port area entered the deliberation stage of the National People's Congress today.
Hong Kong-related national security legislation is highly supported by all patriots who love Hong Kong, but to the Hong Kong chaos, this is tantamount to a bolt from the blue. They have always underestimated the central government's determination to maintain Hong Kong's stability, and they will soon feel the power of the thunderbolt.
The problem of Hong Kong still has the power of external interference. For such people, the Hong Kong-related national security legislation also caught them by surprise. They have always underestimated the Chinese people's firm will to safeguard national unity and national dignity. But not surprisingly, they will not be willing to completely withdraw from the situation in Hong Kong.
In the past two days, the interference of external forces in Hong Kong has gradually emerged, but it is weaker than we expected and appears to be insufficient. The United States will not be absent from such things as
01
.
The reporter of good news immediately asked US President Trump. But Trump obviously did not figure out the situation, and the answer was basically a perfunctory. This is in line with Trump's consistent attitude towards Hong Kong. Compared with the importance of trade and anti-epidemic rejection, Trump clearly has little interest in Hong Kong.
However, there are many American politicians who are interested in disrupting Hong Kong. Secretary of State Pompeo and the radical anti-China Congressman Rubio who had just been promoted all made harsh words to threaten China.
And White House National Security Assistant O'Brien's statement on the 24th is considered to be the official attitude of the United States on this matter. He said: "Once the Hong Kong National Security Law is implemented, the US will impose sanctions on China." As soon as this statement came out, major Western media reported on it under the heading. In an interview with the media, O'Brien mentioned that the basis for sanctions against China was the two Hong Kong-related bills passed by the United States that seriously interfered in China's internal affairs, the so-called "United States-Hong Kong Policy Act" and the "Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act." .
He also described the "future" of Hong Kong rather darkly: the loss of its status as an international financial center, the withdrawal of a large number of financial companies and multinational groups from Hong Kong, etc. The implication is that once the Hong Kong-related national security legislation is passed, Hong Kong will be bad.
But China is not scared. As Hong Kong’s Financial Secretary Chen Maobo said in a media article on the 24th, the Hong Kong National Security Law will not shake Hong Kong’s status as an “international financial center”, but will provide protection in this respect, which will help maintain Hong Kong’s favorable business and investment surroundings.
Facts have also proved that the "Hong Kong independence" and "crimes" in the past two years have caused many foreign businessmen to worry about the political and social stability risks in Hong Kong. Continuing to allow Hong Kong to become a national security gap will make Hong Kong's status as an international financial center impossible to talk about. Then again, what if the United States really wants to "sanction" China? What can you do?
A scholar on American issues believes that the biggest card in the United States now is to abolish Hong Kong's independent tariff status. In other words, it is to "inlandize" the economic benefits of Hong Kong. If
is really played, it will do great harm to the United States itself.
After all, the United States has made a lot of profits in its trade with Hong Kong over the years. Statistics show that the US trade surplus with Hong Kong has reached US$297 billion in the past 10 years. In 2018 alone, it exceeded US$33 billion, ranking first among its global trading partners. According to Reuters analysis, if the United States abolishes Hong Kong’s independent tariff status, it will cause problems for more than 1,300 American companies’ operations in Hong Kong. In addition, 85,000 American citizens living in Hong Kong will also be affected. The scholar
said that from a realistic perspective, the US threat of sanctions against China is more likely to be "symbolic" and "voicing." For example, continue to stigmatize China in the international community or impose sanctions on individuals related to the national security laws of the port area. On the whole, these measures will not have a critical impact on China.
Moreover, China is obviously ready. In response to O'Brien’s threat of sanctions on the 25th, the spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasized:
Hong Kong affairs are purely China’s internal affairs. What laws the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region enacts, how to legislate, and when to legislate are entirely within the scope of China’s sovereignty. The United States is not qualified. Intervene and intervene. If the US insists on harming China's interests, China will take all necessary measures to resolutely fight back and counter measures.
add another sentence, the number of deaths from the epidemic in the United States is approaching 100,000, 100,000! 100,000 lives were lost and 100,000 families were broken! What a huge person this isRoad disaster. It is also unpopular within the United States if Washington allows its own people to be threatened by the virus but manages other people's affairs.
02
Compared with the United States, Hong Kong's former "suzerain state" Britain has a more subtle attitude.
The Guardian, the Daily Express and many other British media broke the news one after another, saying that the British government had long formulated a blockbuster "secret plan" for the Hong Kong issue:
At the beginning of the year, Prime Minister Johnson said in a meeting with some parliamentarians at the rural residence that if "Beijing continues to put pressure on Hong Kong," and Britain will "consider providing asylum or refugee status to Hong Kong people."
reported that it is currently unclear whether the plan is only for 315,000 Hong Kong residents and their relatives holding a "British National Overseas Passport (BNO)" or all 7.5 million Hong Kong residents. Immediately after the news of
came out, people in the British legal profession jumped out to try to remove legal obstacles for this "secret plan."
Laurie Fransman, a well-known British Queen's Counsel, made legal advice to the British Ministry of the Interior and some Conservative Party members. The core meaning of
is that the "Sino-British Joint Declaration" prohibits Hong Kong people holding BNO passports from obtaining the right of abode in the UK, which is wrong. Now, the British government should "re-examine" this issue and recognize this right of BNO passport holders. In addition to the British media's hype about the "secret plan", the highest jump in the UK is the "Last Governor" Patten.
When the Hong Kong national security legislation was announced a few days ago, he immediately clamored, saying that "this is tantamount to a full-scale attack on Hong Kong's autonomy, the rule of law and fundamental freedoms."
In the past two days, this "last governor" who slandered and smeared China more than once on the Hong Kong issue has become even worse.
On the one hand, he clamored in an article written to the Financial Times on the 24th, saying that the UK should ensure that the G7 summit that may be held in June discusses China's Hong Kong-related national security legislation and that it “openly opposes it”.
On the other hand, Patten and former British Foreign Minister Rifkind initiated a joint signing, leading more than 200 so-called "politicians" in Britain, Canada, Australia, Germany and other countries to "condemn" China for promoting Hong Kong-related national security legislation. Among these "politicians", Patten needs no introduction. The former Foreign Minister Rifkind is also an anti-China faction. He once collected money from a British anti-China think tank to sign articles that smeared China. In the United States, the Republican Senators Rubio and Cruz are at the beginning...
From the perspective of composition, you know what these 200 "politicians" are.
Although Patten and some British media have jumped heavily on Hong Kong’s national security legislation, so far, the only official statement in London is the statement made by the Prime Minister’s spokesperson on the 24th, and the previous day’s announcement by the British Foreign Minister and the Canadian and Australian Foreign Ministers. A joint statement.
However, these statements do not contain much substance except for some diplomatic rhetoric such as "closely monitor developments" and "hope that China will respect the rule of law in Hong Kong".
A European scholar said that the rare "low-key" of the British government reflects its current situation and state of mind.
As a result, fighting the epidemic is still the top priority of the British government. Since the outbreak of the
epidemic, the United Kingdom has effectively interacted with China in terms of medical supplies and experience sharing. Compared with the unsuccessful fight against the epidemic, the Hong Kong issue is not the most important consideration for the UK in handling relations with China.
Secondly, the United Kingdom is not confident enough to provoke Hong Kong issues at this time.
Many people have noticed that in the past period of time, the United Kingdom hasn't made much provocation on various China-related issues, and it is not even as provocative as some small European countries such as Sweden.
This is because Brexit is now the top priority for the UK now and in the future. Before this matter settles, its relations with the United States and Europe are in a "pending state", and its relationship with China after Brexit is also an important aspect that it must consider.
At this juncture, the British government does not want to involve too many diplomatic resources because of the Hong Kong issue, which it thinks is uneconomical.
As for the British media's hype about granting Hong Kong people's right of abode in the UK, even if the British government really agrees, will the domestic people support it?
Don’t forget that one of the main reasons the British people supported Brexit at the beginning was that they were worried that immigrants would steal their jobs. Now how can they accept hundreds of thousands of BNO "second-class British citizens" and even millions of Hong Kong people into the UK!
03
Another intervener I have to mention comes from "something to supportHong Kong, abandon Hong Kong without incident.” The DPP authorities entrenched in Taiwan, China.
As soon as the news of Beijing's promotion of the Hong Kong National Security Act came out, the Hong Kong opposition panicked a lot. Before
, Apple Daily boss Li Zhiying wagged his tail to the United States. For help, not only Twitter @美国大统领, but also the front page of its "Apple Daily" called on the Hong Kong people to co-sign to the White House, requesting Washington to intervene in Hong Kong affairs. Then Huang Zhifeng posted on Facebook saying that the Hong Kong National Security Law is It was directed at them to promote the passage of the "Hong Kong Act" by the United States, saying that he would continue to "do international routes" in the future. Isn't this a fresh and refined version of continuing to follow the "traitor" line?
At this time, the DPP The strait began to echo each other.
DPP Deputy Secretary-General Lin Feifan and the "old acquaintance" Huang Zhifeng coordinated on Facebook, saying that they had spoken with Huang Zhifeng on the phone earlier and expressed considerable concern about the situation of the "Hong Kong brothers and feet".
Tsai Ing-wen Not to be lonely, I posted on Facebook on the evening of the 24th, saying: "At this moment, we are standing with the people of Hong Kong with all our partners in the democratic camp. "How do
stand together?
Governor Cai said that the Taiwan authorities will "uphold humanitarian considerations and continue to provide all possible humanitarian assistance." ...More actively improve and improve related rescue work, and provide necessary assistance to the people of Hong Kong. "
"Possible humanitarian assistance" and "necessary assistance"... this empty promise made the Hong Kong opposition very confused. They thought for a long time and came to the conclusion: This is to welcome us "immigrants" Does it mean to go to Taiwan?
"Hong Kong independence" elements obviously think too much.
Since last year, Huang Zhifeng has expressed the hope that the Taiwan authorities will amend the refugee law to admit more Hong Kong people. However, some DPP legislators said that they were targeting the current situation in Hong Kong. The direction of thinking should be "uniting the world's democracies and adopting consistent actions":
"Although individual actions want to highlight the close relationship between Taiwan and Hong Kong, we must be careful not to be labeled by Beijing. "The
mandarin is a set, but I don’t want to go. The Taiwan authorities want nothing more than: I’m here to shout, yes, if you really want to come over, then you don’t have to.
Cai authorities can give the second. This support is based on the so-called "Hong Kong-Macau Relations Regulations" concocted by Taiwan, which gave Hong Kong the status of a "special area."
A Taiwan national security official threatened that once the Hong Kong National Security Law passed, Hong Kong would no longer become a "special area" "This will affect Hong Kong's funding review, Hong Kong residents' residence, travel control and other aspects. For example, Hong Kong capital will be treated as mainland capital to show that "Taiwan’s efforts to resist Hong Kong’s'sinicization'".
In other words, Taiwan The biggest card in hand is actually learning from the United States and canceling Hong Kong’s special status.
But ironically, Taiwan does not even have the capital to learn from the United States.
At the end of 2018, Hong Kong’s total foreign direct investment was HK$15,380.6 billion, of which Taiwan’s The investment is HK$106 billion. What is the concept of
? Dao Mei uses immature mathematics to calculate, Taiwan’s investment in Hong Kong accounts for about 0.6% of the total.
What about Hong Kong’s investment in Taiwan?
Dao Mei I found this sentence on the official website of the Hong Kong government: "By the end of 2018, Taiwan was the twentieth foreign direct investment destination outside Hong Kong. Therefore, the Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department has not disclosed relevant investment data. "
So, what about Taiwan's "equal deliberation of Hong Kong capital with mainland capital"? When Taiwan gave Hong Kong capital a "special status", Hong Kong did not have much interest in investing in the Taiwan market!
looked like this, Taiwan’s good talk to the Hong Kong opposition and the harsh talk to the mainland are loud, but after careful consideration, they are all lies and empty guns.
There are people of insight on the island that have long seen through the trick of the Taiwan authorities:
" Since the “anti-send” last year, the DPP government’s concern for Hong Kong has been changing with the rhythm of the election schedule, but it has never made clear moves. "Support Hong Kong" is an untrue slogan in Taiwan. "
recalled the siege of China by some US and British forces around the Port Security Law, and saw through the Taiwan authorities' use of "Hong Kong independence" "spontaneous lip service", the facts are even more clear:
these unreasonable interventions seem to be very powerful. But it won’t produce any substantive results. As long as we are committed to ensuring national security and Hong Kong’s stability, maintaining one country, two systems, and the basic rights and interests of Hong Kong residents, we will resolutely formulate the national security of the Hong Kong area.Law, the initiative must be in our hands.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-