Kong is continued foreign, particularly American, investment
there. As long as foreign companies keep the engines of growth
going in Hong Kong (and they will only do so if the environment--
both economic and socio/political--is good), then Hong Kong
residents will feel more secure and Beijing will be further
constrained from "killing the golden goose" and from antagonizing
all its other global trading partners as well. Once again,
however, legislation in Washington cannot mandate the involvement
of American (much less foreign) firms in Hong Kong.
3) And finally, external cultural and educational involvement in Hong Kong is critical, but only marginally under the influence
of American legislation. Government exchanges like the Fulbright Program should be expanded and encouragement should be given to American educational and other non-profit organizations to become
more involved there. In the end, however, these decisions, for
the most part, reside in the private sector.
Even though some of the most important ways in which to increase Hong Kong's velfare lie well outside the purview of the proposed legislation, such legislation can serve two important functions: 1) To express the desire of the American government and citisenry that the 1984 Joint Declaration between the PRC and Great Britain (and Beijing's Basic Law promulgated in 1990) be faithfully implemented; and 2), To assure that domestic law in the United States is adapted to avoid disruption of vital links between Hong Kong and the United States with Beijing's July 1,
1997 assumption of sovereignty.
10