DOCSLIB.ORG

Guía COL MUN 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guía COL MUN 2021 CNCMUN IV Background Guide Council of Leaders COL Presidents: Gabriel Hernández and Isabella Ospina Gabriela Conde and Tomás Ortiz Executive editors Gabriel Hernández Isabella Ospina Sub-editor Sub-editor Table of contents I. Letter from the chair II. Introduction to the committee III. First agenda: Middle East and Israel Conflict A. Introduction B. History C. Current Situation i. Right of return ii. Security and Terrorism D. Different Perspectives IV Second agenda: Iran and USA crisis A. Introduction B. History i. Precedents of the Iran-U.S.A. relation ii. Incidents iii. Nuclear weapons development C. Current Situation D. Different Perspectives V. Information of Mandatory Revision VI. QARMA’S (Questions a Resolution Must Answer) VII. Bibliography I. Letter from the chair Estimated delegates, We are Gabriel Hernández and Isabella Ospina, and as presidents of the committee of Council of Leaders, we’d like to extend to you a warm welcome to the 4th edition of CNCMUN. This time, the topics to be discussed are related to the Middle East conflict with other countries such as Israel and the United States - Iran crisis. We are appreciative to receive delegates that are open to an active participation and take this as learning and enriching experience. We are looking forward to achieve this committee's goals and make this a joyful experience for everyone. We are expecting to see you soon. II. Introduction to the committee Council of leaders is an experimental committee in the Model of United Nations that consists in setting out a scene in which world leaders with greater significance discuss and debate about current controversial and important issues. The delegates will have to represent presidents, prime ministers and other important mandataries, in order to give a prompt solution to problems following democracy parameters as well as human rights. III. First agenda: Middle East and Israel Conflict A. Introduction The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the ongoing struggle between Israelis and Palestinians that began in the mid-20th century. Various attempts have been made to resolve the conflict as part of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, with only partial success, as at the end of 2019. The origins of their enmity can be traced back to Jewish immigration and sectarian conflict in Mandatory Palestine between Jews and Arabs. It has been referred to as the world's "Most intractable conflict", with the ongoing Israeli occupation of the West Bank1 and the Gaza Strip2 reaching 53 years. Despite a long-term peace process and the general reconciliation of Israel with Egypt and Jordan, Israelis and Palestinians have failed to reach a final peace agreement. The key issues are: mutual recognition, borders, security, water rights, control of Jerusalem, Israeli settlements, Palestinian freedom of movement, and Palestinian right of return. The violence of the dispute, in a region full of sites of historic, cultural and religious interest worldwide, has been the object of numerous international conferences dealing with historic rights, security issues and human rights, and has been a factor hampering tourism in and general access to areas that are hotly contested. Many attempts have been made to broker a two-state solution, involving the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel. In 2007, the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians, according to a number of polls, preferred the two-state solution over any other solution as a means of resolving the conflict (Rivers, 2019). A majority of Jews see the Palestinians' demand for an independent state as just, and think Israel can agree to the establishment of such a state. The majority of Palestinians and Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have also expressed a preference for a two-state solution. Yet, within Israeli and Palestinian society, the antagonism generates a wide variety of views and opinions. This highlights the deep divisions which exist not only between Israelis and 1 Area of Palestine, claimed from 1949 to 1988 as part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan but occupied from 1967 by Israel. Also known as Judea. 2 Is a self-governing Palestinian territory that borders Egypt on the southwest and Israel on the east and north. Palestinians, but also within each society. A hallmark of their enmity has been the level of violence witnessed for virtually its entire duration. There are prominent international actors involved in the conflict. The two parties engaged in direct negotiation are the Israeli government, currently led by Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Palestine Liberation Organization, currently headed by Mahmoud Abbas. Since 2006, the Palestinian side has been fractured due to the animosity between the two major factions: Fatah, the traditionally dominant party, and it's later electoral challenger, Hamas. After Hamas's electoral victory in 2006, the Quartet conditioned future foreign assistance to the Palestinian National Authority on the future government's commitment to nonviolence, recognition of the State of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements. Hamas rejected these demands, which resulted in the Quartet's suspension of its foreign assistance program, and the imposition of economic sanctions due to the Israelis. The division of governance between the parties had effectively resulted in the collapse of bipartisan governance of the PA. However, in 2014, a Palestinian Unity Government, composed of both Fatah and Hamas, was formed. B. History The confrontations between Israel and Palestine commenced with a religious controversy, with the jewish migration to Palestine after World War II, and the rivalry between jews and arabs. Following the war and the Holocaust, in 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, which called for the creation of two separate Jewish and Arab states. The other eastern Arab nations refused to recognize Israel as a legitimate state. Therefore, a day after Israel declared itself an independent state, in May 1948, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq attempted to invade it. Israel was able to repel the invasion, but took land that was originally reserved for Arab Palestinians in the process, creating a large Palestinian refugee crisis. Later, in 1967, there was an attack from the United Arab Republic3, it was called the Six-Day War because it only took Israel 6 days to win and take over even more territory. Afterwards, in 1973, Egypt, Syria and Jordan invaded them again, but this time, after Israel claimed victory, they signed a peace treaty with Egypt. 14 years later, particular episodes of violence led to a Palestinian uprising, also known as the first Palestinian intifada4, in territories occupied by Israel on December 9th. The first intifada started when an Israeli army truck ran into a group of Palestinians near a refugee camp in the 3 Political Union between Syria and Egypt between 1958 and 1961. 4 Intifada is an Arabic word derived from a verb meaning "to shake off," and is the term used to describe the two major uprisings against Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Gaza strip, leaving four deaths and 7 wounded. Two days later, a jewish salesman was found stabbed to death in Gaza. Mutual blaming between Israelis and Palestinians rose tensions and caused the riots that persisted for a long time. Eventually, the violence escalated on different territories, but especially in the city of Gaza. Later in 1993, it ended (Neff, 1997). Then, in September 2000, the second intifada, also known as al-Aqsa Intifada, started. After Ariel Sharon5's visit to Jerusalem, next to a thousand armed personnel, the Palestinians saw “an attempt to take control of the Noble Sanctuary, the third holiest site in Islam” (Neff, 1997b) . The founding of Israel was followed Later in decades of fighting and terrorism, from the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the 1967 Six-Day War to the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and the First and Second Intifadas. As a result of these, thousands of people have died and millions more have suffered, with an entire population becoming refugees. Attempts were made to end the disputes and bring peace to both sides. 5 An israeli general and politician In 1993, Israeli and Palestinian leaders met to negotiate a potential peace agreement called the Oslo Accords. Although this did not bring peace, it did kick off years of diplomatic efforts to end the hostility, which is referred to as the peace process. The international community has taken many actions to assist Israel and Palestine find peace. In the UN Security Council, the most recent resolution adopted on the situation was in 2009, Resolution 1860, which “called for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.” More recently, in September 2012, the President of the Security Council issued a statement describing the latest efforts to restart peace talks. With the larger UN family, the UN Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) is responsible for delivering humanitarian aid to Palestinian refugees. UNRWA provides education, health, relief and social services to over 5 million Palestinian refugees living in countries across the Middle East, including Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, and areas of Palestine, including the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. In addition to the UN, numerous NGOs address the Israeli-Palestinian animosity. For example, Breaking the Silence is one NGO that comprises “veteran combatants who have served in the Israeli military since the start of the Second Intifada, and have taken it upon themselves to expose the Israeli public to the reality of everyday life in the Occupied Territories.” C. Current Situation Today, the peace process revolves around negotiations between Israeli leaders, led later in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Palestinian leaders, led later in President Mahmoud Abbas. Within Israel, Netanyahu faces problematic pressures from his own political party, opposing political parties, and Israeli citizens.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Iran's Gray Zone Strategy
    Iran’s Gray Zone Strategy Cornerstone of its Asymmetric Way of War By Michael Eisenstadt* ince the creation of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Iran has distinguished itself (along with Russia and China) as one of the world’s foremost “gray zone” actors.1 For nearly four decades, however, the United States has struggled to respond effectively to this asymmetric “way of war.” Washington has often Streated Tehran with caution and granted it significant leeway in the conduct of its gray zone activities due to fears that U.S. pushback would lead to “all-out” war—fears that the Islamic Republic actively encourages. Yet, the very purpose of this modus operandi is to enable Iran to pursue its interests and advance its anti-status quo agenda while avoiding escalation that could lead to a wider conflict. Because of the potentially high costs of war—especially in a proliferated world—gray zone conflicts are likely to become increasingly common in the years to come. For this reason, it is more important than ever for the United States to understand the logic underpinning these types of activities, in all their manifestations. Gray Zone, Asymmetric, and Hybrid “Ways of War” in Iran’s Strategy Gray zone warfare, asymmetric warfare, and hybrid warfare are terms that are often used interchangeably, but they refer neither to discrete forms of warfare, nor should they be used interchangeably—as they often (incor- rectly) are. Rather, these terms refer to that aspect of strategy that concerns how states employ ways and means to achieve national security policy ends.2 Means refer to the diplomatic, informational, military, economic, and cyber instruments of national power; ways describe how these means are employed to achieve the ends of strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Coming Iran Nuclear Talks Openings and Obstacles
    The Coming Iran Nuclear Talks Openings and Obstacles DENNIS ROSS January 2021 he Middle East will not be a priority in the Biden administration’s approach to foreign policy. But the T Iranian nuclear program will require a response.* With the Iranian parliament having adopted legislation mandating uranium enrichment to 20 percent and suspension of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections if sanctions are not lifted by February 2020 in response to the targeted killing of Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh— and with Iran now having accumulated twelve times the low-enriched uranium permitted under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—the administration will have to deal with the Iranian challenge.1 To be sure, the nuclear program and its potential to make Iran a nuclear weapons state are not the only challenges the Islamic Republic poses: the regime’s ballistic missile program and destabilizing and aggressive behavior in the region threaten conflicts that can escalate both vertically and horizontally. But it is the nuclear program that is most pressing. *The author would like to thank a number of his Washington Institute colleagues—Katherine Bauer, Patrick Clawson, Michael Eisenstadt, Barbara Leaf, Matthew Levitt, David Makovsky, David Pollock, Robert Satloff, and Michael Singh—for the helpful comments they provided as he prepared this paper. He also wants to give special thanks to several people outside the Institute—Robert Einhorn, Richard Nephew, David Petraeus, Norman Roule, and Karim Sadjadpour—for the thoughtful comments
    [Show full text]
  • Iran and Israel's National Security in the Aftermath of 2003 Regime Change in Iraq
    Durham E-Theses IRAN AND ISRAEL'S NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE AFTERMATH OF 2003 REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ ALOTHAIMIN, IBRAHIM,ABDULRAHMAN,I How to cite: ALOTHAIMIN, IBRAHIM,ABDULRAHMAN,I (2012) IRAN AND ISRAEL'S NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE AFTERMATH OF 2003 REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ , Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4445/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 . IRAN AND ISRAEL’S NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE AFTERMATH OF 2003 REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ BY: IBRAHIM A. ALOTHAIMIN A thesis submitted to Durham University in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy DURHAM UNIVERSITY GOVERNMENT AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS March 2012 1 2 Abstract Following the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran has continued to pose a serious security threat to Israel.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue No. 486 AUGUST 2021
    Issue Brief ISSUE NO. 486 AUGUST 2021 © 2021 Observer Research Foundation. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, copied, archived, retained or transmitted through print, speech or electronic media without prior written approval from ORF. The Limits of Military Coercion in Halting Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Programme Kunal Singh Abstract Israel believes that the use of force is essential to stopping Iran from making the nuclear bomb. A vocal section of the strategic affairs community in the United States agrees with the proposition. This brief argues that military means are unlikely to sabotage the nuclear weapons programme of an advanced-stage bomb-seeker like Iran. Moreover, use of force could be counterproductive as it can incentivise Iran’s pursuit of the bomb, and it may erode the confidence required for diplomatic negotiations that can possibly help cease the weapons programme. Attribution: Kunal Singh, “The Limits of Military Coercion in Halting Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Programme,” ORF Issue Brief No. 486, August 2021, Observer Research Foundation. 01 n early April in Vienna, the Biden administration initiated efforts with Iran to reinstate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), more commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, from which the United States (US) had exited during the tenure of former US President Donald Trump. A week later, an explosion at Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment Ifacility caused a power blackout. Israel, the state most vocally opposed to the JCPOA, is widely believed to have
    [Show full text]
  • News of Terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (November 25 – December 1, 2020)
    רמה כ ז מל ו תשר מה ו ד י ע י ן ( למ מ" ) כרמ ז מה י עד מל ו ד י ע י ן ול רט ו ר News of Terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (November 25 – December 1, 2020) Overview In the Gaza Strip, as well as in Judea and Samaria the sharp rise in the number of active Covid-19 cases continues. As of December 1, 2020, there were 9,627 active cases in the Gaza Strip and 11,692 in Judea and Samaria. While Hamas continues implementing local and regional preventive measures, the Palestinian Authority (PA) announced it would again impose a full lockdown throughout its territories over the coming weekend. So far the preventive measures taken by Hamas and the PA do not appear to be effective, mainly because the local populations violate them extensively. This past week the Gaza Strip was quiet. In Judea and Samaria a ramming attack was carried out at the al-Za'im roadblock, east of Jerusalem. The terrorist was shot and killed. On the roads in Judea and Samaria there has been a considerable increase in the number of stones, rocks and Molotov cocktails thrown at civilian vehicles, including civilian buses. Following the renewal of civilian and security coordination between the PA and Israel, the PA has been looking for creative ways to circumvent Israel's objection to the transfer of salaries to Palestinian terrorist prisoners and the families of shaheeds. In the meantime the Israeli media reported that on November 29, 2020, Israel's political-security cabinet authorized the transfer of 2.5 billion shekels (about $760 million) to the PA.
    [Show full text]
  • Reimagining US Strategy in the Middle East
    REIMAGININGR I A I I G U.S.S STRATEGYT A E Y IIN THET E MMIDDLED L EEASTS Sustainable Partnerships, Strategic Investments Dalia Dassa Kaye, Linda Robinson, Jeffrey Martini, Nathan Vest, Ashley L. Rhoades C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RRA958-1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0662-0 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. 2021 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover composite design: Jessica Arana Image: wael alreweie / Getty Images Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Containing Iran: Strategies for Addressing the Iranian Nuclear Challenge Met Through Patient and Forward-Looking Policymaking
    CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that EDUCATION AND THE ARTS helps improve policy and decisionmaking through ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT research and analysis. HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from INFRASTRUCTURE AND www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND TRANSPORTATION Corporation. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS NATIONAL SECURITY Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Support RAND Purchase this document TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY Browse Reports & Bookstore Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND Corporation View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. Containing Iran Strategies for Addressing the Iranian Nuclear Challenge Robert J. Reardon Supported by the Stanton Foundation C O R P O R A T I O N The research described in this report was supported by the Stanton Foundation.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining 10 Warning Signs of Iran Nuclear Weapons Development
    International Committee In Search of Justice (ISJ) President: Dr. Alejo Vidal-Quadras Rue d’Arlon 63, B-1040 Brussels Belgium Tel : +32 2 400 1071 [email protected] www.isjcommittee.com EXAMINING 10 WARNING SIGNS OF IRAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 20,2014 Dr. Alejo Vidal Quadras, Former Vice‐President of European Parliament, Professor of Atomic and Nuclear Physics: “An objective, thoroughly researched report on the core issue of the nature of Iranian nuclear program and its status”. Bob Jospeh, Former US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Senior White House Security Council staff on weapons of mass destruction: “A critically important report at a critically important time”. John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security: "A timely and well document report with alarming findings on Iran's nuclear program." Contents Executive summary Chapter 1: SPND (organ in charge of weaponization) Chapter 2: Procurement of dual purpose equipment and its possible use for military dimensions of nuclear program Chapter 3: Secret enrichment of uranium Chapter 4: Enrichment using laser technology Chapter 5: High explosives tests and trigger mechanism Chapter 6: Neutron initiator Chapter 7: Manufacturing uranium metal (uranium hemisphere) Chapter 8: Hydro-dynamic tests and explosion vessels at Parchin site Chapter 9: Research on nuclear warhead Chapter 10: Key scientists and researchers engaged in possible military dimensions of nuclear program International Committee In Search of Justice (ISJ) was initially formed in 2008 as an informal group of EU parliamentarians to seek justice for the Iranian democratic opposition.
    [Show full text]
  • INSS Insight No. 1409, December 2, 2020 the Assassination of Fakhrizadeh: Considerations and Consequences
    INSS Insight No. 1409, December 2, 2020 The Assassination of Fakhrizadeh: Considerations and Consequences Amos Yadlin and Assaf Orion The assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizada invites six questions: Who is responsible for the act? What was the objective? Why now? What are the consequences of the assassination? How will Iran respond? What is the recommended policy for Israel in light of this development? This article contends that barring narrow political considerations, whoever ordered Fakhrizadeh's assassination apparently tried to achieve three strategic objectives: damage Iran's nuclear program; obstruct the Biden administration's return to the nuclear agreement; and perhaps, though less likely, encourage an escalation that would result in a US attack on Iran's nuclear sites. The first objective seems to have been achieved, although the response to the assassination is still ahead and may exact a costly price. Attainment of the other two goals depends heavily on the Iranian response, but in any case, these are far- reaching objectives with slimmer chances of realization. The year 2020 began with the assassination of Revolutionary Guards General Qassem Soleimani, and approached its close with the assassination of Revolutionary Guards General Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. Soleimani was the commander of the Quds Force and led Iran's strategic effort for regional hegemony, primarily through subversive diplomacy, proxy warfare, and arms proliferation. Fakhrizadeh led Iran's second strategic effort – the pursuit of nuclear weapons. The assassination of Fakhrizadeh invites six questions: Who is responsible for the act? What was the objective? Why now? What are the consequences of the assassination? How will Iran respond? What is the recommended policy for Israel in light of this development? The United States took public responsibility for the killing of General Qassem Soleimani and in response suffered an Iranian barrage of missiles fired at an American base in Iraq.
    [Show full text]
  • SOUTHERNNEWS VOLUME 59 ISSUE 1 SPRING 2014 Publisher for ALUMNI and FRIENDS of FLORIDA SOUTHERN COLLEGE Dr
    OUTHERNNEWS FOR ALUMNI AND FRIENDS OF FLORIDA SOUTHERN COLLEGE S VOLUME 59 • ISSUE 1 • SPRING 2014 GREAT EXPLORATIONS: The sciences take center stage at Florida Southern BUILDING HISTORY: The Sharp Family Tourism & Education Center launches a new era of tourism SPRING 2014 | 1 A letter from the president It’s appropriate that this issue comes to you in spring, a time of renewal and growth, as Florida Southern College is in the midst of a remarkable renaissance. New programs, new people, and new construction contribute to a spirit of excitement and momentum that can be felt in every corner of campus. One of the most significant developments this year was the grand opening of the Sharp Family Tourism and Education Center in October. This spectacular facility serves as the visitors’ center for our renowned collection of Frank Lloyd Wright-designed buildings, a collection that now boasts a thirteenth structure based on an original Wright design, the Usonian House. It is a stunning example of his work, and already it has attracted attention and acclaim from tourists and architecture enthusiasts around the world. The photos and article that appear inside this issue will give you just a glimpse of the Sharp Center, but to truly experience it, you must come and visit! Another construction project that is well underway goes hand in hand with a new emphasis on the performing arts at FSC: the Wynee Warden Dance Studio will be completed later this year, and it will be a wonderful home for our new program in dance. Already, we have launched a new musical theater major that will benefit from the studio’s vibrant rehearsal space.
    [Show full text]
  • Top US Officials Threaten Action on China Over Hong Kong Security
    Top U.S. Officials Threaten Action on China Over Hong Kong Secu... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/world/asia/trump-pompeo-c... https://nyti.ms/2AWe9KZ Top U.S. Officials Threaten Action on China Over Hong Kong Security Law Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the White House economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, signaled the Trump administration would punish China. By Michael Crowley, Edward Wong and Ana Swanson May 22, 2020 WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Friday that a broad new security measure proposed by China would amount to a “death knell” for Hong Kong’s political freedoms, as Trump administration officials warned of punishments — possibly including revoking the territory’s special economic and trading status. A move by the United States to end that special status would subject goods from Hong Kong to the same American tariffs now applied to ones from mainland China. Other economic and visa restrictions that Washington has imposed on China would also be applied to the semiautonomous territory. That could deal a major blow to Hong Kong’s historic role as a base for multinational companies that command global lanes of trade and commerce from a cluster of skyscrapers on the edge of the South China Sea. It would also deepen the sense of crisis forming around United States-China relations — now at their worst point in decades — in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic and a 2020 presidential campaign in which China already features prominently. “If Hong Kong loses preferential trade treatment, U.S. tariffs and export controls on China would apply to Hong Kong,” said Ryan Hass, a senior Asia director on President Barack Obama’s National Security Council and former diplomat who is now at the Brookings Institution.
    [Show full text]
  • September 4, 2019 Hearing Transcript
    HEARING ON U.S.-CHINA RELATIONS IN 2019: A YEAR IN REVIEW HEARING BEFORE THE U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2019 Printed for use of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission Available via the World Wide Web: www.uscc.gov UNITED STATES-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION WASHINGTON: 2019 U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION CAROLYN BARTHOLOMEW, CHAIRMAN ROBIN CLEVELAND, VICE CHAIRMAN Commissioners: ANDREAS A. BORGEAS KENNETH LEWIS JEFFREY L. FIEDLER MICHAEL A. MCDEVITT HON. CARTE P. GOODWIN HON. JAMES M. TALENT ROY D. KAMPHAUSEN MICHAEL R. WESSEL THEA MEI LEE LARRY M. WORTZEL The Commission was created on October 30, 2000 by the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for 2001 § 1238, Public Law No. 106-398, 114 STAT. 1654A-334 (2000) (codified at 22 U.S.C. § 7002 (2001), as amended by the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for 2002 § 645 (regarding employment status of staff) & § 648 (regarding changing annual report due date from March to June), Public Law No. 107-67, 115 STAT. 514 (Nov. 12, 2001); as amended by Division P of the “Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003,” Pub L. No. 108-7 (Feb. 20, 2003) (regarding Commission name change, terms of Commissioners, and responsibilities of the Commission); as amended by Public Law No. 109- 108 (H.R. 2862) (Nov. 22, 2005) (regarding responsibilities of Commission and applicability of FACA); as amended by Division J of the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008,” Public Law Nol. 110-161 (December 26, 2007) (regarding responsibilities of the Commission, and changing the Annual Report due date from June to December); as amended by the Carl Levin and Howard P.
    [Show full text]