Link 2
Due to the protests in Hong Kong fighting for their own democracy, the US sent some bills through congress. These bills have a handful of purposes for them like helping Hong Kong, as well as China, but these bills could end up hurting all parties involved.
To start, these bills do protect Hong Kong, at least symbolically. Parts include that the US must review its autonomy annually from China to keep its "special status" in the eyes of the US. The US also states that it will impose sanctions on those in Hong Kong that are found in violation of human rights.
Now, what do these laws and our economy, in general, mean when something changes. This could lead to changes in trade and also issues with alliances with large economies, like China, solely because of how important Hong Kong is to China's economy.
Do you think these issues were discussed in congress and were deemed not an issue? What do you think were the main reasons for this bill to be passed into law, symbolism? Or something else?
10 comments:
I believe that as people within the US become more accustomed to the problems plaguing Hong Kong, the US will have a much harder time dealing with China in the future. I think the law you are referring to seems to be just fluff, an excuse to say that the US at least tried to help (without directly getting involved with the potential human rights violations). If the trade war with China were to subside (Trump would likely try to end it prior to his 2020 re-election bid) then I could see the events in Hong Kong worsening matters. If the trade war were to worsen, I could see America taking a firm stance against China’s endeavors. This would likely place us into another recession; however, it would be in the name of democracy (or at least the fight against “oppressive” rule). It will certainly be interesting to see how future events will play out in Hong Kong especially if Trump was not re-elected.
I agree with Carlos because it seems like the laws passed in Congress are more symbolic to illustrate the US's attempt to help, rather than being substantial with actions to address the problem in China. The issue of China's own autonomy most likely was addressed during debate, seeing as the law passed is not definitive with the US's next move in helping China. With Carlos's mention of a recession should the trade war worsen, I'm not sure how America would react. The US is built on the ability to succeed, so creating a recession on the basis of democracy might contradict the US value of money and capitalism. I believe that one of the main reasons the US passed such a law is due to public pressure to acknowledge the issue; actually allowing action without imposing on China's autonomy is a totally separate issue that most likely will be addressed later.
China is a huge part of the US economy. But Americans want to see that the US is doing something to help Hong Kong. Creating this statement simply shows that Congress is trying to soothe the American public as they try to come up with a different solution on how to help Hong Kong while also keeping China happy. I definitely think this was debated about in Congress and that they genuinely want to help Hong Kong but at this point there is not much room for error because one wrong move and the trade war would worsen and as Carlos mentioned, it could cause a serious recession. I think this law is supposed to be a illusion that we are helping Hong Kong but in reality it just shows that Congress is stalling for time and trying to calm the American public down as they try to find a real solution to this complex issue.
I agree that China's huge influence on the United States economy could ultimately hurt everyone. According to the article, the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 could hurt the Chinese territory's economic prospect and business. As you know Hong Kong is governed under the "one country, two systems" principle. Knowing that Hong Kong and China right now are not in the best places, it could be dangerous for what the US decides to protect. Also, one reason why US is interested In Hong Kong is because of Hong Kong's special sautés is the tight trade and financial relationship. Even though the contribution between China and Hong Kong have diminished over the years, Hong Kong remains as an important center center for mainland business. Ultimately, I am not sure what the results of this situation would be but Tianlei Huang states near the end of the article "Hong Kong's importance to the Chinese economic is disproportionate to its size." But as for now, I am certainty interested to see what the future holds with US, Hong Kong, and China.
Passing the bills is definitely symbolic of America’s support towards HK. The laws not only advocate for HK’s autonomy, they also legitimize HK in certain ways. Passing these bills is also a foreign policy move, in which the US can increase their presence and soft power in HK affairs while escalating tensions with China. But, it’s important to note that Trump’s signing does not necessitate any action at this time. (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3039673/donald-trump-signs-hong-kong-human-rights-and-democracy-act)
Although it is concerning that President Trump’s current decisions may lead to backlash from China in the future as Carlos stated, the American public suggestions and complaints eventually forced President Trump into signing these bills. Obviously, it will grant the wishes of our fellow Americans and essentially benefit Hong Kong as the US is basically attempting to ban the Chinese from continuing their violent mission. The laws help Hong Kong’s autonomy and rights, however, it could be seen as an intervention oof Hong Kong and China’s private and internal affairs. This only harms the relationship between Hong Kong, US, and China, and no longer guarantees a safe future with China, our largest trade companion. I feel that at least from now on, President Trump should keep an eye on trade instead of making public statements of choosing one side over the other.
Passing the bill definitely shows that America is in support of Hong Kong, however, it is very risky because America also needs to be cautious with their alliance with China because they are such a large producer of America's products. It is very hard for the US to choose sides because they need their relations with both Hong Kong and China so Congress needs to consider which bills will not negatively affect any US relations.
There were two bills passed by the US Congress regarding the Hong Kong protests. One is the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019, the largely symbolic bill as others have mentioned above. It says that the US should do reports annually with the State Department to determine the autonomy of Hong Kong from China. The second bars the sale of munitions to Hong Kong police, such as tear gas and rubber bullets. This bill could lead to serious policy changes in the Hong Kong government, although it is unlikely since the police departments could probably get munitions from Chinese national aid. The problem with the first bill, however, is that it seems to give the US the right to intervene within the China/Hong Kong battle for regional autonomy, a move that definitely will upset China. This plays into the larger, global scene when considering the negotiations over the trade war. Trump recently announced that China would buy 60 billion USD worth of agricultural products as a first step to resolving the trade conflict. However, this doesn't discount the fact that the trade war has happened, and has shown China that it needs to rapidly advance to move further than manufacturing if it wants to be more independent.
There's a large discrepancy between our view of the United States and the United States' standing in the eyes of the international community. While most Americans believe the United States to be a bastion of individual rights and democracy, the Untied States' involvement in anti-democratic coups and its general intrusiveness in the politics of other nations during the 20th century and the Cold War has led to the United States being viewed more and more unfavorably by many other nations. In order to repair our standing in the eyes of the rest of the world, I think that it's important that we, and more specifically our government (which has arguably been the most responsible for the United States' poor foreign policy in the 20th century), should endeavor to take action to support democracy in other parts of the world. Thus, while Congressional action backing Hong Kong might not directly prevent Chinese human rights abuses in the region, it will improve the overall reputation of our government in the international community and possibly increase the effectiveness of further diplomatic actions we take on behalf of Hong Kong.
As stated in the above comments, the bill passed is likely a symbol of the US's support for Hong Kong and maybe even against China's oppressive rule. This is definitely going to affect the trade war and the US's economy due to the large role Hong Kong and China play in it. I agree with Albert that a problem with the bill passed is that it seems to allow the US to intervene in this foreign conflict, likely upsetting China. In turn, this could be bad for the trade war. I feel like the US is caught in an interesting situation because on one hand, they want to support Hong Kong in its fight against China's rule, but on the other hand, they don't really want to upset China because that could lead to an economic recession.
Post a Comment