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.

> 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.

> 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?

> 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.

I think it is a good argument to make. Thank you for the response.