U.S. Cannot Escape Responsibility for Repeated Attacks on Chinese Consulate

While fielding questions from journalists regarding the arson committed at the Chinese Consulate in San Francisco, Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang stated yesterday that the Chinese Foreign Ministry and its offices in the U.S. have already begun earnest discussions with the U.S. over the matter, requesting that the U.S. investigate the case as soon as possible and harshly punish those responsible to ensure that such an incident does not occur again in the future. According to international law and convention, the U.S. has a responsibility to maintain the security of Chinese consulates. The Chinese Embassy and consulates in the U.S. have repeatedly suffered from brutish assaults. That these cases have remained unsolved to this day is not only a failure that must be placed squarely on the U.S., but further calls into question its knowing complicity in the affair. The incident once more exposes the harassment and destructive behavior with which the Tibetan and Xinjiang (East Turkestan) independence movements target our nation’s diplomatic missions overseas. This stands in violation of international law and can be described as none other than a terrorist attack that must be strongly condemned. The U.S. government has a responsibility to bring these thugs to justice.

According to the provisions set by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, a host nation must “protect the consular premises against any intrusion or damage,” as well as “prevent any disturbance of the peace of the consular post or impairment of its dignity.”

However, this is not the first time that the Chinese Consulate in San Francisco has come under attack, a similar incident having occurred just prior to the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Following that attack, the U.S. promised to augment security at the Chinese consulate. But with the replaying of this particular episode, one cannot help but ask: Is the U.S. government neglecting its duty, or is it deliberately allowing the attacks to take place?

As all are aware, the U.S. exercises the strictest anti-terror measures of any country, to the extent that it is capable of conducting surveillance throughout the entire world. It is impossible for the U.S. to be ignorant as to the whereabouts of these agents of destruction. [The U.S.] is also highly effective at monitoring the entire country. Any vehicle that passes on a street leaves behind image data, and it is extremely difficult for criminals to hide their tracks from the watchful eyes of law enforcement agencies. It is due to this that the suspect in the Boston bombing case of last year was so quickly apprehended and brought to trial. In any country, the consulates and embassies of other nations are locations of key importance to be secured. One wonders at how the U.S. has not taken in a single suspect to date in the repeated attacks on the Chinese Consulate in San Francisco, as this is highly irregular.

According to the U.S. press, a “Human Rights in Tibet” sign was found at the consulate. During the 2008 case, consular officers also revealed that a group of activists advocating for human rights in Tibet had held a demonstration before the doors of the building several days prior. An examination of this incidence of arson indicates a serious crime of an organized and premeditated nature targeting the Chinese Consulate, yet U.S. authorities have not adopted a posture or any measures by which to strike back. What kind of signal does this send to the offenders? When the embassies and consulates of the U.S. come under attack, it widely condemns the events and does its best to have them labeled as terrorist attacks, then pursues and strikes back against those responsible. However, when security problems arise at other nations’ embassies and consulates within the U.S., it merely glosses over these episodes. How will this double standard be explained to the rest of the world?