I’m hoping someone can clear this up for me. While looking through the State Department website, I saw that James Keith is the current United States ambassador to Hong Kong. If I’m not mistaken, Hong Kong is not a sovereign nation; it’s officially part of the People’s Republic of China (the US ambassador to China is Clark Randt in Beijing) at least that was my understanding of what happened in 1999. And for that matter, even prior to that, Hong Kong was controlled by the United Kingdom, and as far as I know was never an independant nation. And Mr Keith is definitely listed as an Ambassador, not a Consul or lesser official. As far as I know, the United States recognized the 1999 turnover. And I’ve always thought the Chinese were particularly puncticious about this type of thing. So why do we have an ambassador to Hong Kong?
Really? I gotta check that out 
Dang.
Anyway, there’s no US embassy here. Just a consulate.
And now when I check some more, I see other pages on the same website that refer to James Keith as the Consul General and call the office in Hong Kong a consulate.
This is the page where they call him an ambassador: http://foia.state.gov/MMS/KOH/key_country.asp?ID=Hong+Kong
It’s definitely from the official State Department website and if you look at other similar pages, you can see where they distinguish between embassies and consulates in other countries. If nothing else, there’s the makings of a good diplomatic incident here.
That sounds about right. This other page made a boo-boo.
Welcome to the revolution.
Kowloon Bays are belong to us.