Walter's Blog |
|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact free rant unfiltered by rational argument.
|
|
"If you want to read a blog to get a sense of what is going on in Hong Kong these days or a blog that would tell you what life was like living in colonial Hong Kong, this blog, WALTER'S BLOG, fits the bill." Hong Kong Blog Review
|
|
27/4/2025 1 Comment Live Long And Prosper. "For decades, we've known of the grim reality that two-thirds of smokers will meet an early demise due to cigarette-triggered illnesses." Whenever a controversial piece of legislation appears that restricts or impinges on the rights of a few, the freedom argument arises. In the context of Hong Kong, that stance is woven into a misleading narrative suggesting that all our general freedoms are under attack.
The freedom argument carries the least weight when it defends the rights of smokers, a minority whose habits affect the majority. For decades, we've known of the grim reality that two-thirds of smokers will meet an early demise due to cigarette-triggered illnesses. This toll burdens our already stretched public health system and inflicts immeasurable financial and emotional costs on families. Moreover, this is just the tip of the iceberg when we consider the impact of passive smoke. Thus, this week, as the government moved to curtail the use of vapes and further restrict smoking in public places, the freedom argument gained prominence. The SCMP provides a helpful guide to what is coming. For centuries, thinkers have struggled to define the boundary between individual freedoms and restrictions for the betterment of society. Let's keep it simple and summon the famous Vulcan philosopher Mr. Spock, who observed, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one." Thus, I welcome the government's moves that address the needs of the many. However, it’s clear that a more straightforward approach, such as a blanket ban on smoking except in strictly designated areas, would be more effective and easier to enforce. Instead, we have adopted an increasingly layered approach, prohibiting smoking within certain distances of schools and in queues. From an enforcement perspective, this creates confusion and discourages officers from acting due to fear of disputes. Additionally, the focus on vapes overlooks traditional cigarettes. Of course, the tobacco industry will mount a subtle campaign through its proxies to water down any legislation using various arguments. On the vapes front, they've hit upon the idea that banning vapes will discourage tourism. Nonsense. I'd assert it's more likely to encourage tourists, knowing they can bring their kids to venues free of toxic vapes. It's disheartening to see the tobacco industry's lack of integrity. Their history of deceit regarding the impact of smoking, their manipulation of scientific data, and their attempts to lure children into smoking places them in the same league as drug cartels. This is why they operate through proxies and shadow organisations, trying to gain a false sense of credibility. The work of these lobby groups is already visible in the comments section of newspapers and in the utterances of some politicians. In the meantime, the greater good should prevail. Live long and prosper.
1 Comment
22/4/2025 1 Comment Crisis = Opportunity "Trump is fighting for jobs that went out of fashion with Americans decades ago." According to the Chinese saying, “A crisis is an opportunity riding a dangerous wind.” And we've certainly felt plenty of wind from Trump.
So, how's it going? How is Hong Kong faring under the onslaught of Trump's tariffs? What is the mood on the street? Well, when people take a moment to look up from their phones and pause their enjoyment of the memes poking fun at Americans, not much has changed. Government officials are making plans as the business community toggles between bafflement and stoic acceptance. Despite the challenges, our ability to adapt, change course, and turn a crisis into an opportunity has always been a significant strength. Supported by a business-friendly government and a vast Chinese hinterland, Hong Kong continues to resist fear. Additionally, vast amounts of foreign investment are flowing in. Some of that is money escaping Trump's craziness. As always, Hong Kong serves as a feeder city for the greater Chinese economy. Thus, with the Americans preoccupied with dismantling trade agreements and irritating just about everyone, Hong Kong stands to benefit as China's influence expands and foreign investors seek a stable market. Sure, China faces challenges, but it seems more capable of weathering the storm than most. Also, they've been preparing for Trump's shenanigans for decades. For starters, Trump is fighting for jobs that went out of fashion with Americans decades ago. Does he seriously expect them to go back to sweatshop production line conditions? These roles have mostly left China, moving out to Pakistan and Cambodia. In the 1950s, 22% of U.S. employment was in manufacturing. Today, that figure is only 8%. Efficiencies and robotics have replaced workers; thus, bringing manufacturing onshore won't create much additional employment. Still, Trump aspires to a rose-tinted past. Even the Vice President's acclaimed book, Hillbilly Elegy, is filled with nostalgic references as he yearns for an era long gone. In the card game analogy touted by U.S. officials, China holds a formidable hand. First, China plays the long game while Trump flips and flops. And don't argue that's a strength or strategy, because any leadership model will tell you such approaches rarely work. Money markets demand consistency from politicians because there are enough variables to tax their thinking without self-made chaos. Long-term always defeats the short-term. Next, China holds a strong position on rare earth minerals that the U.S. requires for a wide range of technologies. Rare earth minerals are a group of 17 elements crucial in producing high-tech products such as smartphones, electric car motors, and military equipment. China accounts for 92% of rare earth production. The U.S. relies entirely on imports for certain rare earths, with 100% dependency on yttrium, of which 93% comes from China. Additionally, the U.S. has an 80% import dependence on all rare earth compounds and metals, with 56% sourced from China. Without access to these materials, the U.S. must seek them elsewhere or mine them domestically. Neither option is straightforward. China is already restricting sales to the U.S., with prices surging dramatically, making the production of advanced electronics in the U.S. even more costly. Then consider medicines. The U.S. closed its last penicillin plant in 2004, and China supplies 90% of the antibiotic used in the U.S. Interestingly, rumours suggest that U.S. hedge funds sold off U.S. Treasury bonds in response to Trump's tariffs — not China. If true, the money men who helped put Trump in office are now betting against him. In the meantime, China has gradually shifted from sourcing items from the U.S. to engaging with other trading partners. It has ceased using U.S. LPG and opted for supplies from Australia, returning or cancelling Boeing orders as it transitions to Airbus-made aircraft or domestic planes. The same shift is occurring with soybeans and chickens. Moreover, China always has the option to enhance the regulations it imposes on U.S. companies to exert influence. When Walmart pressured Chinese manufacturers to lower their prices to offset Trump's tariffs, officials met with the company to remind it of its contractual obligations and the legal consequences of non-compliance. This incident highlights China's ability to leverage its regulatory power to maintain control over its trade relationships, even with large multinational corporations. Not only can China inflict harm on the U.S. in hard finance terms, but it is already exploiting Trump's behaviour on multiple soft-power fronts. For many countries, the U.S. has surrendered the moral high ground as a responsible world citizen with its overbearing style. The damage to U.S. soft-power cannot be underestimated. Meanwhile, China is positioning itself as a responsible, mature, and stable partner who can be trusted. For decades, Southeast Asian countries sought to navigate a path between the U.S. and China, maintaining cordial relations with both. However, during my recent trip to Vietnam and Cambodia, I found that the U.S. is now perceived as hostile and coersive. As a result, they have chosen to lean towards China, another own goal for Trump. Even the Europeans, traditionally close allies of the U.S., are treading carefully. Under Trump, the U.S. is no longer considered a reliable partner, leading to a July China/EU summit. With 50% of the EU's profits from cars and luxury goods coming from China, they cannot afford to be caught in the crossfire of a trade war. There is one factor that many are missing in this discussion. Trade these days is rarely a matter of one nation selling to another and vice versa. For example, consider the Mini car. These iconic little cars get exported to 110 countries. The vehicle is originally British in design and origin, but the Germans now own the brand. Production occurs in Oxford (UK), Leipzig (Germany), and China. Components come from an estimated 30 countries. I say estimated because components comprise sub-components, and detailing all the entities involved is problematic. Likewise, the iPhone comprises components from 1100 suppliers made in over thirty factories across Asia, with 90% of the activity occurring in China. It took Apple 25 years to build that network. Thus, it’s not a matter of moving one factory and training one workforce. It’s a vast, evolved system that took decades to emerge. Therefore, it's wishful thinking to expect anything tangible to occur in under 10 years. Hence, China and other countries can continue to produce components and transship them through multiple nations before reaching U.S. consumers. And keeping track of these complex shipping and manufacturing regimes is a bureaucratic nightmare that will either discourage trade with the U.S. or become so resource-intensive that it can't be implemented. Either way, the U.S. does not receive the stuff it needs or gets it at an increased cost. Lastly, size and confidence matter. China isn't picking up the phone to speak to the U.S.; instead, it's quietly building new trade options while preparing for the worst. China is seizing the moral high ground, acting moderate and reasoned, because Beijing believes it can withstand the bitter wind blowing from Washington. Only time will tell, but I reckon Trump has made a massive blunder and we still have 1370 days to go. One thing is certain: America is losing the meme war big style. 16/4/2025 0 Comments Steel Town "The story of the decline of British steel has been decades in the making" I know Scunthorpe. It forms part of a trinity of post-industrial northern towns often mocked by the elitist London metropolitan crowd. Hull and Grimsby complete this trio.
During a school trip, I visited the Scunthorpe steel plant on a geography field day. This site has been a cornerstone of Britain’s industrial economy for over 150 years. The location was selected based on geographic, economic, and historical factors. The Frodingham ironstone bed, part of the North Lincolnshire iron field, was discovered in the 1850s, yielding high-quality iron ore just beneath the town. Nearby coal fields in South Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire provided coking coal for blast furnaces, while limestone originated from Derbyshire and the Peak District. Thus, Scunthorpe is located in the "Iron Triangle," where iron ore, coal, and limestone are all within a 50-mile radius. Furthermore, the nearby Humber ports, rail connections, canals, and rivers facilitated transportation. The first steelworks emerged in 1864, and two enormous blast furnaces now stand on the site. Suddenly, Scunthorpe is in the news because the blast furnaces that produce virgin steel are about to shut down, which would end steel production in the UK. The plant's owners, a Chinese company, warned the British government 18 months ago that the plant was no longer viable. Just days before the proposed closure, the British government enacted legislation that required the plant's owners to maintain operations in a frantic effort to prevent closure. With no coking coal in reserve, there is an urgency to deliver enough coal to the plant to keep the fires burning. Blast furnaces operate continuously because shutting them down risks structural damage incurs massive costs, and leads to prolonged downtime. While modern electric arc furnaces provide greater flexibility, traditional blast furnaces are still referred to as "always-on beasts." So why was the British government's sudden intervention necessary? The bottom line is that primary steel concerns not just metal but also power, survival, and economic dominance. Nations that lose control of it risk becoming vulnerable in crises. With Trump’s U.S. appearing less like a stable partner, post-Brexit Britain suddenly seemed exposed in a rapidly changing world. Steel is essential for military equipment, such as ships, tanks, and aircraft, as well as for infrastructure like bunkers and bases, as well as ammunition. Dependence on foreign steel imports can weaken a nation's defence readiness during conflicts or trade wars. Additionally, steel is the backbone of key industries, including construction, automotive, machinery, and energy, encompassing pipelines and wind turbines. Losing primary steelmaking capacity leads to reliance on unstable global supply chains. Currently, China produces 55% of the world's steel. Recognising the importance of steel production, the EU and India subsidise domestic steel to avoid over-reliance on other nations. Britain lacked such foresight. The story of the decline of British steel has been decades in the making. Under-investment, a lack of priorities, and the relentless drive for net zero are all factors at play. The sector relies heavily on coal-based blast furnaces, contributing 2% of the UK's total CO₂ emissions. Transitioning from coal-based production to hydrogen-based direct reduced iron (DRI) or electric arc furnaces (EAFs) requires £4–6 billion in investments. In truth, without government support, UK steelmakers cannot compete against cheaper imports from China, India, and Turkey. Currently, the UK imports 60% of its steel. The other elephant in the room is the UK’s electricity costs, which are 50% higher than those in European nations, making the modern EAF option unviable. If UK steel production becomes too expensive, manufacturers, such as those in the automotive and aerospace industries, may source cheaper foreign steel, further undermining the domestic sector. A few opportunistic politicians claim that the Chinese deliberately sabotaged the last remaining British steel plant to force the UK to rely on cheap imports. However, as political commentator Andrew Neil noted, "The British are perfectly capable of destroying steel production without help from anyone else. The industry has been under-supported for decades." Indeed, the mantra of net zero has provided cover for this destruction. Furthermore, Neil and other commentators note that Britain lacks long-term strategic plans to safeguard key industrial infrastructure. For decades, successive governments have avoided making tough decisions by allowing foreign interests to take precedence. From employing over 300,000 in 1971 to less than 3,000 in 2025, the problem of British Steel didn’t begin with the Chinese owners. It’s just business for them, as it was for the Indian owners before the Chinese. The Indian conglorate Tata ran the plant before a series of ownership changes with the Jingye Group taking over in 2020 after an approach by British officials. The Jingy Group then invested £330 millionin upgrading the site. Perhaps, the real risk sits elsewhere. In his book Vassal State, author Angus Hanton documents the extent to which U.S. commercial interests control the British economy. While China is taking flak in this saga, the influence of U.S. companies is much broader. Hanton argues that Britain exited Europe with Brexit while quietly placing itself at the mercy of U.S. private equity funds and big tech. The concept of an open door has led to the sale of many of Britain’s most productive and innovative businesses. The U.S. accounts for roughly 30% of all foreign investment in the UK, while China comprises 2%. Consequently, the U.K. appears to function as an appendage of the U.S., even though it is performing worse than America’s poorest state, Mississippi. As recent events have shown, the U.S. significantly influences global trade, tax, and investment to serve its own interests. Consequently, the U.K. now finds itself between a rock and economic failure. As reality sets in, the shift from balancing the pursuit of net zero to maintaining strategic industries has resulted in the latter taking precedence. For the workers of Scunthorpe, there is some short-term relief. However, the question remains, does Britain have the backbone to safeguard its national interests in this new disruptive Trump era? 12/4/2025 0 Comments Hubris "While the old man stumbles through the burning landscape, accompanied by his Fool" In the movie Ran, Japanese director Akira Kurosawa narrates the tale of a warlord whose prideful sin drives him to madness as he attempts to impose his vision in a world full of jealousy, finance, intrigue, vanity, and greed. Loosely inspired by Shakespeare's King Lear, the saga centres on an old man. He wanders from one tragedy to another, bewildered as he pushes in from the margins on issues he cannot resolve. Eventually, a war engulfs the land as his two sons fight for control. While the old man stumbles through the burning landscape, accompanied by his Fool, his sons and their warriors pay more attention to their conflicts than to this pathetic, peripheral figure. As life rushes forward, ignoring historical continuity, the wider world has its own desires and tempests. The old man's will holds little weight as others devour his spoils like dogs tearing at a carcass. Ultimately, he betrays his people, destroys everything, and fades away. In a final jarring scene, a blind woman walks toward the abyss to stand on the edge of oblivion. It’s an epic tale of hubris.  "Darren Jason Watkins Jr., (aka iShowSpeed) is one of the most polarising figures on YouTube." Until last week, I'd never heard of iShowSpeed. To clarify, that's not the name of a company or software. iShowSpeed is the online moniker for Darren Jason Watkins Jr., a 20-year-old American YouTuber and online streamer with 38 million subscribers. His channels have recorded nearly four billion hits.
This young man's online presence is not just influential; it's monumental. Some even argue that he can make or break a business. His arrival in Hong Kong this week was not just a visit but a seismic event that drew the attention of traditional media and officials who saw an opportunity to promote the city. He was mobbed wherever he went, primarily by adolescent boys who hung on his every utterance like the second coming of Christ. Although, if you're over 18 years old, he's probably not on your radar. Yet lawmaker Dominic Lee Tsz-king is upset. He posted on social media that the young Darrens's tour of Hong Kong didn't include the It's clear that some, like Mr Lee, have unrealistic expectations of Darren's visit. They seem to believe that officials should dictate his agenda, but let's be real. Darren is not the type to be told what to do. When the Tourist Board reached out to him, he didn't respond. And perhaps that's for the best. After all, he's not catering to the usual crowd. The nature of Darren's output is spontaneous, free-rolling and not without debatable content. He is one of the most polarising figures on YouTube. His explosive personality, outrageous stunts, and unfiltered reactions have sparked an intense backlash. He initially gained attention for his high-energy gaming streams, especially his obsessive love for Cristiano Ronaldo and FIFA. His exaggerated reactions, shouting fits, and unpredictable behaviour soon made him stand out in the crowded streaming world. Yet, his shock-value antics sometimes pushed boundaries, leading to controversies and viral moments. As a result, he faced multiple bans from platforms like Twitch, YouTube, and even events. In the 2022 World Cup, he stormed the field during Portugal vs Uruguay, wearing a Ronaldo jersey. He's also known for off-colour antics, such as allegedly exposing himself online and using racial slurs in his quest to shock audiences, generate clicks, and promote his merchandise. That's how he earns his income: t-shirt sales and other items. While some view him as a hilarious, unfiltered personality, others see him as a poor influence who crosses too many lines. In a town where the government has spasms of pearl-clutching when a teenager gets filmed smoking, young Darren is hardly a role model they'd likely encourage or promote. After viewing Darren's videos of Hong Kong, we got off lightly. Move on; there's nothing to see here.  "The U.S. has the U.K. by the short and curlies, with tax rises likely in the autumn as tariffs further slow business confidence and that elusive trade deal remains ever over the horizon." Make no mistake, this is a game changer. Under Trump, the U.S. has turned against everyone, even the Heard and McDonald Island penguins. Well, that's not strictly true; Putin and the Fat Lad in North Korea receive a free tariff pass. The unpredictability of these actions leaves us all in a state of uncertainty.  Trumps action has many consequences, not least because the beacon of U.S. influence is fading on the geopolitical stage, a trend that could have long-term implications. As far as I can tell — and I'm no expert, so if I get this wrong, please let me know — Trump seeks to achieve two things. First, he wants to re-shore manufacturing and, second, to address perceived trade imbalances. Following this, the tariffs are supposed to generate revenue for the government to spend without raising taxes while suppressing growth, which creates demand for government treasury bills and drives down interest rates. This move, in turn, reduces U.S. national debt. This new tariff regime impacts nearly every conceivable product, from electronics and machinery to apparel and agriculture, leaving only a few strategic imports, such as certain metals, semiconductors, and energy resources, untouched. Trump claims that these "reciprocal tariffs" will tackle foreign protectionism and address "unfair" trade deficits that have "hollowed out" U.S. manufacturing. It's important to note that the tariffs are not based on actual foreign tariffs, but on a nonsensical formula tied to bilateral trade gaps. This is a crucial point to understand. To justify his actions, Trump argues that the U.S. is being taken advantage of and that the economy is in crisis. Neither of these claims stands up to scrutiny. Americans run deficits with some countries and surpluses with others. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy was performing well until last week; unemployment is at a 50-year low, inflation has dropped to 3 %, and GDP is growing at 2.4% while other countries are struggling. Trump asserts that he wants to re-shore production to "Make America Great Again." That's fair enough. However, that assumes it makes economic sense to manufacture goods in the U.S. For example, the U.S. is unlikely to be competitive in T-shirt production due to the low wages in Cambodia and Pakistan. Consider the production of high-end items like the iPhone. Under the new tariff regime, the cost of an iPhone could triple, making it uncompetitive against cheaper Chinese phones. Meanwhile, a conservative estimate suggests shifting iPhone production out of China will take five to ten years. Of course, this assumes all other things are equal, that you have skilled people, and that the plant and infrastructure are in place state-side. And how does Little Britain fair in all this? Angus Hanton's book "Vassal State" gives a comprehensive and stunning account of how the U.S. has already captured Britain's markets and moved to dictate economic policy. It has long been recognised that the British Foreign Office operated under the principle of "find out what Washington is doing, and do slightly less." Now, the U.S. has the U.K. by the short and curlies, with tax rises likely in the autumn as tariffs further slow business confidence and that elusive trade deal remains ever over the horizon. And if Britain doesn't play ball, bullying can quickly get the Limeys to comply. In 2020, when the U.S. banned China's Huawei, the Brits initially decided to take a different path with a partial ban. Trump went ballistic. U.S. officials urged British MPs to rebel against a cabinet decision as Trump called Boris Johnson in rage. A U-turn followed, cloaked in "new technical advice". Similarly, the U.K. military relies on the Americans for equipment, transport, and training. Between 2010 and 2021, the Ministry of Defence spent £26 billion on U.S. companies. While researching his book, Hanton discovered that the British government was reluctant to share details about the extent of U.S. ownership of U.K. businesses. A subsequent tip-off directed him to a U.S. government database that revealed the details. The U.S. owns numerous British businesses, including heritage brands that most Brits still believe belong to good old Blighty, such as high-street shops and manufacturers. Most folks think that Boots, Cadbury Chocolate, Quaker Oats, Fanta, Mars, Costa Coffee, and Manchester United are British. No. When Brits deal online with the U.K. government agencies such as the DVLA and the Ministry of Justice, U.S. big tech provides that communication channel. IBM, Microsoft and Oracle have cornered the market. When accounting for major U.S. multinationals like Amazon, U.S. companies now have annual sales in the U.K. exceeding $700 billion, translating to an average of about £20,000 per U.K. household. And yet, U.S. multinationals routinely avoid paying U.K. tax to a suspected sum of £5.6bn for 2022-23. Over two million Brits work directly for U.S. companies. The U.S. has placed 30% of all its overseas investments in the U.K., and half of its European investments are in Britain. This takeover is not surprising. The Brits opened their markets in a steady decade-long process, and the U.S. swept in. That's not to suggest that these companies don't provide quality services, many do. Significantly, other European nations protected certain critical sectors from takeovers by U.S. private equity firms and Big Tech. Now, the U.K. gets hit with a 10% tariff despite Starmer's genuflecting to Trump with a letter from a real King. Arguably, Trump has laid the lowest rate on Britain because, in effect, he's taxing U.S. businesses. Meanwhile, Europe is hit with a higher 20% rate. As the leaked Signal messages reveal, the Trump regime has no love for the Europeans. Yet, one continent is in a sweet spot regarding this uncertainty and arbitrariness. As the map below reveals, African nations have shifted from trading with the U.S. to focusing on China.  How the U.S. lost Africa in twenty years. Meanwhile, Hong Kong as a free port is not retaliating against Trump(for now). Our regime of free access remains unchanged. And this imposition of tariffs on a free port exposes that these measures have little to do with trade. The big game is played on many fronts.
2/4/2025 0 Comments More U.S. Hypocrisy "If the U.S. were genuinely taking a moral position, it would sanction India over Kashmir, Israel over Palestine, or itself over Guantanamo Bay." The U.S. government has imposed another round of sanctions on Hong Kong officials, including the retiring police chief. While Washington presents these sanctions as a defence of human rights and democracy, critics contend that the actions are laden with “hypocrisy” and “double standards.”
Why? For starters, the U.S. has draconian national security laws that exceed any provisions used in Hong Kong. The Patriot Act (2001) allows for mass surveillanc and indefinite detention of suspects without trial. As Edward Snowden and others revealed, the U.S. will relentlessly pursue whistleblowers and impose severe penalties for leaks, even when they expose wrongdoing. The current crackdowns on U.S. campuses against protests, including aggressive police responses, contrast sharply with U.S. criticism of Hong Kong’s law enforcement. Plus, these days, Trump is focused on suppressing pro-Palestine voices, deporting critics of his policies while banning journalists from the White House who pose difficult questions. History shows that the U.S. supports authoritarian regimes when it is convenient. Despite the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and the brutal repression, the U.S. continues to sell arms and maintains close ties to Saudi Arabia. Similarly, billions in military aid continue to flow to the Egyptian regime despite the jailing of journalists and activists. Looking further back, the U.S. supported dictators such as Pinochet (Chile) and Suharto ( Indonesia) when it aligned with Cold War interests. Its regime change activities have caused death and chaos in many regions, with consequences that persist today. Afghanistan and Iraq, anyone! Interestingly, when the British governed Hong Kong as a colony, the U.S. never advocated for democracy. Instead, they used the territory to support their wars Korea and Vietnam. Post-1997, business elites in this region and their political patrons in the U.S. supported a system that limited democratic processes.The U.S. only changed its stance on Hong Kong when protests aligned with its geopolitical objectives against China. We must recognise that these measures against Hong Kong officials represent a tantrum and a form of political theatre in response to the unsuccessful 2019 protests that the U.S. supported and sponsored. Yet in fairness, these sanctions are limited and look like a token gesture because Trump cannot afford to anger China too much as a trade war looms. Plus, if the U.S. were genuinely taking a moral position, it would sanction India over Kashmir, Israel over Palestine, or itself over Guantanamo Bay. Moreover, the action against Hong Kong can be seen as part of a broader effort by the U.S. to interfere in other countries’ sovereignty. Regime change operations in Iraq (2003), Libya (2011), and covert actions in Latin America show that the U.S. often disregards sovereignty. What is the impact on the individual? Evidence suggests that sanctions are counterproductive by fostering a "siege mentality” that unites officials against a common enemy: the bullying West. In truth, although sanctions may inconvenience officials, they rarely alter behaviour. In the end, sanctions are a blunt instrument — an acknowledgement that the U.S. has waning influence. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2026
CategoriesAll Festivals Hong Kong Hong Kong History Policing Politics Public Order UK USA |
RSS Feed