The two countries are supposed to retain their individual economies. China and Hong Kong shall not automatically have the same currency. They will both keep the same currency and banking systems that they have now. China is not supposed to lay a finger on Hong Kong's financial reserves. (But wouldn't it be tempting?)
Hong Kong shall retain their capitalist system while China will continue to operate under communism. Yet, this will all be taking place within the same country. Hong Kong will be but a city on the Chinese coast. This would be like New York City having a communist government while the rest of the United States retained a capitalist system. Think about it, wouldn't you be a little apprehensive of having a communist city in the United States? Wouldn't you feel that New York City would either seek to infilterate the rest of the country with communist ideas or become an autonomous nation? Similarly, there is a definite fear within the Chinese government that such a thing may happen within Hong Kong. Two possible scenarios are that a) China may panic concerning the possibility of being infilterated by capitalist ideas or b) they may fear that Hong Kong may seek independence from China altogether. My mind finds both of these scenarios to be less than desireable in results.
"One country, two systems" evidently does not apply in the area of human rights. The people of Hong Kong are used to having freedoms. One of these is the freedom of speech, a freedom that has been long taken for granted within Hong Kong. About 90 percent of Hong Kong's economy is dependent on services, and these services require a free flowing communications system including freedom of speech and press. Within China, there are even bans on internet use--a freedom that you probably take for granted. I've been able to experience the frustration of internet restrictions at my own university. We have a system called "guardian" which is able to block numerous web sites from being downloaded. It is very annoying and can sometimes present extreme difficulties in getting access to information that I need. Whether this is a possibility for the future of Hong Kong is yet to be seen. Let's hope for the best. China is, however, replacing a Hong Kong law that was used to ban any defaming of the royal family in England. The law will now ban the defaming of top Chinese officials instead. Another addition to this law will ban any press that would promote the independence of either Taiwaan or Hong Kong. Translation into English: loss of freedom of speech.
Time and again in history, when people are repressed, they seek to either overthrow the government oppressing them or to seek independence from the government oppressing them. Time and again in history, this has resulted in a bloody mess. In Hong Kong's case, trying to overthrow the government of China would be a very irrational decision. China could easily squash them like bugs on the sidewalk without trying. Historically, China has sought to destroy those who have physically or ideologically stood in the way of communism. A bloody example can be found concerning various groups including nationalists, Christians, Tibetan Bhuddists, Muslims, democratically inclined students, and even other communists--to name but a few. Those who have sought independence from China have seen the wrathful hand of genocide and ethnocide. Some examples are Tibet and Xinjiang (a Muslim province north of Tibet and south of Mongolia). What would the results be if Hong Kong did the same? China got extremely upset when the Dalai Lama (the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet) visited Taiwaan. China also threatened the United States' open embrace of the Dalai Lama at the White House in late April 1997. The loss of territory by China could signal an outbreak of wrath like that of an untamable volcano.
I just found an article with similar ideas by Reuters: HK, TIBET FACE "CHILLING SIMILARITIES" UNDER CHINA
Some say that, within the next 5 years, China will become the economic super power of the world as its economy grows 10% every year. Coupled with Hong Kong and communism, China could become a power rivaling the all the superpowers of past ages. Look out Roman Empire and Napoleon, here comes the Red Giant! The question is what they shall choose to do with this power. Shall they be content with what they have and use their new found economic prowess to raise the standard of living of their people? As long as China continues to repress the freedoms of their people, however, there is only a certain level of progress attainable by this growing populous.
Recently, there has been much commotion over the question of intellectual property in Hong Kong. Many intellectual "pirates" in Hong Kong have been selling bootlegged copies of American software and music for extremely low prices. Because of this, in April of 1997, the United States government put Hong Kong on its "watch list." For a while, China was given Most Favored Nation Status economically by the United States. For various reasons, this status has recently been threatened. The United States has two choices: We can either a) take advantage of their friendship with China and share our hour in the sun with China, making sure to keep them happy at all costs, or we can b) place economic sanctions on China (this could be backed by various reasons) which would not only affect China, but also Hong Kong. Choice "b" would send the United careening down an irrisistible power trip that would probably only be a short lived one. We could backlash at China's good fortune and try to regain and secure our place in the sun. What a messy situation that could be! Let's hope someone uses some common sense in Congress. Of course, if the USA has some alterior motive of acquiring a communist overtaken government, this would be a very good place to start. Oh, yeah, I forgot, the threat of communism is supposedly dead. Or is it?
"It's ridiculous."
"Even when China becomes strong and developed, China will never get involved in aggression against other countries or interfere in others countries' international affairs."--Deputy Prime Minister Zhu Rongji
What do you think? Historically--not quite as deceptive as Russia's, but close. China is going to seek to maintain their sovereignty at all costs. China's government is notorious for promoting propaganda that portrays a gentle and kind image of China's intentions. Do you think they're going to answer questions about their intentions by saying, "yeah, we're going to squash you like bugs if you get in our way!"? It's the surprise attack that's the most affective if any type of attack is planned at all.
The Best Hope for China
By Jeane Kirkpatrick
(C)1997, Los Angeles Times Syndicate
Sunday, May 25 1997; Page C07
The Washington Post
The annual debate on whether to renew
China's status as a "Most Favored Nation"
got underway this past week with
President Clinton's announcement that
renewing existing trade ties with China is
"the best way to bring China into the family
of nations and to secure our interests and
our ideals." Accompanying comments from
the White House also suggested that a
hard fight in Congress will be needed if the
president is to carry the day. Of course,
the more formidable the opposition seems,
the greater the administration's victory will
appear to be.
This year's opposition to MFN renewal is
considerable and vocal, and its backers
have some clout in Washington, but I
believe they are unlikely to win. A portion
of the Christian Right has joined some
human rights and labor groups in opposing
the renewal. They emphasize China's
continuing violations of Chinese rights and
American values, its repression of Tibetans
and other religious minorities, its belligerent
actions in the South China Sea, the missiles
it fired off Taiwan's shores, its intensive
military buildup, its sale of controlled
technologies in spite of its nonproliferation
pledges not to do so, its jailing of
dissidents under harsh conditions, its
forced abortions and coercive
population-control program and its use of
prison labor.
Opponents pose the question: Should the
U.S. government renew China's Most
Favored Nation status considering all these
violations of good conduct? It is a good
question.
The problem with their argument is that
denying MFN status cannot achieve the
goals opponents desire. The whole issue
has become extremely confused. The real
question is not, and never has been,
whether we should grant "favored" -- much
less "most favored" -- status to China, but
whether Congress should grant Americans
the opportunity to trade with China on the
same basis as with other nations.
MFN status provides access to U.S.
markets with the lowest possible tariffs --
about 5 percent. Today all but eight
countries in the world enjoy MFN status:
Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Cuba, Cambodia,
Laos, North Korea, Vietnam and former
Yugoslavia -- a strangely anachronistic
group that omits Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
Burma and several other current scourges.
I believe the annual MFN debate over
China is nearly irrelevant to our moral
commitments, our national security and our
economic interests.
It is certainly true that a number of China's
policies are deeply offensive to many
Americans. But it is also true that the
United States provides low tariffs to almost
every nation, not only because we believe
it is good for them but also because we
believe it is good for us, indeed, for
everyone.
MFN policy was devised to deal with the
Soviet Union, a state in which the
government had total control of a closed
society and economy. (The government of
Cuba also has such control.) Under such
circumstances trade could not benefit the
people nor contribute to the development
of a more free economy, nor "open" the
society. It could only enrich the
government and give it more leverage.
The situation is very different in China, a
country that was deliberately and
dramatically "opened" by Deng Xiaoping in
the late 1980s. It was opened to foreign
travelers and investment, to foreign ideas
and foreign students. Tens of thousands of
Chinese were sent abroad to study.
Crucial elements of market systems were
built into the Chinese economy. Rewards
were linked to work, real if limited
personal decisions were permitted about
where to work, who to work for. Some
competition, profit, choice and
individualism were built into the system --
with predictable results.
The Chinese economy has grown at a
dazzling 13 percent a year. Living
standards have risen as well. China has
become another Asian tiger. By permitting
the freedom necessary for economic
growth and modernization, its policies have
doubled the economy.
Peter Berger described the Asian model of
capitalist development in his book, "The
Capitalist Revolution." That model features
the "relentless onward-and-upward thrust"
of a Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong,
Singapore and, before them, Japan. It
features dramatic economic growth, very
high productivity, rising living standards. It
features an economy open to the world,
elimination of severe poverty and
progressive political change.
The East Asian evidence, says Berger,
provides limited but real support for the
thesis that successful development of
industrial capitalism also encourages
development of democracy. Rule of law is
an essential element of a developed,
modern, capitalist industrial system. So is
broad participation in many decisions. In
this environment the taste for freedom
grows.
Involvement with the West and with the
capitalist systems of the West also
reinforces the associated patterns of
thought and behavior. In Taiwan, South
Korea, Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong, the
"Asian" model of economic development
was accompanied by sustained economic
success and increased political choice.
Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand are now
moving down the same path.
Nothing is inevitable. But we may note that
China is moving through a process similar
to that of most modern Asian societies.
Like them, China is developing a very
successful economy and an increasing
sense of pride and accomplishment. To be
sure, it could turn into fascism, but it could
also turn into another Singapore or even
Taiwan.
It is in the interest of the United States as
well as all China's neighbors that this Asian
giant remain open to the world -- involved,
successful, peaceful and, eventually,
democratic.
A policy that makes China a "Least
Favored Nation" is the least likely to
encourage evolution of the China we hope
for.
I believe MFN policy, being outdated,
should be abandoned and replaced by
policies more relevant to American hopes
and to China's well-being.
© Copyright 1997 The Washington Post
Company
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE HONG KONG HANDOVER
New Mobile Missile To Be Deployed -- Report WASHINGTON -- China will soon deploy a new mobile strategic missile that poses a significant threat to U.S. forces in the Pacific and parts of the continental United States, the Washington Times reported in Friday editions. The newspaper quoted a classified Air Force report as saying the new Chinese strategic missile would "narrow the gap between current Chinese, U.S. and Russian ballistic missile designs." No comment was immediately available from the Air Force. The report, prepared by the National Air Intelligence Agency last fall, said the new multiple-warhead weapon would be difficult to counterattack, according to the newspaper, which said it obtained a copy of the report. The Times quoted that report as saying the missile was in the late stage of development and was expected to be deployed around the turn of the century. The United States toughened its position on China on Thursday, imposing new sanctions on Chinese companies for transferring chemical weapons components to Iran. (Reuters)
IMAGINE THAT!
Japan-U.S. Military Alliance Slammed BEIJING -- China on Monday slammed Japan's military alliance with the United States, accusing the two allies of targeting Beijing and warning of a resurgence in Japanese militarism. "The long-term goal (of the alliance) is to deal with the imaginary troubles made by an economically and militarily stronger China," the official China Daily quoted Zhao Jieqi, a research fellow of the institute of Japanese studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, as saying. Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto visited the United States in April and assured U.S. President Bill Clinton that Tokyo was not seeking a cut in American military forces in Japan and Asia. There are currently 100,000 U.S. troops in Asia. Hashimoto backed continued U.S. military presence in Japan, despite calls for reductions by residents of Japan's island of Okinawa, where the bulk of U.S. military facilities are located. The China Daily also denounced the planned revision of the 1978 Japan-U.S. joint "defense guidelines" for security cooperation. It is expected to be updated by autumn this year. "The redefined U.S.-Japan security agreement helps set the tiger out of the cage," the newspaper quoted Liu Jiangyong, director of the department of northeast Asian studies of the Chinese Contemporary International Relations Institute, as saying in the same article. China, one of several Asian countries which were victims of Japanese aggression during World War II, harbors deep suspicions of any Japanese military build-up. "Japan...can burst its shackles and develop military strength without much restraint," Liu said. "Considering Japan's unrepentant attitude towards its militarist past, it is clear that China and other victims of Japan's invasion war will have cause for increased worry," the newspaper said. The newspaper lambasted the United States for backing China's rival Taiwan. "If the United States did not act as the 'protector' and sell weapons to Taiwan, the pro-Taiwan independence force would not become more rampant," the newspaper said. Beijing views Taiwan as a rebel province and has threatened to invade if the island declares independence. Taiwan's Nationalists, who lost the Chinese civil war and fled to the island in 1949, say they are committed to reunification but under democracy and a free-market economy. "Military alliances that want to encircle China and prevent it 'from using force in the Taiwan Straits'...are solidifying," Liu said. China ruffled regional feathers in March, 1996, when it conducted missile tests and war games off Taiwan in the run-up to the island's first direct presidential elections. Washington responded by sending a naval battle group to the Taiwan Strait to monitor activities there, a move that drew angry condemnation from Beijing as interference in China's internal affairs. "The United States hopes to see Asians bite Asians so it can hold its leading position in Asia-Pacific affairs," Liu said. Beijing suspects that Washington, seeking to shore up its position as the world's lone superpower, advocates a policy of containing China's economic and military development. Washington maintains it is pursuing a policy of engagement with Beijing but some U.S. officials have said China's potential economic power and military build-up could endanger regional stability in the future. (Reuters)
VERY interesting!!!
You are person numberto visit my web page
Or email me ataree1832@stu.oru.edu
Get your own Free Home Page| LinkExchange Member | Free Home Pages at GeoCities |