"I really love drinking Coca-Cola and eating McDonald's hamburgers, but America is a hegemonic country!" That's what I picked up from Gregory May, the outgoing US Consul General to Hong Kong and Macau, and honestly, it sums up everything you need to know about American diplomacy these days.
The Charm Offensive That Fools Nobody
At his farewell speech during the US Independence Day reception, May waxed lyrical about Hong Kong's wonton noodles, char siu, and char siu chicken rice – you know, the whole "look how much I love your culture" routine. Over his three years here, he positioned himself as Hong Kong's biggest cheerleader, praising locals' hospitality and declaring that Hong Kong is great because of its people. But then, inevitably, came the “but” – criticism of the National Security Law and claims that Trump is deeply concerned about Jimmy Lai's fate.
I genuinely enjoy listening to American diplomats' speeches because they're masters of saying exactly what you want to hear. May even made a point of eating two-dish rice during his stint in Hong Kong, coining the English name "This This Rice" and posting his meals on social media like some kind of foodie influencer. It's the classic Western politician playbook – eating two-dish rice is basically the diplomatic equivalent of hugging babies.
When the Mask Slips Off
But as America's global dominance starts showing cracks, the contradictions become impossible to ignore. The gap between their flowery rhetoric and actual behavior is becoming so obvious that anyone with half a brain can spot it from miles away.
I once cornered an American friend who supports US sanctions on Hong Kong with a simple question: if Saudi Arabia literally dismembered journalist Khashoggi in their Turkish consulate – with Biden himself calling them a "pariah state" – why doesn't America sanction the actual killers instead of going after Hong Kong's Chief Executive?
His response was telling. After some awkward hesitation, he basically shrugged and said diplomacy involves double standards, then mumbled something about Hong Kong being "better in the past." The casual acceptance of hypocrisy was genuinely offensive.
The China Expert Who Plays the Long Game
Don't be fooled by May's folksy exterior – this guy isn't your average diplomat making nice over dim sum. He's got serious credentials: a Master's in China Studies from Johns Hopkins, worked as a reporter for Taiwan's English-language radio from 1993 to 1996, then moved on to Newsweek and the Nixon Center. His wife is Taiwanese, he speaks fluent Mandarin, and he's served at US consulates in both Guangzhou and Shenyang.
When Trump booted the Democratic Party's Ambassador to China and brought in his Georgia buddy David Perdue – a Fortune 500 CEO with zero diplomatic experience – guess who got assigned as Deputy Chief of Mission to actually run things? That's right, our two-dish rice enthusiast Gregory May.
The Reality Behind the Rhetoric
Here's what's really going on: Trump couldn't care less about Jimmy Lai or anyone else caught up in Hong Kong's political drama. While Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the diplomatic establishment might want to use Lai as leverage against China, Trump's focused on what actually matters to him – trade deals, rare earth magnets, and keeping as many tariffs as possible.
So when May talks about Trump's "deep concern" for Jimmy Lai, just remember that in actual trade negotiations with China, Lai's name doesn't even come up. It's all about the money, as it always is with Trump.
The lesson here is simple: don’t just listen to what American diplomats say, but watch what America actually does. May can praise Hong Kong's food scene all he wants, but he's still a key player in Washington's anti-China strategy. Don't let the two-dish rice photos fool you – this is realpolitik dressed up as cultural appreciation.
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
The US invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Maduro for trial in America read like bad pulp fiction—except it actually happened.
Washington slapped Maduro with four charges: narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machineguns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess those weapons targeting the United States. At his court appearance, Maduro stated plainly: "I was kidnapped, I am innocent". He denied every allegation and reminded the court he remains Venezuela's president—now branded a war criminal by American prosecutors.
When Self-Protection Becomes a Crime
Two of the four charges, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, belong in a satire, not a courtroom. What crime did Maduro commit by possessing weapons in his own country's capital to protect himself? If these charges hold water, US law and justice have become truly farcical.
The narco-terrorism and cocaine importation charges are, naturally, fabricated accusations. The US has produced zero concrete evidence proving Maduro organized any drug trafficking operation.
This US operation—abducting another country's president for trial in America—allegedly violates international law in three distinct ways.
Violation One: Banned Use of Force
According to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, using force or threatening force in international relations is prohibited. This US military operation received no UN Security Council authorization and doesn't constitute "self-defense" under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Washington claims the operation was self-defense against drug-related crimes, but international law experts broadly agree that combating drug trafficking fails to meet the strict conditions for self-defense or humanitarian intervention under international law—it cannot justify using force against another country.
Violation Two: Sovereignty and Non-Interference
According to Article 2(1) of the United Nations Charter, the US deployment of troops to invade Venezuela violated Venezuela's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence.
Washington used domestic law as justification to conduct cross-border law enforcement through military means, attempting to engineer regime change in Venezuela—a textbook case of interference in another country's internal affairs.
Violation Three: Head of State Immunity
According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and customary international law, a head of state enjoys immunity during their term of office, even when in other countries.
The US crossed borders to arrest Maduro and drag him to America for trial—an act of kidnapping that completely disregards head of state immunity and brazenly destroys international conventions and legal principles.
No UN Mandate, No Legitimacy
To summarize: this US operation lacked UN Security Council authorization and doesn't comply with the collective security mechanism for lawful use of force under international law. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated, such US behavior sets a dangerous precedent.
The US openly trampled international law, yet its Western allies stayed silent as winter cicadas—Britain, France, and Germany all responded with vague statements or outright support. Take Britain: Prime Minister Keir Starmer dodged questions with the excuse that "it is not straightforward. It is complicated," and danced around every question.
Even senior Labour MPs found his evasiveness unsatisfactory. Dame Emily Thornberry, Chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, warned that the US action has no basis in international law whatsoever, and Britain needs to clearly state the US violated international law. She argued that if the West cannot mount a coherent and forceful response, international law norms will collapse.
However, she also suffers from the common affliction of Western politicians: bringing up China unprompted. She claimed that if the West doesn't condemn US military intervention in Venezuela, it might set an extremely bad precedent for countries like China and Russia. She speculated that countries like China and Russia might think, “that they should all have their spheres of influence and that other countries should not get involved and they should be able to essentially do what they think is the right thing to do, what they want to do in the interests of their country, in the countries in the surrounding area…
She went further, stating that “President Putin will presumably say, well, Ukraine is in my sphere of influence - what are you complaining about? And Xi may well say that about Taiwan. It sets a terrible precedent and [is] really worrying."
While I largely agree with British MP Thornberry's criticism of the US trampling international law, when she mentions Taiwan, she reveals a fundamental lack of understanding about international law. The People's Republic of China restored its seat at the United Nations in October 1971 and is China's only legitimate government and a permanent member of the Security Council. Taiwan was expelled from the UN in 1971, and the international community—including the United States—has long recognized Taiwan as part of China. Therefore, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibiting use of force in international relations, Article 2(1) prohibiting violation of other countries' sovereignty, and the Vienna Convention's provisions on head of state immunity all target states as subjects and are completely inapplicable to China's handling of the Taiwan issue, because Taiwan is not a country but merely a province of China.
Though Thornberry displays ignorance about international law, her remarks still contain a kernel of logic: since the US did this to Venezuela and its Western allies stayed silent as winter cicadas, they've forfeited any right to comment on how China treats Taiwan.
Lo Wing-hung
