Mark Wu

This week’s congressional crackdown on the Chinese-owned social network TikTok is only the beginning. A bill passed overwhelmingly by the US House on Wednesday would…

Nikki Haley, a former governor of South Carolina, and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida are vying to dethrone the Republican Party’s clear presidential front-runner, Donald…

After the U.S. military shot down a Chinese surveillance balloon that had been hovering over the country for nearly a week, tensions remain between the…

After getting enormous pressure from the public, as well as from members of both side of the isle in North Dakota, in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the State Investment Board convened a special meeting Thursday to discuss divesting its Russian holdings. During executive session, the SIB voted unanimously to pursue the divestment strategy. ... News Radio reached out to Harvard Professor Mark Wu on any implications that SB 2291 could have in the process. “The decision at hand concerns divestment, as opposed to investment. While the state law places restrictions on the State Investment Board’s investment decisions, it does not place similar restrictions on its divestment decisions.” Professor Wu continued, “What this means practically is that the state investment board could take geopolitical considerations into account for a divestment decision, but should it then decide to divest, the existing law would place restrictions on what the board can and cannot do in deciding how to re-invest the proceeds of the divestment.” Professor Wu is the Henry L. Stimson Professor at Harvard Law School, where he specializes in international trade and international economic law.

On Tuesday, Danny Diaz, who ran former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s ill-fated 2016 presidential campaign, told POLITICO’s Tim Alberta that if there’s an “October surprise” in this election, “it’s something abroad. It’s a foreign policy-oriented development.” We asked the experts: if it’s China-related, what might it look like? A Phase One trade deal collapse is the most likely China-related event to upend the U.S. election. Harvard Law School’s Mark Wu says President Donald Trump could declare China “off track in meeting the purchase commitments.” Eurasia Group’s Paul Triolo says Trump “has become progressively less interested in the trade deal,” while E14 Fund’s Calvin Chin says ditching the deal is the “easiest to pull off [with] good electoral bang for the buck.” The Bay Area Economic Council’s Sean Randolph tells China Watcher that “while this might look like a failure at one level, Trump could try to show that he's in control, tough on China, and looking out for U.S. interests.” The deal would be (bureaucratically) easy to unwind, according to Asia Society’s Wendy Cutler. “Legally, the agreement requires a 60-day advance notification period before withdrawal,” she tells China Watcher, “but as we’ve seen to date the legalities would be overshadowed by a surprise announcement.” Trump can get the electoral pop from an announcement his administration intends to leave, even if it’s not official until after the election. U.S. and Chinese multinational companies could be frozen out. Heritage Foundation’s Klon Kitchen says China could block a TikTok sale and possibly remove “one or several industry leaders” among U.S. tech companies in China. Schmidt Futures’ Christopher Kirchhoff says Chinese ruler Xi Jinping could “move to ban Apple products in China.” Syracuse University’s Mary Lovely says a Trump move against WeChat could see Beijing retaliating against U.S. firms in China.