Consul Clifford Hart's Remarks Were Malevolent, Not Conciliatory

Song Zhe, special commissioner of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Hong Kong, conveyed an explicit warning to U.S. Consul General Clifford Hart to not interfere in Hong Kong’s political development. In a speech and interview with journalists two days ago, Hart took the spotlight with a few subtle words and misled others into thinking that his conciliatory tone and cautious rhetoric underlay his benevolent initiative. But the actual meaning of his remarks harbors yet more sinister intentions.

In responding to Hart’s speech about universal suffrage in Hong Kong, the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s spokesman Hong Lei emphasized yesterday that Hong Kong’s political development is an issue unique to the territory making up part of China’s internal affairs. The Chinese government strongly opposes any preaching and teaching from any other country and interference in the territory’s affairs. The spokesman issued yet another stern warning to Hart forcefully demystifying the consul general’s obfuscating words. This will help all levels of society across Hong Kong stay on their guard while resisting U.S. interference and sabotage of Hong Kong’s general elections.

Hart, the U.S. consul general in Hong Kong, delivered a speech two days ago openly interfering in Hong Kong’s political development. The opposition newspaper Apple Daily rejoiced and took the cue, running the storyline, “Incoming U.S. Consul Clifford Hart Continues to Back Universal Suffrage” on its front page the following day:

“After months of harassment by Beijing officials and local leftists, U.S. Consul Clifford Hart made his first public speech yesterday since taking up his post. Hart continues his strong support for Hong Kong to achieve universal suffrage, opining that it can strengthen the local government’s administrative aptitude. Hart also fought back claims from the Chinese side that he was interfering in Hong Kong’s internal affairs, staking a firm position that the American government would always support the core values of democracy and that the U.S. would continue to speak out regarding Hong Kong’s universal suffrage in the future.”

The opposition claims that Hart has “rebuffed the Chinese,” “held his ground” and “continued to speak out for democracy.” This demonstrates that Hart has not become “conciliatory,” yet rather became more resolved, arrogant, and sinister.

Real Meaning Behind Speech Is Sinister

Since assuming his post in Hong Kong at the end of July, Hart has become quite active with an extroverted demeanor. Besides frequenting the neighborhood, Hart also scheduled regular meetings with representatives of various political parties. First, this is to secretly plot an “anti-Leung” conspiracy (CY Leung is Hong Kong’s current Chief Executive), and second, it serves to gather intelligence on political reforms, which clearly signals control over the opposition parties’ hardline stance on universal suffrage and beckons them to America’s side. Song Zhe, the special commissioner of China’s Foreign Ministry to Hong Kong, targeted Hart’s brazen meddling with Chinese sovereignty and Hong Kong affairs on Aug. 26 with a warning to the American consul to refrain from interfering in Hong Kong’s political development. Hart naturally acknowledged the substance of Song’s public warning, which drove the consul to seize the chance through his remarks and interview with the media two days ago to hit back with a few subtle words, the true meaning of which belies more malice.

Yet some were actually swayed by Hart’s remarks, pointing out that he sounded conciliatory and cautious, while taking the initiative to express goodwill and diminish the troubles that have flared up as of late. In response to Hart’s remarks about universal suffrage in Hong Kong, Hong Lei, the spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry, said yesterday that they had convincingly clarified the Consul’s obfuscating rhetoric; they demonstrated that instead of being conciliatory, Hart’s remarks were in fact more sinister than they appeared.

Real Intentions of Universal Suffrage

The Chinese government had concretely opposed any foreign country’s preaching about Hong Kong’s political development, yet Consul Hart devoted a quarter of his remarks to preaching and gesticulating about the territory’s political reforms. On three occasions he had even mentioned “genuine universal suffrage per international standards,” pointing out specifically that a basic tenet of democracy is that people are entitled to a final say in the political system they use. Hart also proclaimed that America would continue to speak out with regard to the “core values” of the particular country.

“Genuine universal suffrage” is jargon within the opposition in Hong Kong, which in reality means resistance against the Basic Law and decisions of the National People’s Congress’ as they pertain to provisions of Hong Kong’s elections. It also entails the setting up of another policy to wrestle governance. Consul Hart had mentioned “genuine universal suffrage” repeatedly in his remarks, which is a clear echo of the opposition’s rhetoric in Hong Kong.

The So-called “Right of Final Say” Incites “Hong Kong Independence”

Consul Clifford Hart has ignored the Chinese government’s constitutional role in Hong Kong’s political development and has pointed out that a fundamental principle of democracy is for people to have the “final say” with regard to their political system. But the so-called “final say” is really a disguise for inciting Hong Kong’s self-determination and, in turn, independence. While on duty in Taiwan, Consul Hart developed the concept of a “silent revolution,” which occurred when the island was beset by a series of power grabs and political conflicts, and Lee Teng-hui was helped by the Democratic Progressive Party in making constitutional revisions. This was all done in the name of promoting democratization, implementing “de-Sinicization” in favor of Taiwan’s independence. By appointing him to the post in Hong Kong, the U.S. Department of State wants Hart to make use of Taiwan’s experience with the “silent revolution” to agitate for its independence. Hart would then extend this idea to push for universal suffrage in Hong Kong’s chief executive elections and expose the ostensible intentions of the State Department. Hart’s so-called “right to final say” is a complete copycat of Taiwan’s “silent revolution” to promote its independence, and its motive to incite Hong Kong independence is all too glaringly obvious.

Sinister Intentions Cannot Be Fulfilled

Consul Hart states that America reserves the right to comment on matters it sees as important, saying if the matter in question affects America’s interests or touches upon American core values, the country would unequivocally speak out and would do so in future occasions. Which begs the question: What does America have to do with Hong Kong’s elections? Consul Hart’s comments blatantly violate Chinese sovereignty and Hong Kong’s modus operandi, and neatly conform to the logic of hegemonic bullying. As we know, the turmoil across Western Asia and North Africa in recent years stemmed from American-provoked color revolutions, the Arab Spring and its plans in the greater Middle East to install pro-American regimes under the pretext of its “interests or core values under threat.” The result was to have the whole region’s political and economic situation placed in an exceedingly unstable flux, with the masses living under extreme turmoil while basic rights to each individual’s livelihood and property went unprotected. However, China’s Hong Kong is neither Western Asia nor North Africa, and Consul Hart’s sinister intentions cannot prevail.

Partisans of the “Love China and Hong Kong” movement state that Consul Hart repeatedly made irresponsible remarks on Hong Kong’s political development, which is not just highly inappropriate and unbefitting for his status as diplomat, but he also referenced the opposition’s jargon of “genuine universal suffrage” numerous times. Thus it leads many to wonder if both parties are colluding with each other, while attempting to collaborate on the issue of political reform. It is also noted that America constantly wishes to turn Hong Kong into an independent country. But Hong Kong is part of China, and though it enjoys a high degree of autonomy, it does not have the authority to decide its constitution and must follow premises set out by the Basic Law. Members of the “Love China and Hong Kong” movement believe that the Chinese government was out to warn Consul Hart yet again to ensure foreign powers refrain from sabotaging and meddling in Hong Kong’s internal affairs. If not, the central government will then have to ask Clifford Hart to leave Hong Kong. This adequately reveals that the “Love China and Hong Kong” movement fully grasps Consul Hart’s comments not as conciliatory but rather as malicious. Clifford Hart’s trivial fluff in the spotlight fails to deceive.