>In response, Ho posted a Facebook video making death threats against pro-democratic legislator Eddie Chu, who has spoken up against corruption in rural areas in the past and argued with Ho on a local TV channel on Tuesday.
>Ho said Chu had “two paths” before him: “One is a path of being alive, one is a path of not being alive. You must choose which path to take. Decide soon,” he said.
Jesus it's gotten bad.
If ever there was a way to galvanize the populace, it's to do away with the masquerade and just tell them "step in line or die."
That's when you get when your country is run by a dictator with supreme powers -- everyone is at the behest of his/her mood (and of those who follow their direct orders), including other countries with which they may enter more conflicts because they are personally offended by them. There's no body of representatives to keep that mood in check.
I don't like Junius Ho myself, but I think the LA Times translation of that quote is incorrect.
生路 and 死路 in Chinese don't literally mean "path of being alive" and "path of being dead". They are figurative, more appropriately translated as "free/open path" and "dead end". So Ho isn't really making threats about Chu's life, but more like abstract "consequences", maybe legal, maybe career-wise, maybe popularity-wise. Frankly, I don't know what Ho can do. I don't think Ho has enough evidence that Chu's supporter(s) vandalized his parents' graves and that Chu knows the exact perpetrator(s). Otherwise Ho would have provided that evidence to the police and the police would have made arrests already.
Anyone not expecting this? It's fairly clear that the newest bridge to the peninsula was directly intended to enable such intervention.
This is not a judgement against China, but a nation that plans massive infrastructure projects, has a history of single-party rule (and rule by dynastic monarchs) and also is responsible for the Uighur re-education camps, doesn't really sound like a country unwilling to wield it's military might.
While it's citizenry and residents are much more diverse and identify not as Chinese but seperate, HK has historically been part of China, and only really a separate state/entity for a couple of centuries.
Using the military on an backwater province is different from deploying troops to a dense city filled with millions of people. Not saying they might not still do it, just pointing out that a PLA invasion of HK would command significant attention and sympathy worldwide.
>Using the military on an backwater province is different from deploying troops to a dense city filled with millions of people. Not saying they might not still do it, just pointing out that a PLA invasion of HK would command significant attention and sympathy worldwide.
And, sadly, like in Tienanmen Square, little would change.
The "international community" may condemn the violence and human rights abuses but, well, the "international community" still does business in Saudi Arabia, so the chance of the condemnation changing anything seems minimal.
Tienanmen and how little the West leaned on China for that is the original sin that led us to the current situation. It's essentially the West' fault for not cutting ties and putting sanctions on China immediately after that. We're paying the price for our cheap electronics.
Does LA have its own multi-party legislature, legal system, monetary system, immigration policy, official languages, postal system, and educational system?
I do think there’s a difference in that the city of LA had armed bands fighting each other. In this case, it’s the government vs protesters. The protesters want some laws changed to ensure they aren’t extradited and disappeared. In LA there were thugs looting stores and the store owners shooting at them.
Hing Kong will go back peacefully if they have the Chinese government back down. Hing Kong is also essentially a client state to a large degree. So, invasion isn’t exactly a wrong way to describe it.
> a PLA invasion of HK would command significant attention and sympathy worldwide
Which probably doesn't matter one iota, given Tibet, BUT: it's going to be hard to hide that invasion from mainland Chinese who live in big cities, and may just start asking some difficult questions. If you live in Shanghai -- or I guess more to the point in Shenzen -- you'll have to work quite hard to see why you might not be next
Yes, you are, as were the demonstrators in Tiananmen. I think my point is: it’s one thing to watch your government put down the “other” — Turkic Muslims, kinda-Indian Buddhists — but when they start coming for people who look and live like you, it’s liable to give you a moment’s pause. I think the risk of unrest spreading is much higher in this case.
Mainland Chinese are well aware of what’s going on in Hong Kong. And whether you’re in Shanghai or Shenzhen there’s no question of you being next; this is already the reality you live in.
I'm not as close to the situation right now, but several mainland Chinese people that I talked to following the mid-June protests (up to 2m protesters) hadn't heard of any of it happening
I find it odd that in all the articles and discussions I've seen about this, the Opium Wars are never talked about. Of course violence is never justification for more violence, but seeing as Hong Kong's very existence is based on the worst of human exploitation, it's hard to imagine that it's ever going to have a calm future.
I can't help but think that for us Europeans it touches the nerve where we know at some level that all our chickens will come home to roost like this one day?
I don't know where this conspiracy theory came from but it's patently absurd. Hong Kong already shares a river border with Shenzhen on which there are at least 7 ~100m long bridges as well as 1 ~3km long bridge that can put Chinese tanks directly onto HK New Territories.
The HK-Zhuhai-Macau bridge is a 55km long bridge connecting a 8x smaller city in China to Lantau Island which then requires another separate two bridge crossing to reach the New Territories (and then another to reach HK Island).
The military strategic value of this bridge is less than nil. The bridge was built for its stated purpose which was to increase integration and economic growth of the Greater Bay Area. The indirect effect of this is to tie HK's economy more deeply into the Mainland's so that HK becomes assimilated but there this was plainly stated from the beginning of the project.
Hong Kong is not now and has never been a democracy. The PRC government informer the British they’d invade if they instituted democracy and they haven’t gotten any friendlier to the idea since.
About 3.4m Hong Kong people have British National (Overseas) status and can immigrate to the U.K. tomorrow should they wish to do so. I imagine a substantial number of those not entitled to BNO are children of those who are and would be able to migrate with their family if their entire family leaves. All the Chinese who moved to Hong Kong after the handover are screwed however.
> Applicants were required to be British Dependent Territories citizens by a connection with Hong Kong.[30] While about 3.4 million people acquired the status,[41] 2.5 million non-BDTC residents (virtually all Chinese nationals) were ineligible.[42] Those ineligible who wished to register as BN(O)s were required to have been naturalised as Hong Kong-connected BDTCs by 31 March 1996. Acquiring Hong Kong BDTC status other than by birth was no longer possible after that date.[37]
> About 3.4m Hong Kong people have British National (Overseas) status and can immigrate to the U.K. tomorrow should they wish to do so.
No, they can't. BN(O) was created pretty much exactly for the purpose of allowing British Hong Kong citizens to retain their British passports without any sort of right of residency in the UK. The UK didn't want millions of foreign refugees with a claim to residency to appear on their doorstep any more than any other country would (have?)...
Go on, how would the US intervene militarily here? This isn't Island Fortress Taiwan, where there's already a base and a sizeable strait between it and the mainland.
Park a carrier strike group offshore, guarantee safe passage and refugee status to any Hong Kong resident wanting it, and provide transport to a host country.
It would take tremendous political will and resources. But this would be the non-violent, humanitarian and decisive way to intervene.
If they occupy the city and don't allow people to leave, that certainly will create problems for them (more and more reeducation camps).
Sure, it's not like anyone can or willing to do much about that, but the UK can play the Russian game (with some help from NATO), and provide help for the BN(O) people.
Shooting would be almost inevitable, but that at least establishes that there is a problem.
And why would Xi risk WW3, he and China has the most to lose, after all the future, with the current trajectory of the world looks to be theirs!
What would they be able to do? They couldn't even oust Assad in Syria, and many many fewer casualties in the middle east became untenable politically. Spell out the details of what you think is possible to accomplish here?
They're in the middle of a trade war, which it seems both sides are looking to de-escalate. I don't think US wants to pressure on other matters, nor do I think it is in the interests of American citizens to do so.
China could just as easily see as act of war or at very least, threatening their sovereignty. Maybe they sell their treasuries or restrict rare earths, or simply cut off supplies amongst their $400 Billion goods surplus with the US. I really don't think they'll allow themselves to be pushed around on this, out of general principle.
Hong Kong is not Taiwan. It’s a part of China and pretty much indefensible geographically.
Defending it from military forces coming from the mainland is foolish.
US should strengthen its support of Taiwan in retaliation.
The US medias overhyped the country for so long now that I think you really believe you could make it a guaranteed win.
I don't think you can:
- China has the nuclear weapon, a space program, allies and no ethics or politics to slow them down.
- nobody won the cold war, and Russia was way less economically viable than China
- China has 1.3 billions people it is willing to sacrifice while the US has 4 time less, half of it being obese, plus they must censor the pics of coffins coming back from war because dying americans is not acceptable.
- China host all the factories, and provide a huge chunks of primary resources to the US.
- China is capable of being self-sufficient rapidly, as they have the land and the capabilities of going back to manual labor.
- China army has millenias of terrifying history. It may very well be still here in 10000 years. The US has 500 years of history, total.
- The US never entered a war that would affect their borders. Up till then, they brought the fire far from home, giving a false sense of indestructibility to their population. China is your neighbor.
- Attacking China means WWIII, it's not sure humanity can even survive it.
Short run, mid run, and long run. Iraq and Libya are broken states right now because the US intervened overtly. That covers short and mid run. Iran is making problems today and receiving international flak only because the US intervened covertly and fucked up. That covers the long term.
>Iraq and Libya are broken states right now because the US intervened overtly.
That's like saying Germany was a broken state after US intervened in WW2. I mean, it was literally broken up, but it didn't have an insane dictator committing mass scale human rights abuses anymore.
It isn't. WW2 was a world war, and Germany was hell-bent on world domination and genocide. The US and its allies being under direct threat is a different situation than preemptively destroying nations to further US political goals.
Facts are good. They help to anchor people to the unfortunate reality of how hard it is to help a country (or just anyone in general).
However, the simple fact that the US went in guns blazing and left before things got better (because otherwise it would have been too costly) doesn't invalidate all forms of intervention ever and forever.
The US example doesn't invalidate all forms of intervention, but it does call into question any proposal of US intervention, which is the context here.
I read someone mentioning India, others the UK, etc. Not that any makes much sense.
It's no wonder such sensitive situations were mishandled. The theoretical magical chain of events that lead to sustained "freedom" was always there, on paper at least, but using the US examples we should conclude that its cost-benefit is waaay way lower than necessary to consider it a useful foreign policy tool.
Of course, an avid idealist might argue that this just means the US (or the world, or the West) just needs more experience to be able to better export "freedom"; and of course it is something we should never stop trying. And even today, even after the whole ISIL/ISIS campaign every place is better off now than it was before. (No Saddam, no Gaddafi, etc.)
I don’t think Venezuela, Libya, or Iran is a fair comparison to Hong Kong regarding the progress or prospect of liberation/democratization. For one, Hong Kongers have been used to elections for almost 30 years now (since 1991), have practiced free press and rule of law, and mostly free of corruption, so I think Taiwan may be a closer comparison in terms of how liberation/democratization of Hong Kong would become.
The recent frustration towards elections in Hong Kong (which is also one root cause of the on-going protests) is that the elections are far from representative or universal suffrage (half of the seats in the Legislative Council–the functional constituencies–have pretty limited representation, while the Chief Executive is elected by a pro-Beijing committee of 1200 out of a population of 7M+), and that some elected members of the Legislative Council who are pro-Hong Kong got outright disqualified. A liberation/democratization of Hong Kong means such issues are fixed, which is more like Taiwan than Venezuela, Libya, or Iran.
I'm not saying the protests in Hong Kong are similar to events that happened in the countries I mentioned. The context here is a proposed US intervention, whether over or covert, and I'm saying that in the last few decades all such US interventions ended up very badly for people living in those countries.
The UK has spent 22 years sitting and watching China be troublesome in HK, uttering barely a word. Chris Patten (the last governor, former chairman of the Tory party and despised by Beijing) has repeatedly criticised government and Tory party for it.
UK has precious little leverage left except trade sanctions, which is a far weaker lever as we leave the EU. Nonetheless HKers have taken out ads targeting UK gov requesting sanctions be imposed:
Very true, on both counts. Though laughably UK was once respected for what it brought to international relations. Had UK been a more willing EU member they may once have been able to galvanise some EU action.
The problem for anyone contemplating China sanctions is we got too dependent on them, making sanctions too expensive.
Unlike France the UK has long since checked out of being a colonial power. And even if they wanted to do so, the great naval power that was Britian seems unable to stop Iranians from hijacking their ships.
Western Europe is the weak link in sustaining democratic movements worldwide. Its economic clout is enormous, but will refuse to use it in any meaningful way because it will incur short-term hardship and possibly loss of support at home. While being a good example of many modern values, Europe has no will to confront when things go wrong.
If the last two big conflicts were due to European actions, the next one will be due their inaction at the appropriate time.
>...but will refuse to use it in any meaningful way because it will incur short-term hardship and possibly loss of support at home
It's fascinating to see people advocate that European leaders should ignore the democratically expressed wishes of their own people in order to support "democracy" on the other side of the planet.
The problem is that we see how hard it is to see such a liberation/democratization campaign through. (Iraq, Afghanistan)
And in the end what is democracy? Will of the people. Great, what if the people are trigger happy xenophobics? (Just look at how nationalist populism is on the rise in democratic countries.)
> The problem is that we see how hard it is to see such a liberation/democratization campaign through. (Iraq, Afghanistan)
I don’t think Iraq or Afghanistan is a fair comparison to Hong Kong regarding the progress or prospect of liberation/democratization. For one, Hong Kongers have been used to elections for almost 30 years now (since 1991), have practiced free press and rule of law, and mostly free of corruption, so I think Taiwan may be a closer comparison in terms of how liberation/democratization of Hong Kong would become.
The recent frustration towards elections in Hong Kong (which is also one root cause of the on-going protests) is that the elections are far from representative or universal suffrage (half of the seats in the Legislative Council–the functional constituencies–have pretty limited representation, while the Chief Executive is elected by a pro-Beijing committee of 1200 out of a population of 7M+), and that some elected members of the Legislative Council who are pro-Hong Kong got outright disqualified. A liberation/democratization of Hong Kong means such issues are fixed, which is more like Taiwan than Iraq or Afghanistan.
> Great, what if the people are trigger happy xenophobics?
I would say that xenophobism would not be a problem in Hong Kong, because the pro-democratic (and even the localist) camp cherish cultural values and core values (e.g. democracy, freedom, and rule of law), and ignore differences in ethnicity or origin. For example, Edward Leung, currently in prison but was a key figure of the localist group Hong Kong Indigenous, was born in Wuhan, China. For another example, Nabela Qoser, a Pakistani news reporter who speaks fluent Cantonese and long regarded as a Hong Konger, is called a heroine by the pro-democratic and localist camp for asking pointed questions towards the Chief Executive (Carrie Lam) during the most recent press conference on 22 July.
By contrast, the pro-Beijing establishment (and anti-democratic) camp is in general more xenophobic: quite a number of their supporters are against the presense of non-Chinese (in terms of ethnicity).
The problem I see is that it's frighteningly easy to lure otherwise normal people toward totalitarianism.
How come there are HKers that are pro-Beijing at all? I mean sure, they might on the short term gain more, but this kind of thinking poisons every political system. And I'm not saying I know a better one, but seeing these events unfold is very disheartening.
They could just turn off water and electricity and blockade naval food imports. Any independence movement would capitulate within a week (or starve within two).
Which is the reason why HK was gifted to the PRC in the first place - it cannot be defended against a siege.
A few weeks ago, I never would have expected China to profess/commit violence openly, just because of the comparatively open press in Hong Kong + ubiquity of cell phones.
After the triad attacks, and now this, I’m worried how far China will go to suppress any unrest.
FWIW, any Americans looking to (try to) help may write their Congress representatives to support the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.
Let them, let's see what they will do. I wonder who would win such a conventional war. Though I guess afterwards there would be no Hong Kong left protecting.
Certainly both would lose many lives. Why would any American want to die for this crisis? Why would you imagine China would give up or be unable to defend territory so near their mainland?
China has enough nukes for this to be a moot point. The outcome would be the same as if China decided to annex Hawaii -- an all out war with nuclear and other WMD.
In a defensive war, probably China. They've got more tanks, more people, more manufacturing capabilities, lots of artillery and no doubt they've spent years preparing themselves militarily for such an event.
I know this is sarcastic, but it’s a telling marker of how unserious the US has gotten in terms of preparing for a full scale war that we’re even entertaining that idea.
Yes, because this activity is totally invisible to China and they will not ever notice F-35s, AH-64s, and American-made Air Defense weapons just magically showing up around their borders.
Deterrence doesn’t work if done in secret. If China intervened in Hong Kong militarily, Taiwan and our allies need to be able to credibly threaten the mainland with retaliation.
Why? I don't mean to come of as hash, but that is eerily similar to how we ended up in Vietnam. What happens when Taiwan (or whoever you think these other allies are ... Japan and South Korea, presumably) gets run over by a numerically superior - by an order of magnitude - Chinese Army?
And how does one "credibly threaten the mainland with retaliation" without nuclear weapons? Honest question.
> that is eerily similar to how we ended up in Vietnam
Vietnam involved American ground troops. Upgrading a country’s standing army is different.
(Tactical note. China has a huge army. It’s navy is humbler. Troop transport capacities are manageable with the right guns and logistical lines. Add to that the international waters separating Taiwan and China, and an invasion can be rendered untenable.)
that is eerily similar to how we ended up in Vietnam> how does one "credibly threaten the mainland with retaliation" without nuclear weapons?
This is a 20th century view of warfare that is supremely outdated. One thing to keep in mind is that there's been a radical change in the technology of warfare over the last ~15 years or so, and counting battleships and battalions isn't sufficient for gauging what "works" anymore.
>Troop transport capacities are manageable with the right guns and logistical lines.
I actually laughed. I guess we didn't have the "right guns" in Afghanistan.
>Add to that the international waters separating Taiwan and China, and an invasion can be rendered untenable.
And what happens when they call our bluff? We sink a transport ship? WWIII, that's what happens.
Don't bluff then. Set up a line (perimeter), and anything that crosses it gets shot at. As usual. Border skirmishes are quite common, yet WW3 doesn't happen.
where would this line be? taiwan is only 300km away from coast line of china. are you sure about deploying fleet within the range of middle-range missile?
>I’m worried how far China will go to suppress any unrest.
"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."
The mere fact that I had a previous comment in which I directly refer to ... some point in the past and I deleted it because I am scared of the (global) repercussions of my comments on the internet is horrifying...
What is up with the delusional nature of Hong Kong proponents? I mean I get that there are no other options but come on we have to watch this slow motion trainwreck for 50 years straight? Just get it over with already!
The US is merely going to re-evaluate Hong Kong’s independence, not this thing on the other end of the spectrum.
Everything I ever hear about Hong Kong residents is oozing with delusion. “We’ll get UK passports!” Remember that meme?
Im going to be on the edge of my seat if she requests the military though
Conveniently,
you ignored everything I wrote after the comma:
“just because of the comparatively open press in Hong Kong + ubiquity of cell phones”
Of course I remember Tienanmen. And I’m also aware of the Uyghur camps. It’s no surprise that a country as authoritarian as China will be violent. What’s surprising is that it’s being violent in an autonomous territory with many Western connections.
No, I didn't ignore it, I just didn't see how it was relevant (and still don't).
> What’s surprising is that it’s being violent in an autonomous territory with many Western connections.
I don't see what that has to do with an open press and ubiquity of cell phones.
Furthermore, Honk Kong is not "an autonomous territory". It's part of China, full stop. The fact that the people who live there are behaving as if it were an autonomous territory is no small part of the problem.
Also, which of Hong Kong's "many Western connections" do you think is going to intervene when China invades? Do you really think Donald Trump is going to stand up for democracy? Do you really think Boris Johnson is going to send troops to protect Hong Kong's free press?
> FWIW, any Americans looking to (try to) help may write their Congress representatives to support the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.
Please don't. We don't need more concrete excuses for the central government to claim that there is foreign meddling. If the people of the country cannot awaken to fight together in solidarity against the authoritarian government, then it's just too bad. So be it. I still live in Hong Kong and it's a scary thought, but it's also the only correct way.
In fact, nobody can expect the US or any foreign government to want to "save" Hong Kong in good faith. We don't need your saving.
I keep wishing the West stopped reporting on “successful” protests. What good does that do? Make mainland China more and more insecure about its image?
The target audience of the protests are (1) local officials, and (2) fellow citizens who do not share the gravity of the situation.
CCP will, of course, know of the protests with no need for any relay.
The “HK students protested against pro-China regulation and quickly succeeded, rejoice!” articles in Western media, though, will also be read by CCP. What would you do if you felt yourself losing your hard-earned strong image in front of the whole world?
Local media attention helps, worldwide—not so much.
Just cut your losses, donate HK to itself, like Singapore.
Of course, since Beijing is not really the backing down type, it'll be a little bit of a bloodshed and the unification will be completed ahead of schedule.
> > FWIW, any Americans looking to (try to) help may write their Congress representatives to support the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.
> Please don't. We don't need more concrete excuses for the central government to claim that there is foreign meddling. If the people of the country cannot awaken to fight together in solidarity against the authoritarian government, then it's just too bad. So be it. I still live in Hong Kong and it's a scary thought, but it's also the only correct way.
> In fact, nobody can expect the US or any foreign government to want to "save" Hong Kong in good faith. We don't need your saving.
Thanks for voicing out your view, but I beg to differ.
I am a Hong Konger and I support the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act 2019, and I welcome Americans to write to their Congress representatives to support the Act—in fact I persuaded my friends to do so.
The central government has been claiming foreign meddling even when there is none: they claim that the protesters went to the street because of direct monetary support by the United States, which—frankly—is insulting to the million protesters. They made similar claims during the 2014 Umbrella protest already, without any evidence of foreign meddling even until now.
Let’s be honest: the Hong Kong protesters would have lost much earlier without foreign support (mostly media attention). The Hong Kong protesters are pretty pragmatic: they don’t expect foreigners (including the US) to “save” Hong Kong in good faith, the protesters only hope that it would be mutually beneficial to align their interests with that of foreign governments, and the protesters would do their part.
Let me use Singapore as an analogy (and to be clear, this example does not imply independence movement or whatsoever): Lee Kuan Yew succeeded with the foreign relations of Singapore largely because he aligned the interests of Singapore with those of foreign powers, such as of Taiwan and of the United States, so that Singapore got their support (including military one). It does not mean foreign meddling or that foreign government want to “save” Singapore in good faith. It means alignment of interests.
> The central government has been claiming foreign meddling even when there is none: they claim that the protesters went to the street because of direct monetary support by the United States, which—frankly—is insulting to the million protesters. They made similar claims during the 2014 Umbrella protest already, without any evidence of foreign meddling even until now.
It's interesting how BBC added that clarification. At the height of Occupy Central, people were mocking a pro-establishment outlet (東網) for saying that Occupy Central was planned years ahead, in contact with people from the Oslo Freedom Forum. The outlet quoted that BBC Newsnight had initially reported on it.
I didn't bother correcting the people who were mocking that report, but 30 seconds on Google got me the video that clearly stated that the protest were planned years in advance with outside help.
I'm not going to make judgements on whether this constitutes as foreign meddling, but it isn't exactly free from foreign involvement either.
Similarly, plenty had brushed off the accusation thrown at Martin Lee, or Jimmy Lai for foreign involvement. A bit of a quick search on Wikileaks yielded plenty of communication between Martin Lee and the US reps in HK. Lai had also met the same reps, with one of his American lieutenants - the same lieutenant had stated in an American media outlet (the name slips my mind now) that he had not been in contact with the US government for 15 years, but that statement falls apart when you look at the date of the leaked cable.
How much "involvement" is probably something that we won't easily find out, but it isn't to say that there's no evidence of it beyond media coverage.
> Please don't. We don't need more concrete excuses for the central government to claim that there is foreign meddling.
Would that mean China takes a different stance in HK? Like this is an international PR chess game and China must follow the rules? Because surely that is not true.
HK is both valuable and dangerous to China, and the US can't seriously effect any narrative within the Chinese media. China, on the other hand, can create any narrative it wishes to.
>FWIW, any Americans looking to (try to) help may write their Congress representatives to support the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.
We just spent the last 3+ years, complaining about foreign meddling in our democracy and now we're right back to advocating that we do it ourselves to someone else.
>>"A few weeks ago, I never would have expected China to profess/commit violence openly, just because of the comparatively open press in Hong Kong + ubiquity of cell phones.
Oh, no. Not violence, they're merely "maintaining order," something the state is obligated to do. A few criminals are using violent acts and making life miserable for the silent majority...etc etc.
I just did a Google search from China and nothing is coming up. I guess you are right, we should not worry as nothing had happened. information is organized and is universally accessible and useful.
I have to say, these protests in Hong Kong have really surprised me. This is my own prejudice speaking (as an American-born Taiwanese), but my wrong assumption about young East Asians was they'd be too distracted, disaffected, and generally uninterested in politics to have rallied like this.
It is always students that protest the most. Remember tiananmen square? Remember protests in Soviet Union satellite countries? Framing it as a millennials problem omits the actual pattern at work.
It is also not surprising. Who has the most incentive for long term sensibility in nation management? People that have many years left to live. On top of that students often live in ideological bubbles that are ripe with underutilized manpower.
The pattern seems to be more about had that particular age cohort (generation) already tried protesting? If no, they will try it. It usually doesn't succeed, they will then never try it again.
Seeing it another way, assuming you did not read the young generation incorrectly: even the uninterested youngsters have a bottomline and cannot stand what the Chinese government is doing anymore.
As a Taiwanese, I am more optimistic than your are regarding the thinking and passion of young east Asians.
No, to compare HK with US, you should first give US back to the native Americans. The US belongs to the native Americans. It was a colony of the Brits, and then inherited by other white colonists.
The Hong Kong people don't want to be Chinese. Nobody wants to be Chinese. Even the fucking Chinese people don't want to be Chinese.
So what exactly is it that belongs to China? An island? The buildings and roads? I can sure as hell tell you that the hearts of the majority of the people will never ever belong to China.
Freedom of the people is a one way street and any attempt to reverse will always be met with resistance. China will maybe learn this one day, when it stops being a corrupt shithole full of uneducated farmers in the claws of of the worlds most successful PsyOps machine.
Forget your fancy high rise cities and shallow facades that are Shenzhen and Shanghai. Those cities are so far from representing China as anything in this world could ever be. Behind those shiny and polished exteriors lies a rotten police state, which will not think twice about cracking down on you, your family or your friends, if you dare to challenge them and their brittle egos.
Go to any shithole village in China. I can guarantee you that in the top 5 of questions you will get, will be some variant of "Do you hate Japanese too?". Because that is the only button the government has to play with: Indoctrination of hate towards some external force, which is supposedly always responsible for all their hardship. Night after night after night they sit in their little shithole villages in literally shithole houses and watch retarded movies about the Sino-Japanese war, when they are not watching people crying on brain dead soap operas. Killing, crying, killing, crying in an endless cycle.
Now you should ask yourself: "Why suddenly is the Chinese government telling the people in China about the ungrateful rascal rioters in Hong Kong?". Really.. You should ask yourself this question.
The SCMP isn't as unbiased as it used to be, but it's closer to the situation. They seem to have talked to all the players and quote them, but avoid drawing any conclusions.
Yes, the ownership situation isn't great. But as someone following the Hong Kong situation, I have to agree with Animats. They have the best coverage so far - it's really quickly updated and pretty balanced.
This is mostly rhetoric and political posturing. Chinese government has so far refrained from taking any action. Beijing is not an benevolent actor, but is smart enough to leave Hong Kong people alone and let Hong Kong people see for themselves what a HK version of Arab Spring/Orange Revolution can deliver. If the protests lead HK to a state of chaos and recession, Beijing will gain more leverage.
> Beijing is not an benevolent actor, but is smart enough to leave Hong Kong people alone
Nothing Xi has done in the past year with Hong Kong has been smart. It’s short termed decision making, optimised for his political survival over the country’s long-term interests.
When dictators’ economies slow, they tend to pick from one of two handbooks: scapegoating a minority or launching pointless wars.
> What has Xi done that you feel is in short-term interests?
Most Hong Kongers, until recently, identified as Chinese moreso than Hong Konger. The transition in 2047 would have been uneventful.
Now, Hong Kong is pissed off. Taiwan has seen the writing on the wall. China’s multi-decade integration strategy must be rethought because Xi didn’t think he could survive Hong Kongers criticising his leadership.
What quickly comes to mind is the removal of term limits (detriment to China, favorable to Xi). There are lots of things that China has done since Xi that are bad for foreign diplomacy that makes neighbors nervous, which seems like a detriment in the long run, though it's hard to say. Some examples: (more hostile climate to foreign businesses, claiming the south china sea, cyberespionage, oppression in xinjiang)
Also Keep in mind what the Chinese gov is capable of, notably that there are up to a million or more Uighers in 're-education' camps at the moment [0].
A bunch of jawjacking in this thread about how the US should "intervene", whatever that means.
He's a quick rehash of what the American military has been up to for the last 2 decades:
* Fighting a failing (read: failed) counter-insurgency, that has surely atrophied the necessary skills and experience of field-grade and above officers needed to fight great land and sea wars
* Mopping up the mess left from the above
I don't doubt the fighting ability of the line infantryman (I was one), but this idea that we could do anything about Hong Kong without engaging in a full-scale war is ludicrous. It ignores a) the actual military engagements this country has gotten into for the last 20 years, and b) the actual geo-political situation in the region. Perhaps consider what strategic interest to the United States Hong Kong represents before advocating that we get into yet another endless war with nebulous objectives and mystical thinking about how easy it would be.
> this idea that we could do anything about Hong Kong without engaging in a full-scale war is ludicrous
Fighting a land war against China for Hong Kong is ludicrous. Making a second Tiananmen Square painful for Beijing is not.
From sanctions, to weapons sales to Taiwan et al, to providing protesters and resistance pockets with intelligence, there are options. Whether they’re worth it is the question.
I mean, we're already in a trade war with them. I'm struggling to understand why, after 50+ years of trying the same thing over and over again and seeing downright horrible results across 3 continents, people still advocate the tried and true method of "just send in CIA".
American medias have been singing the power of the US for so long now that their population really believe they are capable fixing everything with their hammer.
7 millions people in Honk Kong cannot win against 1.3 billions of people from main land, no matter how many weapons you provide.
"Making a second Tiananmen Square painful for Beijing is not" could be a good strat, but something tells me they learned from that one and have a plan for it this time.
Was working just fine. Then they figured out how to use Facebook to get themselves a POTUS and we left them off the hook, but sanctions were absolutely working.
> Then they figured out how to use Facebook to get themselves a POTUS
One might wonder why didn't Hilliary figure out how to use Facebook. The answer might be, that she did, but just like with the Russia buying their own ads with peanuts money compared to the DNC spend - it didn't really matter. Seeing people parrot the Russia narrative, the same day the Man himself testified that it didn't actually happen, entertains me a bit.
Maybe FB propaganda was simply more effective in motivating Rep voting. (Fearmongering about vile brown migrants raping our beautiful white women works better than fearmongering about climate change and the lack of structural health care reform, who knew!?)
Anyway, you are completely right about how overused the Russia line is without data on its interference effectiveness.
There is no question it happened -- we know for sure the Russians were pushing hard on this. Most nation-states push propaganda, this was just especially hard and blatant. The question is how much did it help, and were other players, like the NRA, Koch Bros, etc. also involved?
With sanctions freezing huge amount of their assets the Russians didn't really have any serious plays against the US except pushing the soft-power propaganda angle[1]. Essentially they (Russians) just kept trying lots of random things[1], in high volume, until something stuck -- and it worked, spectacularly well too, mostly due to decades of propaganda already shaping the Republican base.
Hilary was marketing hard on all platforms, but some estimates put the Russian spend at $400k USD per month, on top of NRA, GOP, and other heavy Right-Wing spends.
How much money was spent in the 2016 election cycle? It was at least $1 billion. $400k/month, even for 24 months, is $9600k, or about $10 million, or 1% of the total spend. It is not by tipping the spending balance that the Russians had however much effect they had.
> Making a second Tiananmen Square painful for Beijing is not
That would be in no-one's interests.
Immediately after the Tiananmen Square events in 1989 the US sent a high ranking general to Beijing to reassure the Chinese that this changed nothing.
The situation has changed because now China is seen as a real rival but the US and the West still have zero interests in going down that route. Not least because China is not a small country, it's the second economy on Earth.
I think the events in HK are being spinned and that some people are really losing their sense of proportion.
Bluntly speaking: The events in HK are irrelevant globally and are regional news at best. They are not a global issue that deserve international involvement.
At the same time, it is very difficult to understand the message and aim of the protesters, and their violence made them lose a lot of credibility.
Wouldn't China being the second largest economy in the world make it more interesting to make a second Tiananmen Square costly? Because democracy is very important for the stability of the West and having a powerful dictatorship steamroll a democratic movement while we just watch looks really bad for us and the credibility of our governments.
And, it also gives the West less credibility internationally. The US has been very clear that it was behind "one China, two systems" since the 80s a dramatic policy change would make every other country think "ok, so why should we expect that any treaty we or alliance we form with the US will hold?". If countries don't trust the West they stop working with the West and that reduces its power by orders of magnitude.
"One country, two systems" is a domestic policy of China. It's not any other country's business.
People seem to be outraged by vague allegations of Russian meddling in other countries' affairs but China should be treated like a colony by the West... That's highly hypocritical (if not racist).
”One country, two systems” is originally an agreement between the UK and China before the handover. Violating a treaty with another country makes it an international affair.
> ”One country, two systems” is originally an agreement between the UK and China before the handover.
That agreement was predicated on a belief that over time, China would open up and become more democratic and Hong Kong would smoothly merge cultures.
Unfortunately, that assumption was entirely false. It's been 20 years since the handover, and China has not at all moved towards freedoms generally considered a pre-requisite to social society in the west.
Hong Kong has completely different values than mainland China. Even if the current events fade away, they are on an unavoidable collision course.
Absolutely, I would say they’ve already collided, and I’m arguing it’s time for the West to acknowledge that fact and act, such as making Tiananmen Square 2.0 more costly in order to protect our core values such as rule of the people and fair trials. I think that would be well within our interests.
I’m Swedish, a person with the same passport as me was kidnapped from Thailand and imprisoned in China probably after hours of torture because of something he published and his democracy activism in Hong Kong. The sentiment in Sweden is that it would’ve been nice for China to not say that Hong Kong would be under ”one China, two systems” if that’s not how things would turn out. Kidnapping Swedish citizens in Thailand for something they are legally allowed to do in Hong Kong doesn’t look like a domestic issue to me.
When people can be extradited to the unfair, Chinese domestic courts or failing that kidnapped by the Chinese government I would say that’s not ”largely autonomous” anymore. There’s no way for the kidnapped Causeway books employees to use the HK courts to get them out of Chinese courts, even though they committed their ”crime” in HK.
The respect of ”one country, two systems” was something China promised the UK. The international community is absolutely remaining in the picture.
HK courts would have decided whether to extradite to the mainland in the same way they do now when deciding whether to extradite to the US or any other country HK has an extradition treaty with.
China has also extradition treaties with some western countries. Does that mean that e.g. France is no longer 'autonomous'?
This extradition bill does not impact HK's autonomy at all. This is very transparently a pretext.
One has to wonder who's behind all of this because this is really getting more farcical by the day.
It is also very interesting that western media tend to use the terms 'China' for the mainland in their reports on these events. Clearly this is not neutral and makes Western opinion believe that HK is not China.
> People seem to be outraged by vague allegations of Russian meddling in other countries' affairs but China should be treated like a colony by the West... That's highly hypocritical (if not racist).
If your core values are freedom, democracy, and the right of the people to choose who governs them, then it does not seem hypocritical at all.
To the more fortunate among us who live in the civilized parts of the world: please proactively fight for your democratic system and basic human rights. They are hard-earned, but can be easily eroded.
203 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 266 ms ] thread>Ho said Chu had “two paths” before him: “One is a path of being alive, one is a path of not being alive. You must choose which path to take. Decide soon,” he said.
Jesus it's gotten bad.
If ever there was a way to galvanize the populace, it's to do away with the masquerade and just tell them "step in line or die."
"If we wanted to fight a war in Afghanistan and win it, I could win that war in a week. I just don’t want to kill 10 million people."
I don't like Junius Ho myself, but I think the LA Times translation of that quote is incorrect.
生路 and 死路 in Chinese don't literally mean "path of being alive" and "path of being dead". They are figurative, more appropriately translated as "free/open path" and "dead end". So Ho isn't really making threats about Chu's life, but more like abstract "consequences", maybe legal, maybe career-wise, maybe popularity-wise. Frankly, I don't know what Ho can do. I don't think Ho has enough evidence that Chu's supporter(s) vandalized his parents' graves and that Chu knows the exact perpetrator(s). Otherwise Ho would have provided that evidence to the police and the police would have made arrests already.
This is not a judgement against China, but a nation that plans massive infrastructure projects, has a history of single-party rule (and rule by dynastic monarchs) and also is responsible for the Uighur re-education camps, doesn't really sound like a country unwilling to wield it's military might.
While it's citizenry and residents are much more diverse and identify not as Chinese but seperate, HK has historically been part of China, and only really a separate state/entity for a couple of centuries.
And, sadly, like in Tienanmen Square, little would change.
The "international community" may condemn the violence and human rights abuses but, well, the "international community" still does business in Saudi Arabia, so the chance of the condemnation changing anything seems minimal.
HK-ers are alone. No one will help them.
Did the 1st Marine Division invade LA in 1992?
Hing Kong will go back peacefully if they have the Chinese government back down. Hing Kong is also essentially a client state to a large degree. So, invasion isn’t exactly a wrong way to describe it.
Which probably doesn't matter one iota, given Tibet, BUT: it's going to be hard to hide that invasion from mainland Chinese who live in big cities, and may just start asking some difficult questions. If you live in Shanghai -- or I guess more to the point in Shenzen -- you'll have to work quite hard to see why you might not be next
China invading HK would certainly make peaceful reunification with Taiwan impossible though.
Also, the PLA already has about 6,000 troops stationed in HK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Hon...
I can't help but think that for us Europeans it touches the nerve where we know at some level that all our chickens will come home to roost like this one day?
The HK-Zhuhai-Macau bridge is a 55km long bridge connecting a 8x smaller city in China to Lantau Island which then requires another separate two bridge crossing to reach the New Territories (and then another to reach HK Island).
The military strategic value of this bridge is less than nil. The bridge was built for its stated purpose which was to increase integration and economic growth of the Greater Bay Area. The indirect effect of this is to tie HK's economy more deeply into the Mainland's so that HK becomes assimilated but there this was plainly stated from the beginning of the project.
I get it that people are mad that democracy is under attack in Hong Kong, but this drift into considering extreme reactions is getting ridiculous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_(Overseas)
> Applicants were required to be British Dependent Territories citizens by a connection with Hong Kong.[30] While about 3.4 million people acquired the status,[41] 2.5 million non-BDTC residents (virtually all Chinese nationals) were ineligible.[42] Those ineligible who wished to register as BN(O)s were required to have been naturalised as Hong Kong-connected BDTCs by 31 March 1996. Acquiring Hong Kong BDTC status other than by birth was no longer possible after that date.[37]
No, they can't. BN(O) was created pretty much exactly for the purpose of allowing British Hong Kong citizens to retain their British passports without any sort of right of residency in the UK. The UK didn't want millions of foreign refugees with a claim to residency to appear on their doorstep any more than any other country would (have?)...
https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-nati...
"you: are subject to immigration controls and do not have the automatic right to live or work in the UK"
Park a carrier strike group offshore, guarantee safe passage and refugee status to any Hong Kong resident wanting it, and provide transport to a host country.
It would take tremendous political will and resources. But this would be the non-violent, humanitarian and decisive way to intervene.
At which point do you think the first bullet of the war fires ?
Sure, it's not like anyone can or willing to do much about that, but the UK can play the Russian game (with some help from NATO), and provide help for the BN(O) people.
Shooting would be almost inevitable, but that at least establishes that there is a problem.
And why would Xi risk WW3, he and China has the most to lose, after all the future, with the current trajectory of the world looks to be theirs!
It's not a guaranteed success but it would be sending a very strong signal. Better than nothing, perhaps
China could just as easily see as act of war or at very least, threatening their sovereignty. Maybe they sell their treasuries or restrict rare earths, or simply cut off supplies amongst their $400 Billion goods surplus with the US. I really don't think they'll allow themselves to be pushed around on this, out of general principle.
US should strengthen its support of Taiwan in retaliation.
I don't think you can:
- China has the nuclear weapon, a space program, allies and no ethics or politics to slow them down.
- nobody won the cold war, and Russia was way less economically viable than China
- China has 1.3 billions people it is willing to sacrifice while the US has 4 time less, half of it being obese, plus they must censor the pics of coffins coming back from war because dying americans is not acceptable.
- China host all the factories, and provide a huge chunks of primary resources to the US.
- China is capable of being self-sufficient rapidly, as they have the land and the capabilities of going back to manual labor.
- China army has millenias of terrifying history. It may very well be still here in 10000 years. The US has 500 years of history, total.
- The US never entered a war that would affect their borders. Up till then, they brought the fire far from home, giving a false sense of indestructibility to their population. China is your neighbor.
- Attacking China means WWIII, it's not sure humanity can even survive it.
People assume that an intervention would be ships and helicopters showing up with people dancing in the streets like in some sort of movie.
Regime change does not look like that.
It looks Venezuela, Libya, Iran ...
And starts with a long information campaign.
Given these examples, Hong Kong would be much better off without such intervention.
That's like saying Germany was a broken state after US intervened in WW2. I mean, it was literally broken up, but it didn't have an insane dictator committing mass scale human rights abuses anymore.
However, the simple fact that the US went in guns blazing and left before things got better (because otherwise it would have been too costly) doesn't invalidate all forms of intervention ever and forever.
It's no wonder such sensitive situations were mishandled. The theoretical magical chain of events that lead to sustained "freedom" was always there, on paper at least, but using the US examples we should conclude that its cost-benefit is waaay way lower than necessary to consider it a useful foreign policy tool.
Of course, an avid idealist might argue that this just means the US (or the world, or the West) just needs more experience to be able to better export "freedom"; and of course it is something we should never stop trying. And even today, even after the whole ISIL/ISIS campaign every place is better off now than it was before. (No Saddam, no Gaddafi, etc.)
I don’t think Venezuela, Libya, or Iran is a fair comparison to Hong Kong regarding the progress or prospect of liberation/democratization. For one, Hong Kongers have been used to elections for almost 30 years now (since 1991), have practiced free press and rule of law, and mostly free of corruption, so I think Taiwan may be a closer comparison in terms of how liberation/democratization of Hong Kong would become.
The recent frustration towards elections in Hong Kong (which is also one root cause of the on-going protests) is that the elections are far from representative or universal suffrage (half of the seats in the Legislative Council–the functional constituencies–have pretty limited representation, while the Chief Executive is elected by a pro-Beijing committee of 1200 out of a population of 7M+), and that some elected members of the Legislative Council who are pro-Hong Kong got outright disqualified. A liberation/democratization of Hong Kong means such issues are fixed, which is more like Taiwan than Venezuela, Libya, or Iran.
UK has precious little leverage left except trade sanctions, which is a far weaker lever as we leave the EU. Nonetheless HKers have taken out ads targeting UK gov requesting sanctions be imposed:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/24/hong-kong-acti...
Given China's silk road deals with Italy, I don't think any EU action will be forthcoming UK or no UK.
The problem for anyone contemplating China sanctions is we got too dependent on them, making sanctions too expensive.
If the last two big conflicts were due to European actions, the next one will be due their inaction at the appropriate time.
I am not American.
A loose union like the EU is unlikely to ever even threaten war, which is more or less the point of it I guess.
The EU did what it is best at, money stuff. Sanctions against Moscow and cheap debt/aid to Kiev.
What else should/could it do?
It's fascinating to see people advocate that European leaders should ignore the democratically expressed wishes of their own people in order to support "democracy" on the other side of the planet.
And in the end what is democracy? Will of the people. Great, what if the people are trigger happy xenophobics? (Just look at how nationalist populism is on the rise in democratic countries.)
I don’t think Iraq or Afghanistan is a fair comparison to Hong Kong regarding the progress or prospect of liberation/democratization. For one, Hong Kongers have been used to elections for almost 30 years now (since 1991), have practiced free press and rule of law, and mostly free of corruption, so I think Taiwan may be a closer comparison in terms of how liberation/democratization of Hong Kong would become.
The recent frustration towards elections in Hong Kong (which is also one root cause of the on-going protests) is that the elections are far from representative or universal suffrage (half of the seats in the Legislative Council–the functional constituencies–have pretty limited representation, while the Chief Executive is elected by a pro-Beijing committee of 1200 out of a population of 7M+), and that some elected members of the Legislative Council who are pro-Hong Kong got outright disqualified. A liberation/democratization of Hong Kong means such issues are fixed, which is more like Taiwan than Iraq or Afghanistan.
> Great, what if the people are trigger happy xenophobics?
I would say that xenophobism would not be a problem in Hong Kong, because the pro-democratic (and even the localist) camp cherish cultural values and core values (e.g. democracy, freedom, and rule of law), and ignore differences in ethnicity or origin. For example, Edward Leung, currently in prison but was a key figure of the localist group Hong Kong Indigenous, was born in Wuhan, China. For another example, Nabela Qoser, a Pakistani news reporter who speaks fluent Cantonese and long regarded as a Hong Konger, is called a heroine by the pro-democratic and localist camp for asking pointed questions towards the Chief Executive (Carrie Lam) during the most recent press conference on 22 July.
By contrast, the pro-Beijing establishment (and anti-democratic) camp is in general more xenophobic: quite a number of their supporters are against the presense of non-Chinese (in terms of ethnicity).
How come there are HKers that are pro-Beijing at all? I mean sure, they might on the short term gain more, but this kind of thinking poisons every political system. And I'm not saying I know a better one, but seeing these events unfold is very disheartening.
Honk Kong, population 7 millions.
Give them all the weapons you want, they will get crushed.
Here we are talking about what is now the biggest, baddest bully in the room. 1.3 billion people, our entire economy in hostage and the nuclear bomb.
Chine doesn't have to worry about the opinion of the rest of world.
Never happened.
Which is the reason why HK was gifted to the PRC in the first place - it cannot be defended against a siege.
After the triad attacks, and now this, I’m worried how far China will go to suppress any unrest.
FWIW, any Americans looking to (try to) help may write their Congress representatives to support the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.
Certainly both would lose many lives. Why would any American want to die for this crisis? Why would you imagine China would give up or be unable to defend territory so near their mainland?
In a defensive war, probably China. They've got more tanks, more people, more manufacturing capabilities, lots of artillery and no doubt they've spent years preparing themselves militarily for such an event.
EDIT: damn it, Irak (french) is spelled with a q in English.
Is there even a million of mercenaries available around the entire world ?
How would you make them even work together ?
A million people is huge.
Equality means they can be fed to the meatgrinder too.
No, but we should definitely subsidise defensive weapons sales to Taiwan and our other democratic allies in the region.
Deterrence doesn’t work if done in secret. If China intervened in Hong Kong militarily, Taiwan and our allies need to be able to credibly threaten the mainland with retaliation.
And how does one "credibly threaten the mainland with retaliation" without nuclear weapons? Honest question.
Vietnam involved American ground troops. Upgrading a country’s standing army is different.
(Tactical note. China has a huge army. It’s navy is humbler. Troop transport capacities are manageable with the right guns and logistical lines. Add to that the international waters separating Taiwan and China, and an invasion can be rendered untenable.)
that is eerily similar to how we ended up in Vietnam> how does one "credibly threaten the mainland with retaliation" without nuclear weapons?
Non-nuclear ballistic missiles. Cruise missiles. Mines. Stealth bombers.
>Troop transport capacities are manageable with the right guns and logistical lines.
I actually laughed. I guess we didn't have the "right guns" in Afghanistan.
>Add to that the international waters separating Taiwan and China, and an invasion can be rendered untenable.
And what happens when they call our bluff? We sink a transport ship? WWIII, that's what happens.
"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."
The mere fact that I had a previous comment in which I directly refer to ... some point in the past and I deleted it because I am scared of the (global) repercussions of my comments on the internet is horrifying...
What is up with the delusional nature of Hong Kong proponents? I mean I get that there are no other options but come on we have to watch this slow motion trainwreck for 50 years straight? Just get it over with already!
The US is merely going to re-evaluate Hong Kong’s independence, not this thing on the other end of the spectrum.
Everything I ever hear about Hong Kong residents is oozing with delusion. “We’ll get UK passports!” Remember that meme?
Im going to be on the edge of my seat if she requests the military though
Seriously? I'm surprised they held off this long. Remember Tienanmen Square?
Worry not, they're busily working on making sure you won't.
“just because of the comparatively open press in Hong Kong + ubiquity of cell phones”
Of course I remember Tienanmen. And I’m also aware of the Uyghur camps. It’s no surprise that a country as authoritarian as China will be violent. What’s surprising is that it’s being violent in an autonomous territory with many Western connections.
> What’s surprising is that it’s being violent in an autonomous territory with many Western connections.
I don't see what that has to do with an open press and ubiquity of cell phones.
Furthermore, Honk Kong is not "an autonomous territory". It's part of China, full stop. The fact that the people who live there are behaving as if it were an autonomous territory is no small part of the problem.
Also, which of Hong Kong's "many Western connections" do you think is going to intervene when China invades? Do you really think Donald Trump is going to stand up for democracy? Do you really think Boris Johnson is going to send troops to protect Hong Kong's free press?
Please don't. We don't need more concrete excuses for the central government to claim that there is foreign meddling. If the people of the country cannot awaken to fight together in solidarity against the authoritarian government, then it's just too bad. So be it. I still live in Hong Kong and it's a scary thought, but it's also the only correct way.
In fact, nobody can expect the US or any foreign government to want to "save" Hong Kong in good faith. We don't need your saving.
The target audience of the protests are (1) local officials, and (2) fellow citizens who do not share the gravity of the situation.
CCP will, of course, know of the protests with no need for any relay.
The “HK students protested against pro-China regulation and quickly succeeded, rejoice!” articles in Western media, though, will also be read by CCP. What would you do if you felt yourself losing your hard-earned strong image in front of the whole world?
Local media attention helps, worldwide—not so much.
Of course, since Beijing is not really the backing down type, it'll be a little bit of a bloodshed and the unification will be completed ahead of schedule.
> Please don't. We don't need more concrete excuses for the central government to claim that there is foreign meddling. If the people of the country cannot awaken to fight together in solidarity against the authoritarian government, then it's just too bad. So be it. I still live in Hong Kong and it's a scary thought, but it's also the only correct way.
> In fact, nobody can expect the US or any foreign government to want to "save" Hong Kong in good faith. We don't need your saving.
Thanks for voicing out your view, but I beg to differ.
I am a Hong Konger and I support the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act 2019, and I welcome Americans to write to their Congress representatives to support the Act—in fact I persuaded my friends to do so.
The central government has been claiming foreign meddling even when there is none: they claim that the protesters went to the street because of direct monetary support by the United States, which—frankly—is insulting to the million protesters. They made similar claims during the 2014 Umbrella protest already, without any evidence of foreign meddling even until now.
Let’s be honest: the Hong Kong protesters would have lost much earlier without foreign support (mostly media attention). The Hong Kong protesters are pretty pragmatic: they don’t expect foreigners (including the US) to “save” Hong Kong in good faith, the protesters only hope that it would be mutually beneficial to align their interests with that of foreign governments, and the protesters would do their part.
Let me use Singapore as an analogy (and to be clear, this example does not imply independence movement or whatsoever): Lee Kuan Yew succeeded with the foreign relations of Singapore largely because he aligned the interests of Singapore with those of foreign powers, such as of Taiwan and of the United States, so that Singapore got their support (including military one). It does not mean foreign meddling or that foreign government want to “save” Singapore in good faith. It means alignment of interests.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/education-29723763/oslo-freedom-...
It's interesting how BBC added that clarification. At the height of Occupy Central, people were mocking a pro-establishment outlet (東網) for saying that Occupy Central was planned years ahead, in contact with people from the Oslo Freedom Forum. The outlet quoted that BBC Newsnight had initially reported on it.
I didn't bother correcting the people who were mocking that report, but 30 seconds on Google got me the video that clearly stated that the protest were planned years in advance with outside help.
I'm not going to make judgements on whether this constitutes as foreign meddling, but it isn't exactly free from foreign involvement either.
Similarly, plenty had brushed off the accusation thrown at Martin Lee, or Jimmy Lai for foreign involvement. A bit of a quick search on Wikileaks yielded plenty of communication between Martin Lee and the US reps in HK. Lai had also met the same reps, with one of his American lieutenants - the same lieutenant had stated in an American media outlet (the name slips my mind now) that he had not been in contact with the US government for 15 years, but that statement falls apart when you look at the date of the leaked cable.
How much "involvement" is probably something that we won't easily find out, but it isn't to say that there's no evidence of it beyond media coverage.
Would that mean China takes a different stance in HK? Like this is an international PR chess game and China must follow the rules? Because surely that is not true.
HK is both valuable and dangerous to China, and the US can't seriously effect any narrative within the Chinese media. China, on the other hand, can create any narrative it wishes to.
We just spent the last 3+ years, complaining about foreign meddling in our democracy and now we're right back to advocating that we do it ourselves to someone else.
Amazing.
Oh, no. Not violence, they're merely "maintaining order," something the state is obligated to do. A few criminals are using violent acts and making life miserable for the silent majority...etc etc.
Millennials seem set to ruin one more thing: government corruption. The progressive revolution you see in the U.S. is also due to them.
It is also not surprising. Who has the most incentive for long term sensibility in nation management? People that have many years left to live. On top of that students often live in ideological bubbles that are ripe with underutilized manpower.
The pattern seems to be more about had that particular age cohort (generation) already tried protesting? If no, they will try it. It usually doesn't succeed, they will then never try it again.
Plus the students as you mentioned.
As a Taiwanese, I am more optimistic than your are regarding the thinking and passion of young east Asians.
And the USA belongs to Britain.
The Hong Kong people don't want to be Chinese. Nobody wants to be Chinese. Even the fucking Chinese people don't want to be Chinese.
So what exactly is it that belongs to China? An island? The buildings and roads? I can sure as hell tell you that the hearts of the majority of the people will never ever belong to China.
Freedom of the people is a one way street and any attempt to reverse will always be met with resistance. China will maybe learn this one day, when it stops being a corrupt shithole full of uneducated farmers in the claws of of the worlds most successful PsyOps machine.
Forget your fancy high rise cities and shallow facades that are Shenzhen and Shanghai. Those cities are so far from representing China as anything in this world could ever be. Behind those shiny and polished exteriors lies a rotten police state, which will not think twice about cracking down on you, your family or your friends, if you dare to challenge them and their brittle egos.
Go to any shithole village in China. I can guarantee you that in the top 5 of questions you will get, will be some variant of "Do you hate Japanese too?". Because that is the only button the government has to play with: Indoctrination of hate towards some external force, which is supposedly always responsible for all their hardship. Night after night after night they sit in their little shithole villages in literally shithole houses and watch retarded movies about the Sino-Japanese war, when they are not watching people crying on brain dead soap operas. Killing, crying, killing, crying in an endless cycle.
Now you should ask yourself: "Why suddenly is the Chinese government telling the people in China about the ungrateful rascal rioters in Hong Kong?". Really.. You should ask yourself this question.
[1] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3019854/chi...
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46353767
SCMP is not at liberty to tell "the truth" (by western standards).
Nothing Xi has done in the past year with Hong Kong has been smart. It’s short termed decision making, optimised for his political survival over the country’s long-term interests.
When dictators’ economies slow, they tend to pick from one of two handbooks: scapegoating a minority or launching pointless wars.
Most Hong Kongers, until recently, identified as Chinese moreso than Hong Konger. The transition in 2047 would have been uneventful.
Now, Hong Kong is pissed off. Taiwan has seen the writing on the wall. China’s multi-decade integration strategy must be rethought because Xi didn’t think he could survive Hong Kongers criticising his leadership.
0: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-45474279
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2009_Ürümqi_riots
He's a quick rehash of what the American military has been up to for the last 2 decades:
* Fighting a failing (read: failed) counter-insurgency, that has surely atrophied the necessary skills and experience of field-grade and above officers needed to fight great land and sea wars
* Mopping up the mess left from the above
I don't doubt the fighting ability of the line infantryman (I was one), but this idea that we could do anything about Hong Kong without engaging in a full-scale war is ludicrous. It ignores a) the actual military engagements this country has gotten into for the last 20 years, and b) the actual geo-political situation in the region. Perhaps consider what strategic interest to the United States Hong Kong represents before advocating that we get into yet another endless war with nebulous objectives and mystical thinking about how easy it would be.
Fighting a land war against China for Hong Kong is ludicrous. Making a second Tiananmen Square painful for Beijing is not.
From sanctions, to weapons sales to Taiwan et al, to providing protesters and resistance pockets with intelligence, there are options. Whether they’re worth it is the question.
Maybe the USSR becomes the global superpolice...
It doesn't matter how bad its economy is if it controls all the militaries and secret polices!
/s
7 millions people in Honk Kong cannot win against 1.3 billions of people from main land, no matter how many weapons you provide.
"Making a second Tiananmen Square painful for Beijing is not" could be a good strat, but something tells me they learned from that one and have a plan for it this time.
One might wonder why didn't Hilliary figure out how to use Facebook. The answer might be, that she did, but just like with the Russia buying their own ads with peanuts money compared to the DNC spend - it didn't really matter. Seeing people parrot the Russia narrative, the same day the Man himself testified that it didn't actually happen, entertains me a bit.
Anyway, you are completely right about how overused the Russia line is without data on its interference effectiveness.
So... That did happen.
With sanctions freezing huge amount of their assets the Russians didn't really have any serious plays against the US except pushing the soft-power propaganda angle[1]. Essentially they (Russians) just kept trying lots of random things[1], in high volume, until something stuck -- and it worked, spectacularly well too, mostly due to decades of propaganda already shaping the Republican base.
Hilary was marketing hard on all platforms, but some estimates put the Russian spend at $400k USD per month, on top of NRA, GOP, and other heavy Right-Wing spends.
[1] see RAND Corp research about this: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html
That would be in no-one's interests.
Immediately after the Tiananmen Square events in 1989 the US sent a high ranking general to Beijing to reassure the Chinese that this changed nothing.
The situation has changed because now China is seen as a real rival but the US and the West still have zero interests in going down that route. Not least because China is not a small country, it's the second economy on Earth.
I think the events in HK are being spinned and that some people are really losing their sense of proportion.
Bluntly speaking: The events in HK are irrelevant globally and are regional news at best. They are not a global issue that deserve international involvement.
At the same time, it is very difficult to understand the message and aim of the protesters, and their violence made them lose a lot of credibility.
And, it also gives the West less credibility internationally. The US has been very clear that it was behind "one China, two systems" since the 80s a dramatic policy change would make every other country think "ok, so why should we expect that any treaty we or alliance we form with the US will hold?". If countries don't trust the West they stop working with the West and that reduces its power by orders of magnitude.
People seem to be outraged by vague allegations of Russian meddling in other countries' affairs but China should be treated like a colony by the West... That's highly hypocritical (if not racist).
That agreement was predicated on a belief that over time, China would open up and become more democratic and Hong Kong would smoothly merge cultures.
Unfortunately, that assumption was entirely false. It's been 20 years since the handover, and China has not at all moved towards freedoms generally considered a pre-requisite to social society in the west.
Hong Kong has completely different values than mainland China. Even if the current events fade away, they are on an unavoidable collision course.
I’m Swedish, a person with the same passport as me was kidnapped from Thailand and imprisoned in China probably after hours of torture because of something he published and his democracy activism in Hong Kong. The sentiment in Sweden is that it would’ve been nice for China to not say that Hong Kong would be under ”one China, two systems” if that’s not how things would turn out. Kidnapping Swedish citizens in Thailand for something they are legally allowed to do in Hong Kong doesn’t look like a domestic issue to me.
That's what happening and I don't remember that the Chinese government tried to renege on this.
But again, ultimately this is a domestic issue. Britain is out of the picture.
The respect of ”one country, two systems” was something China promised the UK. The international community is absolutely remaining in the picture.
China has also extradition treaties with some western countries. Does that mean that e.g. France is no longer 'autonomous'?
This extradition bill does not impact HK's autonomy at all. This is very transparently a pretext.
One has to wonder who's behind all of this because this is really getting more farcical by the day.
It is also very interesting that western media tend to use the terms 'China' for the mainland in their reports on these events. Clearly this is not neutral and makes Western opinion believe that HK is not China.
If your core values are freedom, democracy, and the right of the people to choose who governs them, then it does not seem hypocritical at all.