3 ms·

I am worried that we are talking about two different things. I was talking about current tactic of supporting HK autonomy as a way to limit Chinese influence as

I am worried that we are talking about two different things. I was talking about current tactic of supporting HK autonomy as a way to limit Chinese influence as opposed to a seeming strategic goal of turning China into a model international citizen US would want it to be ages ago. I also find the third sentence a very simplistic way of understanding international relations. I do not want to go on a rant here, but US does not really have a problem with lack of autonomy. The problem for US is that China is not easily bullied. That is the reason the considerations are being rolled back.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
Considerations are being rolled back because the previous thesis of “as China grows economically, it will become more democratic” is becoming increasingly false.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> US does not really have a problem with lack of autonomy The Secretary of State is literally required by law to report to Congress on Hong Kong's autonomy [1][2]. The beginning and end of this issue is Hong Kong's autonomy (and how that relates to its special trade status). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Hong_Kong_Policy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Hong_Kong_Policy... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Human_Rights_and_Democracy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Human_Rights_and_Dem...
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  I think the relevant questions here revolve around simple "and? so? what?". The mere fact that they were certified before with ample indications the autonomy was stripped away suggests that the decision is largely political as opposed to the noble goal of preventing human rights violations. Just to add to this ( I don't want to spend too much time on this ), note that Iran was for the longest time certified to be compliant ( until suddenly it was not ). In other words, I am not sure what you are arguing here. You are absolutely right, but you do not advance your point as far I can tell.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > that they were certified before with ample indications the autonomy was stripped away suggests that the decision is largely political as opposed to the noble goal of preventing human rights violations Of course it's political. The same way Beijing's national security law, and through it, repudiation of its 1997 agreement, are political decisions. Political decisions have real consequences. One of the consequences of that national security legislation is Hong Kong no longer has an independent justice system. This notice mainly reverts Hong Kong to the same trade status as the rest of China. It was given special status, decades ago, because it was special. It's clearly no longer special in those ways. In the wake of Beijing's violence in 2018, the consequences of a loss of autonomy were strengthened to include sanctions. That component of America's reaction pertains, in part, to human rights concerns. But the trade component does not.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      > China was given special consideration in the 90s on certain assumptions. Those assumptions have not borne out. This action is one of those special considerations being rolled back. Nothing more. So do you agree that the current events are more than just special consideration being rolled back? It clearly is not a simple if then kind of deal as your original post appeared to imply. >Of course it's political. We are in agreement. > That component of America's reaction pertains, in part, to human rights concerns. But the trade component does not. This is where we may be not in agreement. Could you elaborate on the trade part?
      - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > Could you elaborate on the trade part? If an American does business with China, there is one set of rules. If they do business with Hong Kong, there is another. The latter is more favourable than the former. This notice principally rolls back that delineation. The special status was granted for commercial reasons. China and Hong Kong had different legal systems, and different commercial and policy risks. They merited different treatment. Now, they’re less different. A business dispute in Hong Kong could end up in a Chinese court because a party functionary feels like it. A company exporting from Hong Kong may be coerced by Party officials, or be benefiting from IP stolen from the mainland. This happened, slowly, over years. But the national security legislation took a big, sudden step. The special status was granted to protect commercial interests. It is being rescinded on commercial reasoning. Those commercial interests are exercised politically, and there are other factors at play, but that’s sort of like quibbling about whether one’s arm or brain lifts a teacup.

ceilingcorner 6y ago

Considerations are being rolled back because the previous thesis of “as China grows economically, it will become more democratic” is becoming increasingly false.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> US does not really have a problem with lack of autonomy The Secretary of State is literally required by law to report to Congress on Hong Kong's autonomy [1][2]. The beginning and end of this issue is Hong Kong's autonomy (and how that relates to its special trade status). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Hong_Kong_Policy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Hong_Kong_Policy... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Human_Rights_and_Democracy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Human_Rights_and_Dem...

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
I think the relevant questions here revolve around simple "and? so? what?". The mere fact that they were certified before with ample indications the autonomy was stripped away suggests that the decision is largely political as opposed to the noble goal of preventing human rights violations. Just to add to this ( I don't want to spend too much time on this ), note that Iran was for the longest time certified to be compliant ( until suddenly it was not ). In other words, I am not sure what you are arguing here. You are absolutely right, but you do not advance your point as far I can tell.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > that they were certified before with ample indications the autonomy was stripped away suggests that the decision is largely political as opposed to the noble goal of preventing human rights violations Of course it's political. The same way Beijing's national security law, and through it, repudiation of its 1997 agreement, are political decisions. Political decisions have real consequences. One of the consequences of that national security legislation is Hong Kong no longer has an independent justice system. This notice mainly reverts Hong Kong to the same trade status as the rest of China. It was given special status, decades ago, because it was special. It's clearly no longer special in those ways. In the wake of Beijing's violence in 2018, the consequences of a loss of autonomy were strengthened to include sanctions. That component of America's reaction pertains, in part, to human rights concerns. But the trade component does not.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    > China was given special consideration in the 90s on certain assumptions. Those assumptions have not borne out. This action is one of those special considerations being rolled back. Nothing more. So do you agree that the current events are more than just special consideration being rolled back? It clearly is not a simple if then kind of deal as your original post appeared to imply. >Of course it's political. We are in agreement. > That component of America's reaction pertains, in part, to human rights concerns. But the trade component does not. This is where we may be not in agreement. Could you elaborate on the trade part?
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > Could you elaborate on the trade part? If an American does business with China, there is one set of rules. If they do business with Hong Kong, there is another. The latter is more favourable than the former. This notice principally rolls back that delineation. The special status was granted for commercial reasons. China and Hong Kong had different legal systems, and different commercial and policy risks. They merited different treatment. Now, they’re less different. A business dispute in Hong Kong could end up in a Chinese court because a party functionary feels like it. A company exporting from Hong Kong may be coerced by Party officials, or be benefiting from IP stolen from the mainland. This happened, slowly, over years. But the national security legislation took a big, sudden step. The special status was granted to protect commercial interests. It is being rescinded on commercial reasoning. Those commercial interests are exercised politically, and there are other factors at play, but that’s sort of like quibbling about whether one’s arm or brain lifts a teacup.