US policy to Hong Kong after its handover to China

This article studies evolvement of the United States’ post-colonial Hong Kong (HK) policy from liberalism to realism. The author considers factors influencing this policy and differences between the White House/State Department and Congress in assessment of and reaction to developments in HK and responses to them. In 1992 Congress passed the United States-HK Policy Act which treated HK as a non-sovereign entity distinct from China, made the US a quasi-guarantor of HK’s autonomy and provided a framework for the advancement of US’s grand liberal strategy towards HK in pursuit of promotion of Western-style democracy in this special administrative region of China. During the first seventeen years after HK’s handover to China the US government paid little attention to HK and avoided public criticism of HK and China’s authorities over slow pace of territory’s democratization while some prominent anti-China hawks in Congress were unrestrained in such criticism. Pro-democracy protests of 2014 in HK did not alter US government’s cautious approach to HK. The Obama administration probably hoped for gradual democratic reforms in HK. Washington’s policy towards HK made a dramatic turn in 2018 on the back of rapidly deteriorating Sino-US relations after Donald Trump came to power. The Trump administration was disillusioned with the liberal agenda and was very eager to actively play a HK card against Beijing. Large scale 2019 protests/riots in HK, challenging China’s sovereignty over the territory, were publicly supported and in fact encouraged by top officials of the Trump administration and prominent Congressmen. After Beijing imposed the national security law (NSL) on HK in June 2020 anti-government movement was crashed. This prompted Trump to strip HK of certain privileges under the HK Policy Act. Due to NSL Washington lost many HK allies, its influence in the territory diminished and its ability to promote American democracy agenda was hampered. NSL signifies a final transition from American liberal strategy to realism vis-à-vis HK which is now fully covered by US’s China containment strategy. Washington will likely reduce its economic exposure to HK and use deep-seated anti-Beijing attitudes of some Hongkongers to undermine stability of this vulnerable territory of China.

1. Bush R. (2016). Hong Kong in the Shadow of China: Living with the Leviathan. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. 400 p.

2. Bush R. (2020). The place Hong Kong and Taiwan in the Asia policies of the Trump Administration. In: Fong B.C.H., Wu J., Nathan A.J. (eds.) China’s influence and the Center-periphery Tug of War in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Indo-Pacific. Routledge. P. 348–358.

3. Deng Xiaoping. (2004). On One Country, Two Systems. Hong Kong: Joint Publishing. 177 p.

4. Cai D. (2001). Xianggang huigui yu zhong mei guanxi [Hong Kong's return and Sino-US relations].

5. Shenzhen daxue xuebao (renwen shehui kexue ban) [Journal of Shenzhen University (Humanities and Social Sciences)]. Vol. 178. No. 1. P. 58–64.

6. Ikenberry J. (2011). Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 392 p.

7. Ikenberry J. (2019). After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars. New Edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press. 336 p.

8. Ikenberry J. (2020). A World Safe for Democracy: Liberal Internationalism and the Crises of Global Order. New Haven: Yale University Press. 432 p.

9. Ikenberry J. (2022). The Real Liberal Bet. Foreign Affairs. Vol. 101. No. 2. P. 172–175.

10. Ikenberry J., Mastanduno M. (2003a). International Relations Theory and the Search for Regional Stability. In: Ikenberry J., Mastanduno M. (eds.) International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific. New York: Columbia University Press. P. 1–22.

11. Ikenberry J., Mastanduno M. (2003b). Images of Order in the Asia-Pacific and the Role of the United States. In: Ikenberry J., Mastanduno M. (eds.) International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific. New York: Columbia University Press. P. 421–440.

12. Kastner J., Wohlforth W. (2021). A Measure Short of War. Foreign Affairs. Vol. 100. No. 4. P. 118–131.

13. Li H. (2016). Nian meiguo dui gang zhengce bianhua ji gu (Changes in U.S. policy towards Hong Kong and its assessment). Xiandai guoji guanxi (Modern International Relations). No. 2. P. 24–31.

14. Martin M. (2011). Prospects for Democracy in Hong Kong: The 2012 Election Reforms. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. 15 p. URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40992.pdf (accessed: 19.04.2021).

15. Mearsheimer J. (2014). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 592 p.

16. Mearsheimer J. (2018). The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities. New Haven: Yale University Press. 328 p.

17. Mearsheimer J. (2019). Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order. International Security. Vol. 43. No. 4. P. 7–50.

18. Summers T. (2019). China's Hong Kong: The Politics of a Global City (Business with China). Agenda Publishing. 176 p.

19. Tong K. (2021). Hong Kong and the Limits of Decoupling. Foreign Affairs. URL: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/asia/2021-07-14/hong-kong-and-limits-decoupling (accessed: 18.07.2021).

20. Tucker N. (1994). Taiwan, Hong Kong and the United States, 1945–1992: Uncertain Friendship. New York: Twayne Publishers. 339 p.

21. Vukovich D. (2019). Illiberal China: The Ideological Challenge of the People's Republic of China (China in Transformation). London: Palgrave Macmillan. 310 p.

22. Vukovich D. (2020). A city and a SAR on fire: as if everything and nothing changes.Critical Asian Studies. Vol. 52. No. 1. P. 1–17.

23. White L. (2016). Democratization in Hong Kong – and China? Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 275 p.

24. Xu S. (2016). Hong Kong In The World: Implications To Geopolitics And Competitiveness. London: Imperial College Press. 344 p.