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.
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.
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...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Human_Rights_and_Dem...
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.
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.
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?
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.
There is a difference though. For example, with Vietnam, the press was largely careful not ruffle administration's feathers. With Iraq, there was some mild questioning, but few of the established media questioned the narrative pushed by the administration. Now look at the response of the press to even a possibility of another full out war in ME ( at best divided along partisan lines ). That was one of the few times, I actually agreed with Tucker.
The change you are thinking of is that the war of Iran did not happen yet ( and it likely would have based on the publicly available information [1],[2]). If left to Washington alone, I am willing to bet good money, it would have happened already.
[1]https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/concerns-trump-administratio...
[2]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20989/pompeos-12-deman...
It takes two tango. Is Iran and/or China doing anything on their part to move us closer to war?
edited: changed refuted to countered; seems more accurate
As for the aggressive actor part, I will leave it for now ( it does not add to conversation and since I am not a historian, I can't authoritatively say that comparatively speaking Poland was the nice guy on the block ).
Argument: War takes two. Counter: No. It only takes one. See Germany invades Poland. Counter to counter: Your analogy can be extended to look ridiculous.
I know it can be, but all analogies can be.
No. I got your point. Your original comment implied that it is America that is solely moving towards war. I asked you if you thought Iran and/or China were also responsible for moving us towards war and you choose to be pedantic about a metaphor and wasted mine and your time doing so.
So to answer you directly: who cares about the metaphor.
But you do have a point. What if instead of what I think, we turn to the wisdom the global crowd ( [1],[2],[3] ), who, when recently polled, indicated that US is greater threat than China or Russia. So the world populace thinks US is moving towards war; moreso than China or Russia.
It is possible that I overstated my case. You do have a point here, but are you trying to tell me Iran is THE threat to that will pull this world into the abyss?
>So the world populace thinks US is moving towards war; moreso than China or Russia.
Not surprised. There is so much negativity around anything to do with America because America is what defines the current world order. The subtext is that if not for America we would be living in global utopia with no war and nations cooperating diplomatically to solve common goals - a state of things that has NEVER been true in all of human history. The only times of peace humanity have ever enjoyed were within the borders of some empire.
>You do have a point here, but are you trying to tell me Iran is THE threat to that will pull this world into the abyss?
No. Not into the abyss. Iran is a fascist nation that is a regional nuisance. They could join the community of nations if they abandoned their regional ambitions and stop funding terrorist groups. But their actions are leading to a war, either with America or Saudi Arabia.
Just to be clear, I'm not claiming America doesn't have a part in the state of things (America is run by humans, and humans make mistakes), I just don't see any evidence that Iran is an innocent party in this. They played their part and made their bed through the actions of their government over decades. They began existence by breaking global norms by storming the American embassy and taking diplomats hostage, and have been a terrible regional presence.
Absolutely the same could be said about Saudi Arabia.
Yes storming the USA embassy was wrong, but so was Flying two Airplanes into towers (i think you know very well ho founded Al-Qaida), and the whole Yemen-War is nothing, right?
I did not even started with the hole Nuclear-Contract that the US broke up, just to bring Iran (again) in a unbearable position.
It's funny, when the US makes mistakes then it's just 'run by humans, and humans make mistakes', but when Iran does it, then it's 'began existence by breaking global norms'
We can pursue this conversation once we agree on that simple truth.
This HK takeover by China is significant and the social media taunting that China is doing is not exactly peaceful: https://twitter.com/HuXijin_GT/status/1265498343947542530?re...
edit: added not. gotta slow down
To be honest, China really sees itself as a world power. This is only because of the economic affluence it had on every country on Earth. Military wise, they do spend a lot of money but the equipment and training are not quite on par with the top dogs in the game. CCP also has no regards for its people so worst case is to sacrifice a few million population in case of an international conflict.
The problem with China is like a professional boxer fighting on a street with thugs. Your opponent is not afraid of getting down dirty on moves, they are not gonna abide any rules, nor do they have anything to lose.
Hear hear, the US just pay some privately-own'd armys for the 'dirty' stuff, to stay with your analogy, they just pay another thug that was probably a professional boxer in his former life ;)
The comparisons to cold war seem apt and given that US president was recently asked about what he talked about with Putin ( and the response, among others, was borders ). That sent a chill down my spine. How was this question not followed up is beyond me.
We have been moving towards a confrontation for a while now and this move will not make it less likely. I am not trying to defend China's moves, but realistically, what are the odds China will surrender to international pressure campaign?