I do not know which of the three above ideas is the best, but I do have a very interesting thought about the first one. If the United States is going to stand by and let China break the agreement that we have set then what is the point of having these rules or laws in the first place? If we can accept the fact that China is breaking our laws then we can also understand that this behavior can very well lead to a state of anarchy and lawlessness. These are all things that are breed by a lack of law, and also facilitated by a lack of proper enforcement of our current laws. This is a warning also for the future as we show China that the United States will not stand for the flagrant breaking of its laws.
United States policymakers employ economic sanctions not only to equalize trade and investment disputes, but also to reach non-economic policy objectives. This has been especially true with respect to China. Currently, the United States imposes the following economic sanctions on China. Restrictions on export licenses are things that the United States may deny if it was determined that the product could make a direct and significant contribution to the development of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, electronic and submarine warfare, intelligence gathering, nuclear power projection, and air superiority. This restriction was placed on China on November 23, 1984. Another restriction placed on China dealt with the withholding of generalized system of preferences status. Section 502(b)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 prevents the President of the United States from designating any developing country as "dominated or controlled by international communism" as a beneficiary of tariff reductions under this program. This restriction took place on January 1, 1976. Sectio ...