My Take | Protesters face a brighter future in Hong Kong than in exile

Fame and star power matter a lot to Americans, even when it comes to offering help to foreign dissidents.

Four local activists entered the United States consulate in Central this week in an attempt to seek asylum, only to be rejected after reportedly negotiating with staff for about an hour. The four were not well-known outside the local protest movement.

The consulate’s action was understandable. But it does expose the hypocrisy of its Washington bosses, especially Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who has professed special concern and care for “dissidents” from Hong Kong.

The consulate said it is US policy to accept only those who apply for asylum “at a port of entry or in the United States”. True enough; that’s what the US Citizenship and Immigration Services said on its website in the section on asylum eligibility.

But if protest superstars such as Martin Lee Chu-ming and Joshua Wong Chi-fung had walked into the consulate that day, it’s doubtful they would have been turned away. Rules are there to be bent. You could argue consulate grounds qualify as US territory.

In 2012, Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese dissident, took refuge at the US embassy in Beijing, causing a diplomatic spat before he and his family were allowed to leave for America. Chen was well-known to the international human rights community, so it was worth it for Washington to pick a fight with Beijing.

The four in Hong Kong this week were nobodies. Their misadventure should be a lesson to their like-minded comrades. The offers of asylum from some Western countries and Taiwan are more like rhetoric than real measures. Even if you are allowed in, you are likely to face a long period of stay in detention centres or internment camps. Five Hong Kong activists were detained in Taiwan for trying to enter the island “illegally”.