In a recent interview with CBS, Gregory May, the US consul general in Hong Kong and Macao, a key figure in US foreign policy in the region, presented misconceptions on the relationship between the United States and Hong Kong, as well as the latter’s human rights situation and political climate, following the implementation of national security laws in Hong Kong. The conversation invites critical examination of the US’ stance and discourse on Hong Kong.
One of the key observations in the US’ actions on the global stage is the significant gap between the values Washington advocates and its actual foreign policy maneuvers. These maneuvers are predominantly driven by national interests rather than the lofty ideals it espouses. A historical example of this is the US’ support for the 1973 military coup in Chile, led by General Augusto Pinochet, which not only toppled the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende but also initiated 17 years of authoritarian governance marked by significant human rights violations. This pattern is similar to that observed in Hong Kong, where strategic considerations shape US interests. As a pivotal international financial hub, Hong Kong’s stability is intimately linked to the prosperity of American businesses. Additionally, Hong Kong’s strategic location, as a gateway to the Asia-Pacific region, is vital to the US’ global strategy. Consequently, the US’ emphasis on human rights and freedoms in Hong Kong often aligns with its broader strategy to counteract China’s expanding international influence.
Moreover, the US has demonstrated a pattern of selectively addressing human rights concerns, often overlooking violations among its allies when it is geopolitically expedient. A notable instance is the longstanding close ties between the US and Saudi Arabia, a country whose human rights record has been criticized by Washington, which are underpinned by the kingdom’s strategic geopolitical importance and role as a major energy supplier. This selective approach, which often puts geopolitics over ethics, highlights the pragmatic, interest-driven nature of US foreign policy. Therefore, when May discusses US “concerns” for human rights in Hong Kong, we must critically question whether this “concern” is based on genuine care for the city’s residents or strategic considerations against China’s rise.
The imposition of US sanctions on senior officials in Hong Kong demonstrates its hegemonic tendencies in global politics and its practice of applying double standards. This approach is primarily driven by concerns over the rising influence of China rather than a genuine commitment to human rights or the rule of law. Historically, the US has enacted similar sanctions against countries like Venezuela and Iran, with motivations rooted more in geopolitical strategy than in the advancement of human rights or democratic values. Rather than facilitating improvement in the political climate in these nations, such sanctions have often worsened economic conditions and reduced the quality of life for ordinary citizens, thereby contributing to increased regional instability. This pattern underscores the strategic interests that typically guide US foreign policy actions, often at the expense of the ethical principles it professes to champion.
Furthermore, imposing sanctions by the US on Hong Kong officials flagrantly breaches the principles of national sovereignty and noninterference, which are cornerstones of international law. Under the Charter of the United Nations, any interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations is unacceptable, unless there are serious threats to international peace, breaches of the peace or acts of aggression. The same principle is recognized for the relations between states. Such actions by the US contradict the fundamental tenets of international law and significantly undermine its standing and perceived impartiality as a global leader. Additionally, the US frequently criticizes other regions for “human rights violations” on international platforms. Yet it exhibits clear double standards when addressing its internal issues, such as racial discrimination and police violence. This hypocrisy has drawn considerable international criticism and presents substantial obstacles for the US in maintaining its position of moral authority on the global stage. Consequently, the unwarranted sanctions imposed by the US on Hong Kong officials starkly contradict the spirit of international law and principles of fairness, vividly illustrating the problematic aspects of the US’ international behavior.
May’s characterization of the “rapid and dramatic changes” in Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms significantly overlooks essential facts. Since its return to China in 1997, Hong Kong has been governed strictly according to the Basic Law and the “one country, two systems” principle. The Basic Law not only enshrines Hong Kong’s substantial autonomy but also explicitly protects residents’ human rights, including freedoms of speech, press and assembly. Moreover, the rule of law and judicial independence remain the foundational values of the special administrative region, which are widely acknowledged and respected by the international community.
Implementing the National Security Law for Hong Kong and Article 23 of the Basic Law are designed to safeguard national security and enhance social stability in Hong Kong, thereby reinforcing the broader framework of local rights and freedoms. In contrast, the US has faced criticism for compromising residents’ privacy and freedom of speech in its national security measures, exemplified by incidents such as the Snowden revelations. Such actions underscore perceived double standards in US international conduct. Portraying Hong Kong’s policy developments as a degradation of rights and freedoms fails to recognize the legal and policy strides made by the SAR government in bolstering national security and fostering social stability. Consequently, May’s claims about the purported “changes” in Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms are unfounded and misleading.
May asserts that the US maintains a “permanent and enduring commitment” to Hong Kong. However, the authenticity and reliability of this commitment warrant a critical examination in light of US diplomatic conduct in other global contexts. US foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, Latin America, and Afghanistan, has often shifted according to strategic interests, frequently exhibiting a profit-driven orientation. The abrupt withdrawal from Afghanistan, for example, precipitated the rapid disintegration of the local government and ensuing social chaos, thereby casting doubt on the depth and reliability of US commitments elsewhere, including Hong Kong.
Since the Cold War, US geopolitical strategies have often seemed to overlook the genuine needs of local populations. For Hong Kong, dependence on such an unpredictable external commitment is arguably less vital than its legal and social systems’ internal development and maintenance. Hong Kong’s rule of law and economic freedom are pivotal to its international stature and competitiveness. Overreliance on external support can introduce unwarranted disruptions, potentially undermining its stability and development. Consequently, Hong Kong must fortify its internal frameworks to secure long-term prosperity and strength rather than depending on inconsistent and uncertain external commitments. This approach will better safeguard its interests and enhance its resilience against global shifts in policy and allegiance.
In recent years, Western media have frequently distorted and undervalued Hong Kong’s economic, cultural, and social advancements. May’s critique of Hong Kong exemplifies such misrepresentations, overlooking the region’s established rule-of-law framework and epitomizing external interference and the application of double standards. May’s assertions are unfounded and reflect a broader pattern of US self-interest and a disregard for the sovereignty and respect of other countries in international relations.
Given these considerations, it is imperative that May refrain from making such misguided and irresponsible remarks. Furthermore, he should promptly issue a formal clarification to rectify his previous comments, thereby mitigating any additional damage to Hong Kong’s international reputation. This corrective action is essential to ensure accurate representation and respect for Hong Kong’s genuine developmental achievements on the global stage.
The author is a solicitor, a Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
