating citizens who attend US-organized events in China, ramping up restrictions on the embassy’s social media posts and whipping up anti-American sentiment.”
Interestingly, the US is the only country that uses its diplomatic missions in China to be its mouthpiece for foreign policy. Normally, criticism against a country is carried out by a foreign ministry directly without involving their overseas missions.
This draws the conclusion that the attacks by May and Burns are deliberate and at the behest of the Secretary of State in Washington to undermine China through Hong Kong, where it has established an underground base for subversion. By openly criticizing Hong Kong and fighting against the Special Administrative Region’s legal system, the US is raising the flag for those it has cultivated to undermine Hong Kong. It is, in reality, a cold war which can only be resolved by peaceful dialogue, not a war of words.
Mark Pinkstone
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **