11
So I think so long as the statements of objective are fairly consistent with what we understand to be the joint declaration, that that is something we properly can do. My point was a little bit, I suppose more legalistic and technical that when it gets into what exactly the joint declaration means in a given case, this is something on which we're on fairly shakey ground because ultimately it's the two parties who can decide what it means and there are some questions of interpretation and so forth, and we might want to stay from that and just focus on what we think the object is and ought to be.
SEN. MCCONNELL: Okay. The goal of Title II is to ensure that the U.S. can continue to treat Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy. As has been promised in the joint declaration after 1997. I gather you share than goal?
MR. SOLOMON :
Absolutely.
SEN. MCCONNELL: Is it your view that it will be necessary to change U.S. law in order to accomplish that?
MS. SELBY: As we discussed earlier, continuation without change of current U.S.
domestic statutes could potentially require after reversions, changes in the way the United States and U.S. citizens treat Hong Kong that would be to Hong Kong's disadvantage. Since this is not consistent with either U.S., UK,
UK, Chinese, or Hong Kong's desires, we think Our laws should be changed unambigiously permit granting
granting Hong Kong the same favorable treatment after reversion as before.
as
SO as to
SEN. MCCONNELL: The U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act requires the U.S. to treat Hong Kong after 1997 a separate territory, much in the same manner it treats Hong Kong before and on June 30, 1997. Do you consider this an appropriate requirement?
MS. SELBY: I might say as a general objective, I think we're in agreement with it. From a technical point of view we're concerned that some of the provisions set an inflexible rule and that that could end up damaging U.S. national interests and national security.
While we hope that Hong Kong will, in fact, exercise a high degree of autonomy, we cannot now be certain what this will mean in practice. Since Hong Kong will be part of China and under some degree of PRC control, we believe that our laws should grant the U.S. government the discretion to fashion appropriate treatment in appropriate cases.
For one example, in the area of export controls, the U.S. should have flexibility to set rules that accurately reflect the degree to which Hong Kong is able to control autonomously sensitive technologies exported from the U.S..
We also believe that by continuing treatment that benefits both Hong Kong and China, only so long as Hong Kong in fact exercises
Page 15Page 16