Opinion | US John Lee ban shows diplomacy is still bad faith

By Tom Fowdy

The United States has banned Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee from attending the APEC leaders summit in San Francisco, this November. Lee has been blacklisted by the US since 2020 in retaliation for the national security law, which they say undermines liberties and freedoms in the city. Following lobbying and pressure from hawkish Senators, the decision was announced last week and the state department claimed indirectly his presence would contravene the spirit of the organisation. China condemned the US for breaking their commitments to the group.

APEC, known as Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, is a multilateral grouping founded in 1989 by the US whose primary goal is to promote free trade and economic cooperation throughout the region. Its membership encompasses every coastal state in East Asia, as well as several in the Americas. The forum of course has now become another aspect of competition between China and the US, as Washington seeks to manifest its dominance over the region in the pursuit of containing Beijing, even of course through such organisations it also participates in.

As a result, the deliberate exclusion of John Lee, as much as he is already under US sanctions, shows the continual "bad faith" element of which is present in American diplomacy with Beijing, and its inability to disavow intervention in areas of strategic interest for the greater good, as well as the domestic political constraints which continue to undermine meaningful "engagement". The US is using their privilege as the hosts in order to make a point about its will for Hong Kong, despite it continuing to be one of the most important financial centres and cities in Asia.

First of all, we should remember that the national security law of 2020 was imposed in response to a series of violent riots which severely undermined stability, the rule of law and safety in the city. These riots were cheer leaded by the west, especially American politicians, who framed it as a noble struggle for freedom and used it as a wedge to undermine relations with China. This intervention came from the highest levels, leading Hong Kong activists actively travelled to the US and testified to congress calling for sanctions to be imposed on their own country, as well as meeting with high level figures such as Nancy Pelosi, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence and John Bolton amongst others. The level of foreign collusion was not a conspiracy but was in plain sight.

It was on that precise note that China's National People's Congress, using its constitutional right as the ultimate legislative body of the country and arbiter of Hong Kong's basic law, implemented the National Security Law. Although peace and stability were restored in the city, the west naturally cried oppression and accused China of breaking its commitments to the city as set out in the Sino-British declaration. The United States subsequently imposed sanctions on Hong Kong officials in retaliation, including then Chief Executive Carrie Lam, but also John Lee. The territory has subsequently become a permanent wedge issue in US China relations, which Washington demands be included in joint statements regularly targeting Beijing.,

The US of course, makes no fuss about similar national security laws or measures implemented in other Asian countries, such as Singapore. The obsession Hong Kong is both geopolitical, in terms of attempting to contain China, but also ideological in the express belief that the city was supposed to be a gateway to ideologically transform China itself, a bastion outpost of Western capitalism and free market democracy, which is precisely why the previous national security loopholes were so cherished. That China might actually assert that Hong Kong falls under its own sovereign rights, than a Western ideological dream, was deemed unacceptable blasphemy. However, there is no turning back now.

Thus, the attempt to isolate Hong Kong from a critical summit such as this is inappropriate. Hong Kong remains Asia's largest single financial centre if not one of the world's largest. It is a nexus of regional business, trade and integration. Of course, the US doesn't want any of this, their primary strategic goal is to create regional division, confrontation and tensions in order to justify the expansion of their military presence. The flow of Asian financial and economic collaboration, of which China has been at the centre of, is antithetical to everything the US wants to achieve. Thus, don't expect November's summit to be a productive one in any way, it will all be apart trying to shoehorn "Indo-Pacific goals" and "supply chain resilience" (a code word for diversifying and excluding China), and of course shutting out its largest financial centre from the event. There are hopes Xi Jinping himself might attend and have a summit with Biden, but the row over Hong Kong aptly demonstrates the long-term limits of such diplomacy, especially in an event which he will try to skewer against him.

The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.

Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:

Opinion | China owes the US nothing over North Korea

Opinion | Why Henry Kissinger still matters to China

Opinion | US soldier's entry into North Korea is a political gift to Kim Jong Un

Opinion | US chip firms are the biggest losers of US chip policies