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.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with