American Consul-General James Keith gave a speech last Thursday praising the Hong Kong government for 'listening and responding to the people's stated concerns', adding the US believes that 'the best way to respond to the will of the people is through universal suffrage'.
Two days later, the Foreign Ministry in Beijing condemned him for making 'irresponsible remarks'. According to a spokesman, 'the issue of Hong Kong's political development is China's internal affair and we firmly oppose any foreign interference on this issue'.
Actually, it is hard to see where Mr Keith had interfered. True, he supported universal suffrage; but so, too, does the Basic Law. Furthermore, he urged full, public consultations on democratisation as soon as possible. But that is also the official stance of the Hong Kong government.
Every time a foreign diplomat in Hong Kong says something that Beijing does not like to hear, he is accused of interference in China's internal affairs. This does not mean, however, that Beijing does not want foreign diplomats to comment on Hong Kong affairs. In fact, Xinhua regularly covers diplomatic speeches given in the city and solicits interviews with these diplomats.
A search of the People's Daily website disclosed many articles quoting the views of foreign diplomats about Hong Kong. But there was one thing in common: none was critical of either the Hong Kong administration or the central government.
For example, Sir Andrew Burns, the first British consul-general in Hong Kong after the handover, was criticised by the Foreign Ministry for interference after he voiced 'serious concern' over possible moves to restrict the powers of Hong Kong's court of final appeal. Towards the end of his three-year term, however, Xinhua interviewed him and reported his praise for the success of the 'one country, two systems' policy. The Foreign Ministry did not denounce him for this interference in China's foreign affairs.
