Biden Meets with Hong Kong Opposition: What Is He Up To?

On April 4, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden had a “chance meeting” with Martin Lee and Anson Chan from Hong Kong’s opposition party at the White House, with the U.S. claiming “long-standing support for democracy in Hong Kong.” The Office of the Vice President at the White House claimed that the meeting was “not prearranged,” but the media described it as a rare form of high-profile support. Obviously, intentionally denying a rumor does not erase the traces of careful planning; in fact it makes the situation more political. On the same day as this “chance meeting,” The New York Times published an editorial entitled “Protecting Hong Kong’s Autonomy,” which seems to sing the same tune.

If one analyzes the history of Hong Kong’s political situation, one might be surprised; it is kept very “low-key” in the United States, so why would Hong Kong’s political situation all of a sudden be so high-profile in the media? In reality, the United States’ tendency to prioritize its own interests will never go away. The United States’ political reform in Hong Kong, high-profile and at a crucial moment, has ulterior motives; besides showing support for the opposition party in Hong Kong, the U.S. also demonstrates support for a return to its Asia-Pacific strategy and its own interests in containing China’s development, among other little tricks.

With regard to the universal suffrage problem in Hong Kong, the United States acting as the “benefactor” for Hong Kong is itself not so different from Britain, in that it has not held a significant role, nor has it ever engaged in financial support throughout history. But this did not prevent the U.S. from flying the banner of morality and becoming more and more involved. Hong Kong media reported on March 15 and 16 that the U.S. held a two-day “educational workshop” at the Hong Kong-American Center to “openly” give training to represented universities.

Under basic laws, promoting the development of administrative systems is the job of internal affairs, and foreign governments ought to respect this principle. Since one must first properly define a term before it can be discussed intelligently, how could the word “chance encounter” redeem itself from embarrassment?

After news of this “chance encounter” broke, the opposition party excitedly declared that America supports Hong Kong’s “democracy.” Occupy Central is still trying to put forward political reforms according to its own interests, and it obviously needs attention and validation from the outside world. But this “chance encounter” approach, regardless of what point of view it originates from, is not really on firm ground. Considering the United States’ current strength as well as its practical needs, there is no choice but to settle on such an ambiguous explanation for the opposition party. On one hand, the U.S. does not dare provoke the Chinese government, while on the other hand it wants to meet Anson and Lee’s high expectations.

If the United States’ “return to the Asia-Pacific” strategy is its next great chess move, Hong Kong politicians and their political aspirations can only be considered outsiders in the situation. Universal suffrage in Hong Kong is currently not the most important issue about which the United States is concerned; their main concern is to advance their own interests. If Americans could use the Hong Kong issue to get China involved in order to benefit from the Asian giant’s power and get more geographic space and bargaining clout, they obviously could never pass up such an opportunity. Otherwise, their enthusiasm and commitment would not be so strong. If Hong Kong’s opposition party truly believes that the United States is acting for purely democratic or “moral” universal values instead of supporting its own interests, they are really quite naïve.