The White House will tie the China-US negotiations and Hong Kong to the meaning of the ultimate Chinese warning.

In this regard, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National People’s Congress of China, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council, the Hong Kong Liaison Office, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have successively expressed their criticisms of the US’s “extreme hypocrisy on human rights and democracy, naked double standards, and anti-China chaos.” The sinister intentions, and “selling”, “suggesting” and “warning” the US side, “If the US is willing to go its own way, China will take effective measures to resolutely counter it.” The head of the Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong also has to “encourage the US to sneak out on the brink, otherwise it will be self-sufficient. It is not a matter of words!” The People’s Daily newspaper said, “Don’t presume!” “For the title, these words are sorted out and released.

It should be known that “not to be prejudiced” is a very high-level warning in the official Chinese context, which means that “there will be strong counter-measures that will not be stopped.” At present, several major institutions in China have responded at the same time, and the degree of emphasis can be seen.

The United States cannot ignore the Chinese warning

However, how the Chinese side speaks is one thing, and how the US side reacts is another matter.

In promoting the “Hong Kong Bill of Rights on Human Rights and Democracy”, US policymakers may not feel that they are so convinced that they understand the “ultimate warning” of the Chinese side. “I don’t have to listen to what you are saying, I only know that I need to say what I need to say” – for many US officials such as Vice President Burns and Senator Marco Rubio, this should It is their heart. The point is the word “need”.

Undoubtedly, the US officials’ comments on Hong Kong over the past few months have clearly interfered in China’s internal affairs. However, under the current “politically correct” public opinion system in the United States, such statements are also essential to “speak for democracy.” Pengs and others made such statements not only to show their “toughness” and “holding to the society.” “Standing” is also to “stand by and watch” by not being accused by domestic public opinion.

The Chinese side can of course criticize the United States for “roughly interfering in China’s internal affairs.” However, under the current situation in Hong Kong and China-US relations, US officials will not be criticized domestically. This is the current state of politics in the United States today.

Therefore, it can be asserted that the Hong Kong Bill of Rights on Human Rights and Democracy will be further promoted. The US Congress will unify the two versions of the House of Representatives, and the President will also sign it. The US will also categorically ignore the Chinese ultimate warning of “not to be prejudiced.” Then, why should China, which must have made some predictions, publish such a high-profile statement?

What is “powerful countermeasures”?

First of all, just as the US must make a statement about Hong Kong in accordance with domestic political correctness, China must also clearly state its position. The situation in Hong Kong is such that the United States has thrown out the attitude of the United States. Seven million people in Hong Kong, 1.4 billion people in the country, and 7 billion people in the world are watching the Chinese side’s position. At this time, Beijing’s silence is unreasonable. Considering the current situation of the China-US game, if the Chinese side remains silent, it may be regarded as “softening”, thus allowing the US to take tougher measures.

Secondly, the Chinese side’s statement that “not to be prejudiced” and “will take strong measures to counter” is not to be said. However, the targets of its “powerful measures” also need to be subdivided.

After passing the bill, the US Congress and the White House believe that various US government agencies will use this bill as a basis to formulate a series of corresponding measures, some of which are politically correct symbolic measures, and some of which will have practical effects, such as the US Secretary of State’s annual review. Whether nuclear Hong Kong should enjoy “free trade zone” treatment, such as sanctions against Chinese and Hong Kong people and entities that violate “human rights violations”, including visa refusal, property freeze and accountability.

However, whether the US will promote these substantive sanctions at that time will depend on the intensity of the US-China game. The counter-measures adopted by the Chinese side at that time will also be equal.

For the current two houses of the United States and the White House to pass the Hong Kong Bill of Rights on Human Rights and Democracy, which is not too meaningful, the Chinese side predicts that it will only be countered by symbolic measures that do not have much practical significance. However, if the various agencies of the United States implement the substantive measures against China in accordance with the Act in the future, China will also make corresponding substantive counter-measures against those substantive measures.

The so-called “do not presume not to presume”, this should be the intention.