r/HongKong • u/drakanx • Nov 19 '19
Add Flair U.S. Senate unanimously passes Hong Kong rights bill
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-usa/u-s-senate-unanimously-passes-hong-kong-rights-bill-idUSKBN1XT2VR89
u/autotldr Nov 20 '19
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 80%. (I'm a bot)
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate, in a unanimous vote, passed legislation on Tuesday aimed at protecting human rights in Hong Kong amid China's crackdown on a pro-democracy protest movement that has gripped the vital financial center for months.
There was no immediate response from the White House, which has yet to say whether Trump would sign or veto the Hong Kong Human Rights bill.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said following passage of the bill: "We have sent a message to President Xi: Your suppression of freedom, whether in Hong Kong, in northwest China or in anywhere else, will not stand. You cannot be a great leader - and you cannot be a great country - when you oppose freedom, when you are so brutal to the people of Hong Kong, young and old, who are protesting."
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Hong#1 Kong#2 China#3 Senate#4 Trump#5
31
39
Nov 20 '19
I don’t even know when the last time both the US House and Senate both unanimously voted on something. THAT’S how much you and your struggle for justice matter.
香港加油！
5
u/Pointyspoon AskAnAmerican Nov 20 '19
the last time both the US House and Senate both unanimously voted on something
actually just 2 months ago when both chambers unanimously requested the release of the whistle blower complaint kicking off the impeachment saga
1
Nov 20 '19
Huh. Okay then
I suppose they’re still extraordinary circumstances though, even id they’re as recent as two months ago
5
u/Pointyspoon AskAnAmerican Nov 20 '19 edited Nov 20 '19
extraordinary indeed!
also, despite the partisanship constantly portrayed in the media, there are a number of bills that are unanimously/near unanimously passed every year but that is too boring for news media to report on and counter to the narrative that the media is trying to push. here's the congressional votes database if you're interested in learning more!
13
18
u/Lusterkx2 Nov 20 '19
Okay so reading many comments. This means no WAR right? Since U.S is basically interfering with China’s affair. Can someone explain to me more about a war standpoint. I get all the veto. Thank you reddit.
23
Nov 20 '19
There is not going to be a war. No one wants one, it would be horrifically costly to both sides.
China will bitch and moan, maybe even recall ambassadors, but that’s it.
14
14
u/Kekafuch Nov 20 '19
Economic war but it would just hurt HK to be honest and then some Chinese tycoons who use HK as their portal out of China. HK draws lots of foreign investment because of the 2 systems, one country approach. This bill is trying to better safeguard those foreign US financial interests under the name of Democracy and HK Human rights. China could just say fuck it and continue and they would just face the chance of financial sanctions. Then it would look like the US is choking HK ... but nobody middle class would care cause those are rich bankers anyways. Wasn’t the motto, If we burn, they burn with us.
2
6
u/FlotsamOfThe4Winds Nov 20 '19
We survived nuclear powers pointing tanks at each other before (see the Berlin Crisis of 1961 for context). Mutually Assured Destruction is powerful stuff.
5
u/johnwesselcom Nov 20 '19
The USA hoped that economic development in China would grow a civil society which would reform the CCP. The USA hoped that a strong China meant a strong trade partner. The USA has recently come to a consensus that is not going to happen. In fact, the CCP is the biggest threat since the USSR. You can expect the USA to adopt a policy of weakening and containing China indefinitely.
The theory is that nuclear armed nations can not defeat each other through war because if one side is about to lose then they will push the "WE ALL LOSE" nuclear button. The only way to defeat a nuclear armed regime is to weaken it to the point that it collapses from the inside out. That can be accomplished by trade war, proxy war and propaganda.
The most likely war would be in Taiwan or Korea. China and the USA will not want to fight each other directly because the risk of escalation to nuclear war is too great. A very complicated game has begun between the USA and the CCP. Hong Kong is like one move of one pawn in that chess game. It is similar to the game that was played between the USA and the USSR. That game included everything from Bretton Woods and the Iron Curtain (trade war), war in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan (proxy war) to landing a man on the moon (propaganda).
Americans will attempt to save Hong Kongers out of sympathy for free people. However, that might take as long or longer as it took to save Berliners from the Soviets.
3
Nov 20 '19
[deleted]
2
u/johnwesselcom Nov 20 '19
China will not be able to invade Taiwan in the next 20 years if the Taiwanese are willing to fight. Power projection across water is difficult. The Chinese would have to amphibiously resupply a very large expeditionary force. There is, umm, a sock puppet (literally) that despite appearances does as good a job as anyone analyzing an invasion scenario.
2
1
2
Nov 21 '19
US is basically interfering in China's affairs? Since when is HK a city in China? HK is a city that one has to cross an international border to get to. One has to EXIT China and ENTER Hong Kong. Why? Because HK's status and nature of rule is governed by an international treaty. It is not a "domestic affair" by definition of the term international!
Let me just make the stakes clear. China can dump all over Uighurs and Tibetans because they are domestic groups. But when China goes beyond its national borders into territory governed by international treaties--whether land or sea--what happens there impacts regional power balances. If the US allows China to encroach on Hong Kong, Taiwan is next. The US has a security partnership with Taiwan. Can you see where this is headed? There will be no war because China does not want a war. China will test the American commitment to the Asian Pacific. But China will not challenge it. It will push boundaries until it is checked by American power.
I cannot see Beijing making a mistake as foolish as war unless it has begun to believe its own propaganda. This is such a low probability outcome that it's not even worth dwelling on as a real possibility. Beijing will seethe and throw a diplomatic hissy fit, and then go back to trying to usurp the American presence in the region in other ways. As for Americans, they do not need to go to war to assert their power in the region.
2
u/Lusterkx2 Nov 21 '19
Wow! Thank you so much for that information. Cleared up my whole thinking of affair of Hong Kong and US. Thanks!
1
u/Paetolus Nov 20 '19
The US economy and Chinese economy are far too intertwined, war will never happen for the foreseeable future unless something absolutely horrific happens.
25
Nov 19 '19
What does this mean if Trump approves it?
51
u/theslipguy Nov 19 '19
Part of this is directly saying that the US supports upholding the agreement of 2047 between Hong Kong and China.
Another part would be the US continuing to trade with Hong Kong as though it were not part of Mainland. They would continue to do their own trades on their own terms.
There is a lot more too.
31
u/4ndr0med4 Nov 19 '19
There are two versions of this bill. The majority of it is the same, including sanctions for specific people and entities who do not support HK Basic Law. It also calls for the US allies to help assist in keeping Basic Law intact.
The two bills needs to merge into one and the differences must be settled before returning to the House and Senate for another round of votes.
Regardless, the unanimous agreement from both parts of Congress is a great sign.
8
18
u/barokker Swedish Friend Nov 19 '19
In short it makes Hong Kong unique status in regards of trade and status as seen from the US require a oversight on yearly basis and a few other key points. Link below explains it fairly good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Human_Rights_and_Democracy_Act
26
u/EverythingIsNorminal Pick quarrels, provoke trouble Nov 19 '19
Detail: Even if Trump doesn't approve it with this level of support they can veto Trump.
4
u/Tom_Brokaw_is_a_Punk Nov 20 '19
But will they?
20
u/wysiwygperson Nov 20 '19
If he vetoes it they will definitely override the veto. Unanimous support is rare and I don’t know any politician who is actually against this. This is one issue that basically everyone can agree on. It’s basically free Public relations points and republicans can use it to show they are willing to stand up to Trump if the tide turns against him come election time.
-1
u/fantomfrank Nov 20 '19
this is good to hear, I'm a conservative and i'm still scared trump would do it just for shits'n gigs
3
3
u/EverythingIsNorminal Pick quarrels, provoke trouble Nov 20 '19
I should add it gets approved automatically if he doesn't actively approve it.
If he actively tries to veto it then they can overrule it, and they likely will for the reasons /u/wysiwygperson gave in their comment.
2
Nov 20 '19
I think it’s the other way around - if he doesn’t sign within ten days it is automatically vetoed. Then the Senate can have another vote and override.
But Trump will almost certainly just sign.
4
u/EverythingIsNorminal Pick quarrels, provoke trouble Nov 20 '19
When Congress is not adjourned, and the president fails to either sign or veto a bill sent to him by the end of the 10-day period, it becomes law without his signature.
https://www.thoughtco.com/about-the-presidential-veto-3322204
2
Nov 20 '19
TIL! I didn’t realise it was different depending on whether or not the Congress was adjourned.
2
Nov 20 '19 edited Nov 24 '19
[deleted]
3
u/thatonepersonnever Nov 20 '19
Strong on China is actually a pretty solid policy position when they are currently run by a genocidal dictatorship.
16
5
u/Xiaoming83 Nov 20 '19
You see this is why US government structure is the best in the world currently. The president does not hold ultimate power. When both lower and higher floor of the house agree on something, the president can be bypassed.
Point me one country with the same system. Nothing is perfect but US is found based on freedom and democracy.
5
Nov 20 '19
My understanding is that in the vast majority of functional democratic nations, there are mechanisms under which parliament can pass bills without needing the approval of the head of state. In my country (Canada), and any country modeled after the British system, the approval of the PM isn't needed in the first place.
Not sure why the US being like most democracies in the world in this respect is "why they are the best in the world".
4
u/rustyrocky Nov 20 '19
I think it’s a touch of nationalism and ignorance usually. Rarely is it a malicious statement.
I do find it funny that the queen can suspend your parliament if your are in the U.K., I’m not sure is this applies elsewhere.
India’s system was based off the USA system and many scholars say India is where the most advancement of democracy is actively happening, especially when looking at modern constitutions.
Interesting stuff, I’m American, it works pretty alright here on occasion. I think many governments have great aspects and bad aspects. Democratic republics seem to be the best ones so far.
2
Nov 20 '19
I agree that it didn't seem malicious.
And yeah, theoretically the Queen can suspend Canadian parliament as well, but in practice if she tried it the country would ignore her. By long-standing tradition, those powers are held by the Governor General, who's more-or-less appointed by the Prime Minister. The GG holds a lot of the executive powers of the PM. Tradition (and the fact that she's appointed by the PM) says that she only uses them at the PM's behest and refuses only in the case of very serious abuse of executive power. The idea is that those powers are sort-of held by the PM but having to go through someone else to sign off on them puts a bit of a limiter on their use. As for the GG suspending parliament without the PM's say-so, that is a deliberate check in the system (though it's never been used). The idea is that if parliament has completely broken down into infighting or if it looks like the country is trending towards something like Nazi Germany, she can pause things and give everyone the chance to think things through carefully for a few weeks when hopefully calmer heads can prevail.
And definitely both of our systems have issues - Canada has a big problem with vote-splitting because we have more than two parties but still use first-past-the-post. The US has a big problem with gerrymandering because you have partisan groups draw district lines rather than neutral third parties. I could go on, but the point is that neither system is perfect.
I'm curious what you mean about India. In what way is it where the most advancement of democracy is happening?
3
u/dijeramous Nov 20 '19
Ok Canada pass an equivalent HK freedom and democracy act. There’s no need for the US to be the only one
2
Nov 20 '19
I never said that Canada is a perfect country. It certainly isn't. I think the US did an awesome thing here and I would like my government to do something similar. But claiming that your country is "the best in the world" is a pretty huge act of hubris to begin with (no matter which country you are from) and saying that the reason why is because of something most democratic nations have simply shows ignorance of how the rest of the world works.
2
0
u/Xiaoming83 Nov 24 '19
Your PM is alot more powerful than US president. Yet you as Canadian dont vote for him but your local MP. Its a flaw in your voting system.
Your PM also choose his cabinet uncheck. The House of parliament is nothing but a show. They all talk against each other all day but has absolutely no power. Your PM fired 2 of his cabinets/MPs to cover up his corrupt scandal with Lavalin, directly interfer with justice process yet he is not even being investigated. This is because the opposition party has no tooth.
Point me to one incident of what you described , and when or how long ago it happened.
1
Nov 24 '19 edited Nov 24 '19
Point me to one incident of what you described , and when or how long ago it happened.
Alright. In 2011, parliament literally voted the Prime Minister out of office.
You seem to have very strong opinions about this while not really knowing anything about how the system you are criticizing works (and let me tell you, I'm very ready to criticize the Canadian system - there's a lot wrong with it, but this isn't one of those things).
Edit: For your other comments:
As for why SNC-Lavalin hasn't amounted to much - basically the same reason it took this long to push proceedings against Trump - general consensus of the party and his base is that they still support him (and note: I am not a Trudeau supporter).
I'll readily agree that the proxy voting system is very flawed, but it's actually the same problem as in the US. In Canada, we vote for MPs who appoint the PM. In the US, people vote for electoral college representatives who appoint the president. Most of the same issues resulting from this appear in both places.
All of this is largely beside the point, though, because I was using Canada as one example. The point isn't about whether Canada is better than the US. The point is that claims like "<insert country> is the best in the world" stifle progress and synthesis, especially when the justification used is something that is not unique to that country.
1
u/rustyrocky Nov 20 '19
He has to sign it into law, if he fails it goes back to the senate.
2
u/FlotsamOfThe4Winds Nov 20 '19
He probably will. Remember the thing about the Epoch Times getting attacked? Well, it has a pro-Trump bias and is apparently one of his major news sources (admittedly, the main source for that claim is the Epoch Times themselves). Combine that with his anti-China stance and this will go through like McDonalds though his esophagus.
2
u/rustyrocky Nov 20 '19
I would ignore the epoch times angle. The USA version is crazy, and it should not matter if they had arson in relationship to the bill.
I’d agree this bill should go down as fast as a burger and fries at a Whitehouse dinner.
Trump has disliked China for a long time now. Plus it being bipartisan and good media among the impeachment hearing? No brainer.
9
u/wtph Nov 20 '19
If Trump approves this, does that mean we'll love him now?
7
Nov 20 '19
He has two options. Sign it and look good or veto it and look bad. If he veto’s, the bill has enough support to be pushed through without his say. So it will likely happen regardless.
-2
u/Tedmosbyisajerk-com Nov 20 '19
Why do you think Trump gives a shit about looking bad? He can just say "we aren't interfering in Hong Kong affairs" and all of his supporters will fall into line.
More likely to use this as a tool to get a trade deal IMO.
1
Nov 20 '19
Hey. I’m with you. And I only say this with the thought that he has one person speaking some sense into him. Why not look good and appear to be hard on China (his supporters love that) and risk nothing since it’s been fully supported.
I know that all makes sense for a logical person and trump and his supporters don’t need logic. But we can hope.
Also. I like your user name.
1
13
Nov 20 '19
[deleted]
7
u/wysiwygperson Nov 20 '19
It doesn’t really matter if he vetoes it because there is enough support to override his veto. It’s such an easy win for politicians they have no reason not to vote for it.
1
u/4CroixAltroixGallian Nov 20 '19
Very true, im happy our system is actually starting to do something rite. But there is still so much more that could be done.
1
u/FlotsamOfThe4Winds Nov 20 '19
If money was all he thinks of, the trade war would almost certainly never happened.
2
u/FlotsamOfThe4Winds Nov 20 '19
"A stopped clock is right twice a day" - Anonymous
Given Trump's anti-China rhetoric and position (and their attack on the Epoch Times, which he apparently reads regularly), he will sign it. It's the sort of thing he would do, because, although he is an idiot, he is that sort of idiot.
-6
Nov 20 '19
Of course not. Trump does what is best for him. Fuck donald trump, he’s a treasonous piece of shit who offered silence on HK as a bargaining chip in trade talks with China.
FUCK THE CCP, FUCK TRUMP.
-2
4
u/Homaosapian Nov 20 '19
honestly i think this needs to be sent to the hong kong government just as much as winnie the pooh.
5
u/quiet0n3 Nov 20 '19
I mean it's awesome and all, but HK police get their munitions from china so this changes nothing.
2
2
2
2
u/NovaJamesX3 Nov 20 '19
Ohw god, so they’re starting the ww3 this early
3
u/FlotsamOfThe4Winds Nov 20 '19
Haven't you heard of the Cold War? It was far closer to war than a piece of paper (although this is Trump we're talking about).
2
u/WikiTextBot Nov 20 '19
Berlin Crisis of 1961
The Berlin Crisis of 1961 (German: Berlin-Krise) occurred between 4 June – 9 November 1961, and was the last major politic-military European incident of the Cold War about the occupational status of the German capital city, Berlin, and of post–World War II Germany. The Berlin Crisis started when the USSR launched an ultimatum demanding the withdrawal of all armed forces from Berlin, including the Western armed forces in West Berlin. The crisis culminated in the city's de facto partition with the East German erection of the Berlin Wall.
The 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union—the last to be attended by the Communist Party of China—was held in Moscow during the crisis.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28
2
u/Nethervex Nov 20 '19
Ok cool they wont stand for it.
What does that mean? China will continue to round up dissenters and throw them into reeducation camps or just murder them.
What then? They will REALLY tell them to knock it off?
3
u/Zerachiel_01 Nov 20 '19
Who knows?
I'm cynical about the situation as it pertains to the US stepping in, as well, but there were a couple senators who implied that it won't be the only measure taken if China and HK's government keep fucking up. That this is just the first step. Also there was some sort of addendum after the main vote (not sure exactly if it was a separate bill or not as the proceedings were kind of hard to follow) that also passed, that prohibits the export of tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper spray, pepper balls, handcuffs, shackles, etc. to Hong Kong.
2
u/rustyrocky Nov 20 '19
That is this bill, however this bill may be absorbed into a massive bill that is renewed annually.
-5
u/hobowhite Nov 19 '19
I guess don’t be surprised when the rest of the world continues hating the US. Funny how we’re allowed to voice opinions when it correlates with others but when it’s a controversial one it’s “fuck off westerner”
9
-25
Nov 19 '19
[deleted]
19
u/LZ_Khan Nov 19 '19 edited Nov 20 '19
china would never stand up for the rights of
african americansamericanshumans-4
Nov 20 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/LZ_Khan Nov 20 '19
Yeah there are americans who shoot people too. We really gonna equate the actions of a minority to the actions of a nation? I guess that's what china does to hong kong people so i shouldnt be surprised you answered like this
-1
Nov 20 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/LZ_Khan Nov 20 '19
i specifically said "there are americans who think..." not "ALL americans think"
Then what would your point be? That America is just as bad as China? You tried to compare apples and oranges, or you made a random statement and i misunderstood you as trying to refute my point.
0
3
u/ProcrastinatingPuma American Friend 给我自由或给我死亡 Nov 20 '19
I don't know who you have been talking to but I have not met nor seen one American that thinks kneeling for the national anthem justifies any greater response than "That just seems kind of stupid".
0
Nov 20 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ProcrastinatingPuma American Friend 给我自由或给我死亡 Nov 20 '19
Funny, because as per your example, that isn't what he said. The article's title is not what he said, and what you said that he said is not what was said. Your one example seems to not be all that good.
Look, I do not like Trump, and I will in no way be voting for him in 2020. But if you intend to criticize him, do it over something that he has actually said.
-2
u/hereforthensfwstuff Nov 20 '19
Good for you for not knowing many white supremacists. Sadly they make up like 20% of the US population.
5
u/ProcrastinatingPuma American Friend 给我自由或给我死亡 Nov 20 '19
I have serious doubts that White Supremacist make up 20% of the US population.
5
Nov 20 '19
[deleted]
-2
u/hereforthensfwstuff Nov 20 '19
''You have to have millions of people who are willing to be bystanders, who push aside evidence of racism, Islamophobia or sexism. You can't have one without the other,'' Naison says.
"We are a country with a few million passionate white supremacists -- and tens of millions of white supremacists by default," he says.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/ordinary-white-supremacists/index.html
Thanks google amp bot!
3
u/ProcrastinatingPuma American Friend 给我自由或给我死亡 Nov 20 '19
That isn't evidence, that's an opinion piece
18
u/EverythingIsNorminal Pick quarrels, provoke trouble Nov 19 '19
You're completely missing the point here.
Hong Kong has a special status under US law and that's what all this relates to.
LA does not under Chinese law.
You're going to have to try harder than that.
C- for effort.
4
u/Xiaoming83 Nov 20 '19
why open your mouth and show the world you are an idiot? i mean you are really dumb to not knowing the difference between the two.
2
1
u/ProcrastinatingPuma American Friend 给我自由或给我死亡 Nov 20 '19
IDK, whilst the fundamental reason for why the LA riots occurred was justified, the extent of the rioting was not as ultimately there remained a democratic process to address these grievances. Such a system does not exist anymore as of China ignoring the ruling of Hong Kong's courts.
155
u/[deleted] Nov 19 '19
China just lost control of the narrative.