CCP does not care much. As someone said recently, the economical and political and cultural value of HK is diminishing rapidly in the past, and HK as to China becomes much less relevant.
The bottom line is no more political advancement that might causes dissidents inside the mainland. That's just no political reform in HK. And there should not be large scale violence. Everything else, up to the local government.
HK won't be a role model for Taiwan. Despite numerous people using that for HK to be treated as somewhat more precious than it has been. My simple read is that everyone in China know Taiwan is different than HK, no one in China believe Taiwan will go through HK's struggle. For one thing, Taiwan has a real substantial economy that is complimenting to the mai land and is much larger in size and diversity, and HK does not.
It should be noted that the mainland govt. doesn't need to mobilize troops. The 6000-strong combat-ready PLA Hong Kong Garrison is already in Hong Kong. The only way for them to enter is if the Hong Kong govt. gives permission or the violence/demonstrations escalates to a point where troops need to be sent in or if the garrison is provoked. Otherwise, it will likely be ignored like the 2014 Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong and no military will be sent in.
This is my take on mainland sentiment also. If it comes down to HK being torn apart by some group, the CCP would rather that group be the HKers themselves than the PLA. HK is sufficiently culturally, politically and geographically insulated that don't have to worry about the unrest spreading over to the mainland. They’ll let them burn their own city down if that’s what they want - and if they do, the problem largely solves itself because an act like that would alienate most reasonable HKers from their cause.
What they won’t tolerate is an external force stepping in on behalf of the protestors because that would be a direct challenge to their sovereignty over the region. That’s the one and only scenario where the PLA has a possibility of being deployed.
The CCP has time on their side when it comes to dealing with this issue. Are the businesses in HK attempting to conduct their day to day operations able to say the same thing [1][2]?
This is my perception too, even if discussions like this don't surface well on consensus driven sites.
The Guangzhou region has experienced some of the greatest capitalist reforms and execution over the last few decades, and Hong Kong becomes less of a “separate system” and more of an “administrative convenience” for that region.
Also its not clear if Hong Kong’s “Basic Law” constitution expires after its geographic autonomy expires. It doesn't have to. Even if mainland China activates their military there now-ish, it doesn’t mean that mainland China needs to absolve the HK system, and thats the same after 2047 too. It is purely discretionary and totally strategic.
Yes, Hong Kong citizens are deathly afraid of these outcomes, but they don't a have a say in the matter and we shouldn't pretend like they do. It would be more productive if that was made clear.
The headline seems obvious, but this actually is an escalation. Beijing is requesting change, by what seems to be any means necessary, in a public video conference. It seems to be a warning, until this quote.
“We have noted that the special region’s government has already done some serious summary and reflection,” said Xu Luying, a spokeswoman for the affairs office, citing Mrs. Lam as saying she would “change the administrative style, and listen to public opinion more openly and inclusively.”
I'm surprised by that language as it seems to be targeted at a Western, potentially even Coastal US, audience. Especially when sending Chinese troops has appeared to be a possible option of last resort.
All in all, I'm not sure what to make of the situation, but I hope that the conflict gets resolved in a way that allows Hong Kong to maintain further sovereignty. I doubt that that it will.
Saying that sending troops is an option of last resort is stating the obvious and legal reality (the Hong Kong executive can request help from the PLA by law).
While this can be interpreted as a threat, I highly doubt that the central or Hong Kong governments are considering the option.
Really, the central government does not need to do anything at the moment. Realistically these protests cannot lead anywhere and the only ones they hurt are Hong Kong people themselves and their future at a time when Hong Kong is no longer strategically important (although still important).
"Realistically these protests cannot lead anywhere and the only ones they hurt are Hong Kong people themselves and their future at a time when Hong Kong is no longer strategically important (although still important)."
Ding ding ding. Tough pill to swallow for anyone walking in the same shoes but it's the pragmatic truth.
Analogously, high-flying startup gets bought by mega corp. News at 11, and the human story repeats itself.
I'm guessing you may be unaware of the fact that Hong Kong was re-acquired by China in 1997. It had been allowed freedoms that were nigh-unbelievable in mainland China, which allowed it to surge in growth and expertise at an extremely rapid rate during the 80s and 90s. The transition was a tense one with the world watching to see what would happen. China let the 'startup' city run independently for a while, and now it's finally reigning it in to be more aligned to toe the'corporate line.'
It should be noted that Britain tried to give Hong Kong more democracy and freedom since the 60’s but got rejected by China [1], when saying that Hong Kong had more freedom after the handover in 1997.
That’s like me taking your wallet, but still offering to let you use your debit card once in a while. At the end of the day, it's a colonizer dictating the terms of governance over territory obtained through coercive means.
Presumably he's referring to the phenomena where whenever any new movement or organization poses a threat to the established order, the established powers will co-opt, buy off, undermine, or otherwise eliminate the leaders of the new movement, cutting off the threat at its source.
Multiple systems within the modern world work like this. Tech startup acquisitions are a way for established mega-corps to eliminate rising competition by paying a billion or so to the founders, key employees, and investors of them. Democracy is a way to encourage would-be revolutionaries to instead run for office and become part of the governing political establishment rather than overthrowing it. College scholarships are a way to take intelligent, driven kids from the lower classes and provide them with an entry point into the upper classes, so that they don't serve as a nucleus for class struggle in the future.
We used to have institutions that were significantly less robust to these threats, eg. a hereditary monarchy has no defense for an incompetent king faced by able revolutionaries. However, over time all of these non-resilient institutions have been replaced by more resilient ones with escape valves to embrace those who would overthrow them.
The only way to achieve meaningful social change is to do something so insane that all the powers that be laugh at you, eg. create a website for college kids to throw virtual sheep at each other or make millions of CPUs compete to solve useless math problems and call it a currency.
>> Realistically these protests cannot lead anywhere
Perhaps they could prevent legal extradition to the mainland? I think that people in Japan, South Korea and most importantly Taiwan watch what is going on. China has all the cards to play, but they will hurt their soft power if they are too draconian.
The government can propose bills. So even if they fully withdraw the current bill you can never have certainty that there won't be a similar bill proposed in the future.
Therefore I think that they have achieved all they could about this issue.
Previously, Lam suspended the bill amid mass protests, saying it will expire next July when the Legislative Council’s current term ends. But protesters have continued to demand the plan be axed completely.
> but they will hurt their soft power if they are too draconian.
So the modern day concentration camps aren't at the line of being too draconian? Either we really have an issue recognizing modern day genocide or our modern day society is far more tolerant of draconian action than your comment implies.
> I'm surprised by that language as it seems to be targeted at a Western, potentially even Coastal US, audience.
Not at all. If a government institution or company in China makes an unpopular decision that leads to large protests, the government will usually issue a statement that condemns the protests as "riots", but simultaneously promises changes that basically amount to fulfilling the protester's demands, i.e. they do some "summary and reflection".
The government's power isn't threatened by the occasional protest succeeding, but by those protests growing in scale, either by making more demands or by inspiring similar movements in other parts of China. That's why they censor all news about ongoing protests, arrest any leaders they can identify and send in riot police to stop the protesters reaching any place where they can get more attention. But those measures aren't effective at stopping a protest that has already started, they can only prevent it from spreading. In the end, some actual change is necessary to convince protesters that there's no need to keep protesting and they can go home.
So basically the central government is criticizing the Hong Kong government for not acquiescing to the demands quickly enough and letting the protests grow to this scale, where they can't be kept out of the news anymore.
HK still represents a Chinese world where the CPC and Xi do not have absolute rule. It represents a Chinese world that has or had some democracy where the people could petition government for redress of grievances and where people can choose their own representatives. This cannot be permitted. They cannot have the Chinese people of mainland China think they have the freedom to have any public redress of grievances with the CPC.
So we will likely see this violently crushed, because this is all about perception. As the protests continue, there's a greater and greater likelyhood CPC propaganda can no longer distort the truth. So CPC must put it down. And since HK is no longer as financially relevant and the UK is astoundingly weak by comparison to 50 years ago, we will likely see Basic Law die.
The PLA will happily storm HK if the HK govt requests it... but they won't. The reason is money.
If the PLA move in, the wealthy elite in HK will start moving their assets out -- likely to Singapore. Political instability is never good for investments and when a handful of the millionaires/billionaires start migrating their wealth, it'll become a mass exodus.
I don’t think it’s this simple. Ultimately stability is paramount and more important than wealth. Self preservation of the CCP may require intervention.
I’m sure they’d prefer to avoid having to use a heavy hand, but they will if they surmise that they have to.
China does not value the status/wellbeing of their millionaires/billionaires over the control of the CCP in people's minds, which is always the top priority.
I think they value their millions and billions more than either. And they made a fair number of those millions and billions through their relationship with mainland China and the CCP. If it looks like the mainland CCP is going to cost them their millions and billions, though...
At this moment, at least, the CCP is mostly pro big business and friendly to the rich (as many of them are themselves now). Of course, that could change at anytime, but the interests of the rich are more closely aligned with the CCP than the protesters atm.
Yes, I specifically meant the HK rich. They have lots of business interests outside of HK and inside China, so it isn’t very surprising that they are tied to the party at the hip. The same is actually true for Taiwan (rich Taiwanese are pro China even if working class Taiwanese are not).
HK only amounts to a small percentage of China's GDP now. This is also why HK has less free rein in its affairs. The "one state two systems" policy was convenient when HK was a giant in China and they needed the cash. With the economic free zones and growth of China itself, it's just less important compared to other cities in Guangdong. China would absolutely take a 2-3% GDP cut to be ridden of HK problems.
China is far more worried about public image and international condemnation. Especially with all of the other scrutiny on China's affairs (xinjiang concentration camps etc)
"HK only amounts to a small percentage of China's GDP now" Echoing this statement, HK accounted for 18% of China's GDP when it became part of China in 1997. Today its neighboring city Shenzhen alone generates more GDP than HK. Nobody saw this coming twenty years ago.
The Chinese definitely saw it coming. The special economic zones were a specific plan to undercut HKs power and fuel mainland growth, which the CCP directly controlled. The mainland has always distrusted what it deems to be subversive ideas. HK and its ideas towards democracy has always been an existential threat.
I will say what I want about colonialism, and there's no bloody way in hell that world should have, or would have accepted a military campaign by the UK to keep Hong Kong British.
Let's also not forget that the entire reason that the CCP is in power in China today, is a century and a bit of colonial rape by various occupying powers, starting from the opium wars, and ending with the invasion of Manchuria by Imperial Japan. Unsurprisingly, this lead to two nationalist movements, the winner ending up on the mainland, the loser in Taiwan.
> If the PLA move in, the wealthy elite in HK will start moving their assets out
I would already start moving my assets out right fucking now. No, yesterday. The window in which you can move your assets and leave is closing as we speak. It's not gonna get better. People who don't want to get fucked by an authoritarian, socialist government have no choice other than fleeing. Singapore is authoritarian too, though.
While the running theory is "China can wait it out" has been going on for quite some time, especially when HK was more critical to the Chinese economy. I'm not sure that is entirely the case anymore.
China has been more aggressively pushing their priories in recent decades / years internally and externally. Internally Xi has taken hold and arguably the current Chinese government is far less tolerant of opposing views than in the past.
I wonder if internally the ongoing issue in HK is seen by Xi and Co. as something that makes them look bad. If they feel that the situation in HK is a threat (even if just bad PR) to them... they may feel the need to act in new ways.
The majority of the West's major miscalculations occurred because they were evaluating Soviet responses through a democratic political lense.
When a fall from power means a firing squad (though less so now) or labor camp and total asset seizure, political calculus changes substantially.
If Xi's grip on power were threatened, there are a lot of things that would be reasonable for him to do... that would appear very unlikely to any observer in a democratic country.
The PLA wasn't sent into Beijing in 1989 because it was the smart play. It was sent in because the alternative was to cede power to a citizenry you'd just spent decades terrorizing and murdering. (The madness of the Cultural Revolution having happened about 10 years earlier)
Yeah and Xi seems to have much more centeralized control than party control in the past ... an individual (or smaller group) may make far more unpredictable decision than say a large party who may naturally wish for stability.
52 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 91.1 ms ] threadThe bottom line is no more political advancement that might causes dissidents inside the mainland. That's just no political reform in HK. And there should not be large scale violence. Everything else, up to the local government.
HK won't be a role model for Taiwan. Despite numerous people using that for HK to be treated as somewhat more precious than it has been. My simple read is that everyone in China know Taiwan is different than HK, no one in China believe Taiwan will go through HK's struggle. For one thing, Taiwan has a real substantial economy that is complimenting to the mai land and is much larger in size and diversity, and HK does not.
How likely do you think that is to occur?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Hon...
They will have to be reinforced from the mainland.
There were no stop to certainly demonstrative military maneuvers in Guangdong for the last 2 months. Very much an innuendo from PLA.
I doubt though that will happen.
Plainly, military force is not needed. If HK was ruined, so be it. That's what I read from mainland's sentiment.
What they won’t tolerate is an external force stepping in on behalf of the protestors because that would be a direct challenge to their sovereignty over the region. That’s the one and only scenario where the PLA has a possibility of being deployed.
The CCP has time on their side when it comes to dealing with this issue. Are the businesses in HK attempting to conduct their day to day operations able to say the same thing [1][2]?
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-29/hong-kong...
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-28/hong-kong...
The Guangzhou region has experienced some of the greatest capitalist reforms and execution over the last few decades, and Hong Kong becomes less of a “separate system” and more of an “administrative convenience” for that region.
Also its not clear if Hong Kong’s “Basic Law” constitution expires after its geographic autonomy expires. It doesn't have to. Even if mainland China activates their military there now-ish, it doesn’t mean that mainland China needs to absolve the HK system, and thats the same after 2047 too. It is purely discretionary and totally strategic.
Yes, Hong Kong citizens are deathly afraid of these outcomes, but they don't a have a say in the matter and we shouldn't pretend like they do. It would be more productive if that was made clear.
“We have noted that the special region’s government has already done some serious summary and reflection,” said Xu Luying, a spokeswoman for the affairs office, citing Mrs. Lam as saying she would “change the administrative style, and listen to public opinion more openly and inclusively.”
I'm surprised by that language as it seems to be targeted at a Western, potentially even Coastal US, audience. Especially when sending Chinese troops has appeared to be a possible option of last resort.
All in all, I'm not sure what to make of the situation, but I hope that the conflict gets resolved in a way that allows Hong Kong to maintain further sovereignty. I doubt that that it will.
While this can be interpreted as a threat, I highly doubt that the central or Hong Kong governments are considering the option.
Really, the central government does not need to do anything at the moment. Realistically these protests cannot lead anywhere and the only ones they hurt are Hong Kong people themselves and their future at a time when Hong Kong is no longer strategically important (although still important).
Ding ding ding. Tough pill to swallow for anyone walking in the same shoes but it's the pragmatic truth.
Analogously, high-flying startup gets bought by mega corp. News at 11, and the human story repeats itself.
What do startups getting acquired have to do with Hong Kong's relationship with China?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hong_Kong#1990s
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...
Multiple systems within the modern world work like this. Tech startup acquisitions are a way for established mega-corps to eliminate rising competition by paying a billion or so to the founders, key employees, and investors of them. Democracy is a way to encourage would-be revolutionaries to instead run for office and become part of the governing political establishment rather than overthrowing it. College scholarships are a way to take intelligent, driven kids from the lower classes and provide them with an entry point into the upper classes, so that they don't serve as a nucleus for class struggle in the future.
We used to have institutions that were significantly less robust to these threats, eg. a hereditary monarchy has no defense for an incompetent king faced by able revolutionaries. However, over time all of these non-resilient institutions have been replaced by more resilient ones with escape valves to embrace those who would overthrow them.
The only way to achieve meaningful social change is to do something so insane that all the powers that be laugh at you, eg. create a website for college kids to throw virtual sheep at each other or make millions of CPUs compete to solve useless math problems and call it a currency.
Perhaps they could prevent legal extradition to the mainland? I think that people in Japan, South Korea and most importantly Taiwan watch what is going on. China has all the cards to play, but they will hurt their soft power if they are too draconian.
Haven't they accomplished that already?
So no :)
The government can propose bills. So even if they fully withdraw the current bill you can never have certainty that there won't be a similar bill proposed in the future.
Therefore I think that they have achieved all they could about this issue.
Previously, Lam suspended the bill amid mass protests, saying it will expire next July when the Legislative Council’s current term ends. But protesters have continued to demand the plan be axed completely.
https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/07/09/hong-kongs-carrie-lam-...
So the modern day concentration camps aren't at the line of being too draconian? Either we really have an issue recognizing modern day genocide or our modern day society is far more tolerant of draconian action than your comment implies.
Not at all. If a government institution or company in China makes an unpopular decision that leads to large protests, the government will usually issue a statement that condemns the protests as "riots", but simultaneously promises changes that basically amount to fulfilling the protester's demands, i.e. they do some "summary and reflection".
The government's power isn't threatened by the occasional protest succeeding, but by those protests growing in scale, either by making more demands or by inspiring similar movements in other parts of China. That's why they censor all news about ongoing protests, arrest any leaders they can identify and send in riot police to stop the protesters reaching any place where they can get more attention. But those measures aren't effective at stopping a protest that has already started, they can only prevent it from spreading. In the end, some actual change is necessary to convince protesters that there's no need to keep protesting and they can go home.
So basically the central government is criticizing the Hong Kong government for not acquiescing to the demands quickly enough and letting the protests grow to this scale, where they can't be kept out of the news anymore.
So we will likely see this violently crushed, because this is all about perception. As the protests continue, there's a greater and greater likelyhood CPC propaganda can no longer distort the truth. So CPC must put it down. And since HK is no longer as financially relevant and the UK is astoundingly weak by comparison to 50 years ago, we will likely see Basic Law die.
HK isn't a country but is model for how a country that willingly or unwillingly gets entangled with the commies ends up. Not better off.
If the PLA move in, the wealthy elite in HK will start moving their assets out -- likely to Singapore. Political instability is never good for investments and when a handful of the millionaires/billionaires start migrating their wealth, it'll become a mass exodus.
I’m sure they’d prefer to avoid having to use a heavy hand, but they will if they surmise that they have to.
China is far more worried about public image and international condemnation. Especially with all of the other scrutiny on China's affairs (xinjiang concentration camps etc)
Post-WTO, the Chinese are mostly through the front door without having had to change.
So definitely less dependence on HK now.
The British were still insane to give it back though. Say what you want about colonialism and how it was originally annexed, it was a strategic gem.
They fought a war they could barely win over the Falklands, and then they hand Hong Kong over as a gift.
There's no doubt China could have and probably would have taken it by force, but they also needed world acceptance a lot more at the time.
Let's also not forget that the entire reason that the CCP is in power in China today, is a century and a bit of colonial rape by various occupying powers, starting from the opium wars, and ending with the invasion of Manchuria by Imperial Japan. Unsurprisingly, this lead to two nationalist movements, the winner ending up on the mainland, the loser in Taiwan.
Taiwan largely seems to be getting on fine.
And let's not forget they'd both be Japanese states if it weren't for American, British, and ANZAC sailors and soldiers.
I would already start moving my assets out right fucking now. No, yesterday. The window in which you can move your assets and leave is closing as we speak. It's not gonna get better. People who don't want to get fucked by an authoritarian, socialist government have no choice other than fleeing. Singapore is authoritarian too, though.
China has been more aggressively pushing their priories in recent decades / years internally and externally. Internally Xi has taken hold and arguably the current Chinese government is far less tolerant of opposing views than in the past.
I wonder if internally the ongoing issue in HK is seen by Xi and Co. as something that makes them look bad. If they feel that the situation in HK is a threat (even if just bad PR) to them... they may feel the need to act in new ways.
The majority of the West's major miscalculations occurred because they were evaluating Soviet responses through a democratic political lense.
When a fall from power means a firing squad (though less so now) or labor camp and total asset seizure, political calculus changes substantially.
If Xi's grip on power were threatened, there are a lot of things that would be reasonable for him to do... that would appear very unlikely to any observer in a democratic country.
The PLA wasn't sent into Beijing in 1989 because it was the smart play. It was sent in because the alternative was to cede power to a citizenry you'd just spent decades terrorizing and murdering. (The madness of the Cultural Revolution having happened about 10 years earlier)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Communist_Part...