*APR 01 '92 16:23 AMCONGEN/HK/ADM 852 845 1598
P.7/8
80,000 people per year were moving in; which reported vast capital flight from Hong Kong when in fact gross capital formation was at a level comparable to Japan (and incomparably higher than at any time in recent U.S. history); that American companies were fleeing Hong Kong in large numbers when in fact there was a substantial net move into Hong Kong; and reported a big shift to Singapore when in fact the only data we have suggest that a lot more Singaporeans were moving to Hong Kong than vice versa. Some newspapers have also alleged in a number of instances that China had broken the Joint Declaration when in fact Chinese implementation of the Joint Declaration has been quite conscientious even though its interpretations didn't suit certain interests.
In fact, the China-Hong Kong relationship is going well, Hong Kong is experiencing a boom, and freedom is alive and well in Hong Kong. The appropriate role for the U.S. is to endorse the Joint Declaration which is the basis of this success and to write the implementing legislation for the U.S. contribution to maintaining the success.
In the context of the debate which preceded it, the detailed reiteration of certain parts of the Joint Declaration in the Findings section does not serve American interests. It seems to select out certain parts of the Declaration at the possible expense of others, and it appears to China as an implicit effort to insert the U.S. as an enforcer of certain parts of the Joint Declaration. It would avoid misunderstanding if the findings simply expressed Congressional support for the Joint Declaration (the whole Joint Declaration) and enthusiasm for full implementation of it, without ponderously reiterating selected parts of it. This amendment would not make any substantive change in what Congress supports but would clear the air.
Title III. Reporting Requirements. The requirement of an annual report by the President of the United States on the status of implementation of the Joint Declaration will not serve either U.S. or Hong Kong interests. Having the President undertake such a report is not like hiring a consultant to do some research. It engages the machinery of the U.S. government in detailed interpretation, debate, and publicity over the affairs of a foreign government. Invariably such involvement is deeply resented by whatever foreign government is affected. The detailed implementation of the Joint Declaration is a matter between Britain and China until 1997 and after that is an internal matter for China.
We as a country should be very cautious about involving ourselves unnecessarily in the internal affairs of foreign countries. We are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, and any serious, involvement risks misunderstanding, unnecessary conflict, squandering of our national resources, and retaliation against our interests. When is intervention in the affairs of another state appropriate? When do we have a legitimate interest in the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the U.S. Trade Representative involving themselves in the implementation of another country's policies? There are certainly cases where it does seem appropriate, namely cases of gross abuse of human rights by a foreign country, threats to the peace, and threats to major American interests, or a clear and present danger of such threats arising.
5