The US House of Representatives on July 1 passed by unanimous consent a bipartisan bill that would penalize Chinese officials who implement Beijing’s new national security legislation in Hong Kong, as well as banks that do business with them. The following day, the US Senate unanimously passed the bill, which was later sent to the White House, where it awaits US President Donald Trump’s signature.
The bill does not spell out what the sanctions would look like and Trump has yet to sign it into law, but Reuters on Thursday last week reported that five major Chinese state lenders are considering contingency plans in anticipation of being cut off from US dollars or losing access to US-dollar settlements.
The article said the worst-case scenario that the Bank of China is considering is a run on its Hong Kong branches if clients realize it would run out of US dollars. Some Chinese banks are working to address clients that borrow US currency to purchase aircraft and machinery, and to meet other manufacturing needs.
Legal experts have warned of another potential scenario — possibly the most severe punishment — in which the bill gives the White House the power to prevent financial institutions in Hong Kong from clearing some US dollar transactions through the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) system, if the transactions involve Chinese officials or others blamed for destroying Hong Kong’s autonomy.
Brussels-based SWIFT is a cooperative organization established in 1937. It provides safe and secure financial transactions and clearance services for member banks in 198 countries. The US has great influence over the nonprofit cooperative, to the point that it is able to monitor fund flows by individuals and between organizations, as well as restrict US dollar clearances by some countries.
If banks in Hong Kong are suspended from SWIFT’s US dollar transaction processing, it would have larger consequences than imposing tariffs on Chinese goods, as the move would seriously disrupt banks’ operations and affect local financial markets. Moreover, as the US dollar remains a dominant global currency, firms cut off from the SWIFT clearance system would be unable to engage in international trade activities using the greenback.
It remains unclear whether the US government would pursue the same sanctions on financial institutions in Hong Kong that it has imposed on their peers in Iran and Russia.
However, a Bloomberg report on Wednesday last week suggested that some Trump advisers had discussed a move to destabilize the local currency pegged to the greenback by limiting Hong Kong lenders’ ability to buy US dollars. The article did not specify how the US president’s advisers had proposed to proceed, but disconnecting Hong Kong from SWIFT would not only force many firms in the territory into operational crises, but also disrupt the exchange of Hong Kong and US dollars. Furthermore, any move to rattle the Hong Kong financial markets — the world’s third-largest US-dollar trading center — would have an enormous effect on the territory as an international financial hub.
It is too early to nail down the scope of Washington’s sanctions on financial institutions in Hong Kong, but the relationship between the US and China is growing increasingly tense, and the possibility of them decoupling is growing. Even though a complete decoupling between the world’s two largest economies is not attainable in the short term, and such a delinking could go back and forth for a while, it is an inevitable trend. For those with assets in Hong Kong, it is time to prepare for the potential risks.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS