Yes, perhaps they could come to the UK and protest against the way the British government allows its citizens to be extradited to the USA. The existing British population seems a bit too meek in that respect.
Um, no? At what point are the citizens of a country responsible for changing it for the better? The citizens of Hong Kong need to stay and fight for the rights they desire, not run away to another country.
The ones that have the resources to run away already gave no problem doh g that, and many of them have already. The ones that can’t are mostly the ones that are protesting right now. They don’t really have a choice.
That’s a poor comparison, Hong Kong and North Korea are vastly different circumstances.
If we’re looking at human rights violations (North Korea), then the world stage should be involved, not a singular country.
The Hong Kong circumstance isn’t a human rights violation, more of a diplomacy incident.
What about mass surveillance, isn’t that a human rights violation? I would like it to be, but if that were the case, there are few places in the world to go to. Sure China is most explicit and egregious, but we have to have international court rulings before we begin to condemn and sanction based off surveillance (with many participating countries being hypocritical to an anti-surveillance ruling)
"Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,"
This is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Imposing a dictatorship on free people is a violation of human rights.
Not really the same situation in NK. But also the U.S. became what it is through standing up to the Brits. This goes for people too, at some point we all need to stand on our own. The U.S. isn't the worlds parent to run home to.
The Brits were also on the other side of the ocean, and we had substantial military support from the French. Things probably would have turned out differently if the UK could literally drive down the road to the colonies.
Ireland provides a good example. There were many Irish rebellions in the period from 1676 to 1876 (+- 100 years of American Revolution) some even with French support. However, Ireland was in England’s back yard and the English were determined to hold onto it and all the rebellions were brutally suppressed.
Well, having the ability to emigrate would probably help the citizens negotiate, especially when their autonomy was just stripped through Chinese imperialism (against the 1984 Sino British Joint Declaration no less).
Plus there's really no evidence that the best & brightest in Hong Kong can do anything to scratch the surface of changing China. They were largely free - acting as a demonstration of a working system for the mainland - the past two decades and it made no difference. So now they're going to make a difference once their rights are revoked and they're entirely silenced? Of course not, they're going to vanish into the crowd of the other 1.4 billion silenced persons with no ability to speak out.
The best thing the US (Europe and others) can do, is bleed off Hong Kong's talent, those that want to escape before the door closes. It's not going to severely harm China, however every Elon Musk or Jensen Huang that the US can get to its shores is a win.
The US should immediately set up a special, aggressive immigration program just for Hong Kong and Taiwan. After China is done consolidating the situation in Hong Kong in the near future, they will turn more of their attention and aggression to Taiwan (Taiwan is aware they're up next after HK, you can tell by their recent behavior and statements; Taiwan is sweating bullets, properly so).
Nope, I was lucky that my ancestors fought for the future of their children. People in Hong Kong need to do the same, so their children can also be so lucky.
As a citizen of a country that was invaded and taken apart multiple times in the last 200 years(Poland) - no, that's a very noble idea, but in practice that doesn't always work. Poland has survived in the shape that it is mostly because people were able to move and cultivate the Polish language, culture and heritage elsewhere temporarily. We even had a government-in-exile for a while in London, at the time when Poland was literally wiped off the map of Europe and just didn't exist any more, except in peoples' minds. I can't imagine my country would exist at all if other countries had your approach - just piss off and if you want to exist then go and fight. Sometimes this requires time, not grabbing swords and fighting.
I feel like you're trying to be inflammatory just for the sake of it. There are good reasons why Poland and Polish people couldn't fight like Americans did against the British, it would turn into an essay if I wanted to list them all. But I think most importantly, that approach worked - we have harboured Polish culture wherever we could and now we're a major country of 50 million people.
Not to offend anyone, but Americans haven't really demonstrated any ability or will to fight for their rights as a nation in the past 100 years, this posturing I see all the time from Americans about freedom is like a peacock displaying its feathers, not having done anything to earn them - you were just born with them.
Also, distances were vastly bigger (maybe that's included in positioning?). England had to ferry troops and material over the Atlantic at a time when a ship voyage was long and could very well end in disaster. China could move troops over in a matter of days without any real risk.
I don't think it's useful to generalize about whether people 'should' 'stay and fight' or not - it depends so much on the individuals and on the circumstances, but anyway:
Ultra was able to successfully decrypt Enigma messages because the British evacuated Polish code breakers, so I suppose it's a good thing those people didn't stay and fight.
The Polish resistance saved tens of thousands of Jews from the Holocaust and gave a ton of information to the Allies, so I suppose it's a good thing those people did stay and fight.
Tens of thousands of Polish soldiers (under the direction of the Polish government in exile) fought with the Allies throughout the war, so I suppose it's a good those people left and fought.
Just some random thoughts, everything is complicated.
The point that your argument misses is that it was fighting the invariably resolved the issues and paved the way for the exiled governments and people to return.
Yes, I guess it does. I guess the overall point is that the time was still needed though - Poland couldn't have fought for its independence at the time(there were 3 uprisings and the all failed) so maybe the situation is similar - Hong Kong citizens have no chance against China right now - but in 20 years the situation may be different. Of course it's impossible to predict.
Even America was created by people fleeing England and then breaking it off from the British empire (using a violent uprising). They didnt fix England.
Eventually they did, in a roundabout way. The rise of the US, causing Britain to lose its lucrative colonies (and the future potential value of their North American holdings), helped break the British Empire. They could not sustain their empire with its shrinking assets. Empires bloat, ossify and become more expensive to maintain over time. To counter that, you need an outsized injection of new value coming in, which the North American colonies could have potentially provided. At best it might have bought the British Empire some more time.
In this case fixing means returning Britain to being a normally functioning nation state, instead of an overseas, overstretched empire.
> citizens of Hong Kong need to stay and fight for the rights they desire, not run away to another country
I’ve never understood the place-over-people mentality. The rights Hong Kong is fighting for exist overseas. The people can keep their culture and spend their lives thriving in America, or stay put and fight what looks to be a losing battle against Beijing for the rest of their lives.
Nobody would force anyone to emigrate. All that’s proposed is a choice. If you can’t convince your countrymen to stay and fight, you don’t have a legitimate fight.
Having just a handful of countries that are worthwhile places to live while the rest of the planet is littered with corrupt dictatorships is hardly a solution.
Well, to the point that country is the UK, not the US. I argue the UK has a moral responsibility here: they handed (largely) free British subjects over to a tyrannical regime.
Note that I am not arguing that their responsibility is derived from their colonial past; but rather, from the handover itself. (arguably this whole mess really started with the New Territories lease. "99 years". Foolish.)
It doesn't have to be for altruistic reasons, I'm betting the USA would benefit from having an influx of immigrants from a developed nation that shares our values.
Possibly, but Americans might also be amazed at the level of inequality and hyper-capitalism HK represents, with the elite rich beyond belief and the lower class living in cage homes on a few sqft.
The difference isn't quite as large as the one between the US and European countries, but it's significant.
At what point are the people having heart attacks responsible for stopping them? The people having heart attacks need to treat them themselves, not run away to a hospital.
If anything, my comment was a false analogy, not a straw man.
Your comment was arguably a straw man, however, as it attacked a point which the article did not make (i.e., Hong Kong should not be responsible for itself) instead of any of the actual arguments (which focused on the benefits to the United States: strategic, economic, and political).
What would be the diplomatic consequences of this? I'm assuming China would be very unhappy with any country making this offer to Hong Kongers, but perhaps I'm wrong and they'd prefer for dissidents to leave.
Minimal real diplomatic consequences, other than China issuing some loud statements that they're furious at the US meddling in their internal affairs. It might amount to 100k-300k people as a max range.
It's an excellent opportunity for China to demonstrate the superiority of their system, as they so frequently claim.
We'll play a little game. Open immigration into China for US citizens. Open immigration into the US for Chinese citizens. Let's see who gets the most immigration (it'd be lopsided 1,000 to 1 with millions of immigrants flowing into the US; we did it with Cuba from ~1960-1980, there's no reason we can't do it for people wanting to flee China; if the next Democrat President is smart, they'll implement a variation of this to create a more aggressive and persistent brain drain on China).
The last thing we need is another Nixon moment of opening America to China. This has not proven to be in our best favor, aside from the multiple Chinese viruses that have floated our way; trade imbalance, current manipulation, gross human rights violations, IP theft, hacking, subversion of elections, oh gosh the list goes on. America must close the door on China.
Here’s a recent, though very limited, example of Germany giving asylum for Hong Kong independence activists in 2019 - with China’s public response at the time:
Somehow I don't think China care much about the people, so long as they can lay their hands on the wealth. The way they trample over the HK system, most of the elites and international connections will evaporate in a matter of months, and all they will have by the end of the year would be the crumbs of society.
China is trying control overseas diaspora. Especially dissident voices. Exporting anti-state voices outside Chinese reach has long term consequences. A lot of anti-China sentiment is driven by previously persecuted groups that can be easily instrumentalized by western powers. Western Uighur, Tibet, HK, FLG advocacy groups have been very active for the last 30 years, and now their issues are magnified when aligned with western state interests for propaganda purposes. China doesn't want another generation of dissidents influencing with countries abroad.
My guess is, HK nationals with linked anti-state activities will likely be denied ability to leave the country. If relations between China and West get particularly acrimonious, this will include foreign HKer with foreign passports who reside in HK under their HK citizenship - i.e. they get treated as Chinese nationals foremost since they never renounced their HK/Chinese citizenship. Many HKers with goldenticket passports who thought they could protest (read: foreign influence on Chinese affairs) consequence free may be in for a surprise. The entire situation can get off the rails.
I think what China is most likely to do is Integrate HK into greater Bayarea, squeeze protesters into margins of society and out of HK by blacklisting them from local opportunities, disperse 4/7 million rebellious voices until it's drowned out by 66/70 million pro-CCP voices. Basically what Social Credit was designed to do: expel non-productive people or those that burden Chinese development out of privileged areas and visibility. Indoctrinate new generation to comport to CCP values, replaced displaced dissenters with mainlanders. HK becomes just another tamed Chinese city.
> it’s easy to forget that many oppressed and subjugated people around the world still look to the U.S. with hope
It's easy to forget because it's just a fairy tale Americans tell themselves. Oppressed and subjugated people flee to the nearest country that isn't the one oppressing them. Often that country is in fact China (from North Korea).
This article doesn't even pretend to be talking about saving oppressed and subjugated people though; it almost brags that the idea is for the US to cynically "benefit from the human capital that created [Hong Kong's] wealth".
The people this article is talking about - the "financial and creative genius" - could walk into any country they wanted to, if they wanted to leave their home. They don't need the US.
Rich Western countries will for the most part, only accept the best and the brightest, refugee or not. People who under different circumstances, would still have been able to jump through the various hurdles to immigrate legally.
I read plenty of stories about the million plus people that have been afforded entry to Europe in the last few years. Yet there is very little in the English-language press about the millions more that have made their homes, for better or for worse, in neighbouring countries like Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey.
Best and brightest are wanted but that overlooks the millions of immigrants who are not so by qualifications and yet they still achieve success. So having these prequalifications is kind of silly. America's construction boom is fueled by immigrants as is most of Los Angeles restaurant scene.
I'm curious, do you think the Chinese people have been so brainwashed that they are incapable of considering the U.S. as a beacon of hope? The only interest America has in Hong Kong is purely financial. We've not done much to support democracy and freedom over there.
> I'm curious, do you think the Chinese people have been so brainwashed that they are incapable of considering the U.S. as a beacon of hope?
I think Chinese people who think of free countries where they'd rather be are more likely to have in mind Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Japan or other Asian countries than the US.
> The only interest America has in Hong Kong is purely financial.
Yes. This article doesn't even refer to the people of Hong Kong as people, simply as assets for the US to exploit.
> We've not done much to support democracy and freedom over there.
I think there's a tendency for people to forget, or simply disregard, that Hong Kong is part of China. Should China be doing more to support democracy and freedom (independence) in, say, Puerto Rico?
The United States should take the radical position that Taiwan is a country separate from China. Especially now, why is this not getting more attention?
China should take the radical position that Hawaii is a country separate from the US. Especially now, why is this not getting more attention?
Same logic as yours. But even more relevant as Taiwan (Formosa) was historically part of China, whereas Hawaii was a separate kingdom annexed by force by the US.
67 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 143 ms ] threadIf we’re looking at human rights violations (North Korea), then the world stage should be involved, not a singular country.
The Hong Kong circumstance isn’t a human rights violation, more of a diplomacy incident.
What about mass surveillance, isn’t that a human rights violation? I would like it to be, but if that were the case, there are few places in the world to go to. Sure China is most explicit and egregious, but we have to have international court rulings before we begin to condemn and sanction based off surveillance (with many participating countries being hypocritical to an anti-surveillance ruling)
This is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Imposing a dictatorship on free people is a violation of human rights.
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
The best thing the US (Europe and others) can do, is bleed off Hong Kong's talent, those that want to escape before the door closes. It's not going to severely harm China, however every Elon Musk or Jensen Huang that the US can get to its shores is a win.
The US should immediately set up a special, aggressive immigration program just for Hong Kong and Taiwan. After China is done consolidating the situation in Hong Kong in the near future, they will turn more of their attention and aggression to Taiwan (Taiwan is aware they're up next after HK, you can tell by their recent behavior and statements; Taiwan is sweating bullets, properly so).
Not to offend anyone, but Americans haven't really demonstrated any ability or will to fight for their rights as a nation in the past 100 years, this posturing I see all the time from Americans about freedom is like a peacock displaying its feathers, not having done anything to earn them - you were just born with them.
Examine Hong Kong’s strategic resources at the moment and tell us how you would deploy them in a fight.
Ultra was able to successfully decrypt Enigma messages because the British evacuated Polish code breakers, so I suppose it's a good thing those people didn't stay and fight.
The Polish resistance saved tens of thousands of Jews from the Holocaust and gave a ton of information to the Allies, so I suppose it's a good thing those people did stay and fight.
Tens of thousands of Polish soldiers (under the direction of the Polish government in exile) fought with the Allies throughout the war, so I suppose it's a good those people left and fought.
Just some random thoughts, everything is complicated.
Eventually they did, in a roundabout way. The rise of the US, causing Britain to lose its lucrative colonies (and the future potential value of their North American holdings), helped break the British Empire. They could not sustain their empire with its shrinking assets. Empires bloat, ossify and become more expensive to maintain over time. To counter that, you need an outsized injection of new value coming in, which the North American colonies could have potentially provided. At best it might have bought the British Empire some more time.
In this case fixing means returning Britain to being a normally functioning nation state, instead of an overseas, overstretched empire.
What eventually broke it was the World Wars.
I’ve never understood the place-over-people mentality. The rights Hong Kong is fighting for exist overseas. The people can keep their culture and spend their lives thriving in America, or stay put and fight what looks to be a losing battle against Beijing for the rest of their lives.
Nobody would force anyone to emigrate. All that’s proposed is a choice. If you can’t convince your countrymen to stay and fight, you don’t have a legitimate fight.
And how would they do that?
The HK citizens by themselves will not win this fight, the writing is on the wall. They either get help from abroad or flee.
It's naive to think that a region with a population of less than 10mi will make China backdown, considering China's history.
Note that I am not arguing that their responsibility is derived from their colonial past; but rather, from the handover itself. (arguably this whole mess really started with the New Territories lease. "99 years". Foolish.)
The difference isn't quite as large as the one between the US and European countries, but it's significant.
Your comment was arguably a straw man, however, as it attacked a point which the article did not make (i.e., Hong Kong should not be responsible for itself) instead of any of the actual arguments (which focused on the benefits to the United States: strategic, economic, and political).
It's an excellent opportunity for China to demonstrate the superiority of their system, as they so frequently claim.
We'll play a little game. Open immigration into China for US citizens. Open immigration into the US for Chinese citizens. Let's see who gets the most immigration (it'd be lopsided 1,000 to 1 with millions of immigrants flowing into the US; we did it with Cuba from ~1960-1980, there's no reason we can't do it for people wanting to flee China; if the next Democrat President is smart, they'll implement a variation of this to create a more aggressive and persistent brain drain on China).
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-germany-hongkong/ch...
My guess is, HK nationals with linked anti-state activities will likely be denied ability to leave the country. If relations between China and West get particularly acrimonious, this will include foreign HKer with foreign passports who reside in HK under their HK citizenship - i.e. they get treated as Chinese nationals foremost since they never renounced their HK/Chinese citizenship. Many HKers with goldenticket passports who thought they could protest (read: foreign influence on Chinese affairs) consequence free may be in for a surprise. The entire situation can get off the rails.
I think what China is most likely to do is Integrate HK into greater Bayarea, squeeze protesters into margins of society and out of HK by blacklisting them from local opportunities, disperse 4/7 million rebellious voices until it's drowned out by 66/70 million pro-CCP voices. Basically what Social Credit was designed to do: expel non-productive people or those that burden Chinese development out of privileged areas and visibility. Indoctrinate new generation to comport to CCP values, replaced displaced dissenters with mainlanders. HK becomes just another tamed Chinese city.
This does not describe the Hong Kongers likely and able to emigrate.
Are they at all connected to this Forbes piece?
It's easy to forget because it's just a fairy tale Americans tell themselves. Oppressed and subjugated people flee to the nearest country that isn't the one oppressing them. Often that country is in fact China (from North Korea).
This article doesn't even pretend to be talking about saving oppressed and subjugated people though; it almost brags that the idea is for the US to cynically "benefit from the human capital that created [Hong Kong's] wealth".
The people this article is talking about - the "financial and creative genius" - could walk into any country they wanted to, if they wanted to leave their home. They don't need the US.
I read plenty of stories about the million plus people that have been afforded entry to Europe in the last few years. Yet there is very little in the English-language press about the millions more that have made their homes, for better or for worse, in neighbouring countries like Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey.
I think Chinese people who think of free countries where they'd rather be are more likely to have in mind Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Japan or other Asian countries than the US.
> The only interest America has in Hong Kong is purely financial.
Yes. This article doesn't even refer to the people of Hong Kong as people, simply as assets for the US to exploit.
> We've not done much to support democracy and freedom over there.
I think there's a tendency for people to forget, or simply disregard, that Hong Kong is part of China. Should China be doing more to support democracy and freedom (independence) in, say, Puerto Rico?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Lake
Well, if we're playing that game, then here's my take as a White man:
Israel should open its doors to Hong Kong's citizens!
Same logic as yours. But even more relevant as Taiwan (Formosa) was historically part of China, whereas Hawaii was a separate kingdom annexed by force by the US.