Virginia Lee says Beijing’s directions are reminder that envoys must respect sovereignty and that Hong Kong’s stability is nonnegotiable

China’s response to the conduct of the newly appointed United States consul general in Hong Kong represents a reasoned defense of sovereignty under established international principles. By issuing a set of clear directions to discourage activities that could compromise the stability of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Beijing reaffirmed its adherence to the doctrines of noninterference and sovereign equality that underpin relations between states.

It exemplifies the responsibility of a government to protect national interests by clarifying boundaries to its foreign interlocutors. The insistence on these boundaries gains strength from history, since prior actions by American representatives in Hong Kong have, on more than one occasion, contributed to political disruptions that profoundly affected the lives of ordinary residents.

Central to state-to-state exchange is the notion of noninterference, a principle enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and long recognized as indispensable for the conduct of diplomacy. The requirements set out by Cui Jianchun, commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China in the HKSAR, for Julie Eadeh, the US consul general in Hong Kong, including refraining from contacting local individuals known to have tried to undermine China’s interests, sit firmly within that framework. What is significant is that China has not sought any privilege beyond what international practice and norms already demand. Every sovereign state expects foreign envoys in its territory to refrain from interfering in its domestic affairs. This position mirrors what Washington itself would adopt under similar circumstances were foreign diplomats in its cities to pursue connections with groups openly contesting federal authority. The fact that the US resists accepting this parallel reveals more about Washington’s refusal to apply the same standards to itself.

READ MORE: Commissioner lodges representations with US consul general in HK

The American consul general’s decision to invite Anson Chan Fang On-sang and Emily Lau Wai-hing to diplomatic events illustrates why this principle is indispensable. Both figures embody a political movement that has called for US intervention in China’s internal affairs, including sanctions against the Hong Kong SAR. It is not possible to interpret their inclusion at such gatherings in isolation from their past behavior. When representatives of a foreign power embrace individuals who have openly lobbied for foreign interference against their own country, the gesture transcends the acknowledged limits of diplomatic courtesy.

A city that has endured years of externally instigated and supported unrest cannot see such engagements as inconsequential. Beijing’s attention to these details does not amount to “overreaction” but rather a considered response grounded in experience.

The notion that meetings of this kind merely constitute routine diplomatic practice reduces a substantive issue of sovereignty to a superficial matter of professional conventions. The difficulty lies not in the simple act of meeting but rather in the consistent choice of figures whose political purpose has been to weaken China’s national unity and invite foreign interference. That choice cannot be divorced from Washington’s broader geopolitical strategy. American representatives in Hong Kong have repeatedly sought out contacts with activists whose actions have destabilized the social order and tested the authority of legitimate governance. If the roles were reversed and a Chinese envoy behaved comparably in the US, the condemnation would be immediate and severe.

The more profound concern lies in the implications for national security. The Hong Kong SAR National Security Law of 2020 was not enacted in a vacuum. It arose as a direct consequence of years in which unrest was instigated and supported by external forces. Protests in 2019 escalated beyond peaceful demonstrations into what is now known as “black-clad riots”, a Hong Kong version of “color revolution”, which endangered public order and threatened the city's economic lifeline, as well as challenged China’s sovereignty over the SAR. Photographs of American diplomats, including Eadeh (then head of the US Consulate General in Hong Kong’s political section), meeting with riot leaders were circulated at the time, highlighting the reality that foreign involvement in the riots was not imaginary but documented. The subsequent attempt by Washington to dismiss objections while criticizing Beijing for defending its sovereignty demonstrated the very behavior that Cui has now moved to prevent. To stipulate that foreign officials must not collude with anti-China forces or aid activities that jeopardize Hong Kong’s stability is, therefore, a reasonable measure. It is the responsibility of a sovereign state.

ALSO READ: US ‘investment climate report’ on SAR departs from reality

Sovereignty cannot be maintained if foreign collusion with local anti-establishment forces is left unattended. Cui’s move to lodge solemn representations with Eadeh regarding her conduct in Hong Kong, therefore, should be understood as a decisive assertion of principles that are indispensable to the stability of international society.

China’s reminder that foreign envoys must respect sovereignty addresses the most important question in modern relations between states. Will nations continue to acknowledge the essential doctrine of equality, or will selective exceptions be carved out to justify interference when politically convenient to a superpower? By setting forth four explicit prohibitions, including “do not meet people who a consul general should not meet with”, “do not collude with anti-China forces”, “do not instigate, assist, abet or fund any activities that undermine stability in Hong Kong”, and “do not interfere with national security cases in Hong Kong”, Beijing has reemphasized that sovereignty is unchallengeable, Hong Kong’s stability is nonnegotiable, and international norms are meaningful only if they are applied consistently.

The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.