







The US Senate has passed the Hong Kong Human Rights Democracy Act which allows the United States to remove the special consideration that Hong Kong receives apart from Mainland China as a free market economy and resulting in access to the American market and financial system. Although the bill will need to be adjusted in the Conference Committee before it can be placed on President Trump's desk(and then there is the question over signing or letting default into law). The bill, intended to show support for the maintenance of HK’s autonomy within the one country two systems structure, might ultimately look good for American politicians who want to look tough on China and be in line with the shifting view that China is a free-rider on the international system that it is undermining. It might, however, weaken the possibility of a successful outcome to the trade talks as well as weakening HK’s ability to resist the whittling of its autonomy.





The bill has been supported by the student demonstrators from HK because it would make it easier for protestors to gets visas to the United States to escape any possible reprisals in the territory. Sanctions alongside travel and asset restrictions could also be placed on officials who are deemed to have been responsible for and punitive and unacceptable acts. Presumably, the students must also think the bill supports their objectives in HK; either through giving them the above-mentioned exit route, reducing the pressure Mainland and HK authorities can place on them, or by making the economic health of the territory more uncertain. Restricting access to the US markets, a potentially large problem for a global financial center and entrepot.





From the American perspective, the act is meant to rebuke China into reconsidering the crackdown by authorities on the protestors. It is also possible to be used as a bargaining piece in the ongoing trade talks with China; the actual imposition of non- free trade or the threat of. America has an interest in maintaining an open East Asia economic order of which HK is a part. This benefits Americans and other countries' firms to be able to operate freely in HK. With the bill in force and autonomy not deemed to be sufficient, America loses a feature of the open economic order whilst not putting pressure on China in the broader trade deal as HK would be an acceptable geopolitical loss to them to have greater success in the trade talks. HK no longer is as a vital role in FDI and outbound trade into and from China compared to what it was 20 years ago.





From the Chinese perspective, the bill shows that America is willing to act punitively against an economy not based solely on economic terms but based on opinions on its internal political conditions. China can say to its domestic audience that not only is the USA interfering in its internal affairs, but it also is not living up to its own standards of engaging with free markets of which HK is one. China cans say the American goal is to undermine China's rise, not just economic concerns over trade. China is also not likely to react well to the use of its own sovereign territory against its self, much as it would not be acceptable for economic relations between China and America to be dependent on relations between the continuous 48 states and Hawaii. It would be a direct challenge to the CPC legitimacy in China or territorial integration and would likely lead to a collapse in trade talks. A supposed bargaining cheap which leads to the collapse of a deal isn’t a very good bargaining chip.





The bill also becomes self-defeating in the ability to support the autonomy in HK. Cut off from American markets the territory would struggle economically which would weaken its ability to resist the lure of mainland support which could make up the difference. The HK Legco is drawn from business interests and they would face more economic pressure to take the Mainland assistance and interference rather than support the addressing of the concerns of protestors and other citizens in its dealing with Carrie Lam. The bill also feeds, if the above is true, into the claimed basis of American concern with HK, that China is increasing its control in HK. The bill can hasten this effect.





For use as political posturing in Congress and supporting the protestor's ability to flee and resist authorities in HK the bill could serve its purpose. The bill, as a geopolitical tool, however, will only undermine any ability for a trade deal to be reached or for the reinforcement of the two systems one country arrangement. Congress should be careful that it doesn’t force a geopolitical blunder on America through grandstanding.