Thousands take to Hong Kong streets to protest new extradition laws
reuters.com
reuters.com
"When Britain handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997, Chinese leaders agreed that Hong Kong would be able to keep its economic and political systems, including some of the civil freedoms denied to China’s citizens on the mainland, for the next 50 years.
Although Hong Kong still has nearly 30 years of semi-autonomy left, China has started tightening its grip, and many believe it is chipping away at Hong Kong’s freedoms."
History is littered with modern examples.
The US Colonies (British Empire). Latin America (Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, British, French). The Viet Cong (US, France). Finland (Russia). Iraqi resistance groups (US). The Taliban, Mujahideen (US, Russia). North Korea (UN). Ukraine (Russia). Hezbollah (Israel). Yugoslavia (NATO). Emus (Australia).
Every giant well funded army has also lost at some point. For China, it's ideal to remove Taiwan as a staging ground that could be held by any opposition. Consider a scenario where it's NATO countries + Japan + South Korea + Taiwan, + Australia + New Zealand vs China in a massive conflict (or any similar variation). It would be far better to wholly control the island of Taiwan than not.
I don't disagree with your point (Chinese fears of encirclement), but the way you present. It's already the case and China is trying to invade Taiwan to change it. It's all consistent with China's attempt to phrase Taiwan as being separatist as opposed to the truth which is that China is being militaristic and imperialistic. It's dangerous double-speak and needs to stop.
You know that's not true.
>They don't say they are, but clearly they are.
So why don't they say that?
>The PRC already basically (that qualifier probably isn't necessary) is an ally of the United States.
And what is the United States' position on the independence of Taiwan?
>It's dangerous double-speak and needs to stop.
Sometimes language can reflect reality, and the reality is that Taiwan is quasi-independent.
The PRC and the ROC have separate economies, militaries, governments, currencies. They engage in interational trade separately, organize telecommunications separately, they issue their own passports and they are recognized separately. The land controlled by the PRC and the land controlled by the ROC have been stable for 70 years. Those two landmasses have been united under one government for about 4 years in the last 125. To say that they are not two separate countries is totally delusional.
> And what is the United States' position on the independence of Taiwan?
What does that matter? The facts on the ground are that they are separate countries. The US position that the PRC wasn't a country in the 50s and 60s didn't magically make it the case.
> Sometimes language can reflect reality, and the reality is that Taiwan is quasi-independent.
You clearly don't live in reality.
Your line of argument also doesn't actually address the original point, which is that China tolerates the independence of Hong Kong because it has its sights set on Taiwan - which is the real prize. From that perspective, it doesn't matter how Taiwan sees itself.
> Your line of argument also doesn't actually address the original point, which is that China tolerates the independence of Hong Kong because it has its sights set on Taiwan - which is the real prize.
Yes taking over the ROC is the real prize because right now it is _independent_ and the PRC wants that to change. The mental somersaults you do to avoid saying this obvious truth is mind boggling.
> From that perspective, it doesn't matter how Taiwan sees itself.
This is true! The ROC claims the territories of the mainland as well as Mongolia in its constitution. This is delusional. Similarly the PRC claims the mainland and the ROC's territories as its own. This is also delusional. It matters how neither side officially sees themselves. They _are_ two separate countries.
Why can't you just admit that the PRC has imperialistic ambitions and tries to make up justifications to make the PRC look like it is in the right? Why are you so hellbent to ignore reality?
FWIIW it was historically used by forces which threatened Chinese sovereignty, including Japan. Since Chinese leadership actually reads history instead of making stuff up as they go along, as Westerners do, that's probably why it's such a sore spot for them.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Taiwan consists of about 70% of mountainous areas, i.e the perfect terrain for an organized resistance.
Invading Taiwan is but an easy task and it is believed to be an endeavor that would surpass the D-day.
[0] https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=mzwGDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT117&l... [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/25/taiwan-can-win-a-war-wi...
/s
I’ve read of a few missing persons in Hong Kong suspected of being put in the bag.
If I had to guess, Xi will not allow opposition and the temperature will be slowly increased over time in Hong Kong.
I believe extraditions will be allowed to Mainland China, openly legitimising what has already been done in recent years.
Owners of a bookstore that sold PRC-censored books were taken to China secretly, trialed and convicted. One of them was even a Swedish national, but the CCP insisted he was "Chinese". He released a video "admitting" to his crimes of drunk driving a few years prior but his name in the records didn't even match his actual name, i.e. he was obviously forced to admit to a crime he didn't commit. Another one reappeared in Hong Kong, said he would take his family to China, praised Chinese living quality, and went back to China.
When the law is passed, the CCP doesn't need to abduct people discreetly anymore. They would simply order Hong Kong's officials to transfer them. In short, once this law is passed, no one is safe. Not even foreigners.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearan...
Other than that, I agree with your assessment: Taiwan's thriving democracy undermines and contradicts the Chinese Communist Party claim to power, in particular the CCP's narrative that democracy is neither needed nor wanted, nor desirable for the Chinese people.
Occam’s Razor.
Taiwan is de-jure a part of China. China just happens to be in the curious state of having two competing entities claiming to be the legitimate government.
Both ROC and Beijing agree Taiwan is China. The “C” in ROC is China!
But many mainland Chinese do, and the government spends considerable effort cajoling/bullying the rest of the world to not recognize Taiwanese sovereignty. From what I can tell there is a real threat China might sometime attempt military conquest.
Anyway it’s complicated. Some in ROC want independence. Some don’t. Some would like to join Beijing (many investors from ROC). Most probably want the whole thing to be on the low and the ROC ignored lest the dragon is awakened.
But regardless what civilians want, being part of China affects the actions of Taipei more than any other issue.
When Japan lost the war, Taiwan was governed by the Allied Powers, who appointed Chen Yi from the Kuomintang (KMT) as chief executive and garrison commander of what was called "Taiwan Province". The Peace Treaty with Japan (Treaty of San Francisco) and the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty (Treaty of Taipei) both did not specify that Taiwan was a part of mainland China. I think formally/legally Taiwan was Japanese until 1952 but Japan was under allied control at the time. The question of Taiwan's legal status was left open in the aforementioned peace treaties. This is the legal/technical root cause for the problems with Taiwan's legal status even today.
So, as far as I can see: de facto Taiwan is an independent nation. And de jure it's ... unclear.
Finally, let's bear in mind that in a very real sense there is no such thing as "international law", much of what is called international law is really just voluntary consent of states.
(Taiwan probably also sees this as a bargaining chip, to be given up at an opportune moment (like the Kinmen Islands), in exchange for something else, e.g. China accepting Taiwan's independence. I suspect this would have been possible at some point when China was weak but seems unlikely now.)
Depends on the view. The central Chinese government certainly considers Taiwan to be its province, and achieved that Taiwan has no seat in the UN, and sanctions Hotel chains that treat Taiwan as separate country. Taiwan themselves maintain a claim to the entire mainland as well, they just disagree on who should hold power. There are also countries that recognize Taiwanese independence, as there are countries that recognize Taiwan's claim over of all of China.
but that's a close as they ever got to having their flag fly on taiwan...
Take a stroll by these.
Another note: History is written by the victors.
This isn't the whole truth I don't think. They do maintain officially maintain this line... under the implied threat of invasion/war from the mainland if they deviate. Similar to how he US officially doesn't recognize Taiwan as a country because it isn't in the US interests to invoke hell's fury from the PRC over Taiwan, but for all intents and purposes the US treats Taiwan as an independent state.
The DPP (plurality party in Taiwan) generally leans towards viewing Taiwan as an independent nation. The main opposing party's view is generally consistent with what you've stated in my understanding.
It's a complicated topic but you're mainly projecting the main land's view onto the people of Taiwan.
It enjoys independence and autonomy, but the rest is so nuanced to instead be a complete mockery to the whole nation state concept.
I don't think its worth debating. You can negotiate directly with Taiwan, and accept their rule of law to navigate business. Isn't that all you need to know?
some people in Taiwan would be offended by saying "Taiwan, China" by assuming that you are saying it is a province of the PRC. other people in Taiwan would not care, while yet other people in Taiwan would appreciate that you recognized that Taiwan is the legitimate China and you just wrote the Taiwan part for descriptive purposes, ALL WHILE you are just trying to maintain consensus with the other people you work with which includes your own country and also the PRC, and then a random Taiwanese-American will call you "racist" for "mistakenly" thinking their heritage is from "China" instead of Taiwan, projecting their own exile as part of an amorphous underrepresented Asian-American diaspora amongst ignorant foreigners, and its like "no, buddy."
So to answer your question, that's why they are scared and should be the Chinese people have the ability to get rid of the fascist totalitarians running their country -- they have done so multiple times in the past.
So to the Chinese: stand firm to improve your lot but do it carefully.
Also, definitional flamewars about the word "fascism", which we're getting below, are useless, boring, and always escalate to worse.
The opposition used to get enough seats to hold the pro-Beijing camp in check somewhat (with veto power on constitutional reforms), but after the (entertaining, but ex post unfortunate) oath-taking controversy [1] in 2016, six members-elect were disqualified, after Beijing "interpreted" the Basic Law of Hong Kong to "clarify" it (as it is entitled to do under the Basic Law).
Now the one-thirds minority to block constitutional changes is gone.
EDIT to add: Still, it's much too democratic for China!
[1] Among the antics: legislators held a "Hong Kong is not China" banner, mispronounced "People's Republic of China" as "people's re-fucking of Chee-na" (the latter a derogatory term), and spent about ten minutes reading the 80-word oath in extreme slow motion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Legislative_Council_...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9rDqvSP4AY
https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/03/11/pledging-allegiance-be...
Democracy is not a taboo in the mainland, at least in academia. The government has also done a few democratization experiments in small villages and cities, but results were unpromising. Democratization in China is inevitable since the economic miracle won't last forever, the hard part is to figure out how to make sure the process of democratization keeps the country unified and brings prosperity, I remember there are even a few foreign professors working on this issue in Peking or Tsinghua University.
It seems to me like power concentrating into the hands of a small minority is inevitable everywhere. I'd really like to believe otherwise, but I'm hard pressed to see long lasting examples where money and power do not act like gravity
Democracy isn't the only form of governance that can work, and it's _definitely_ not a silver bullet. I just don't see the majority of China's citizens clamoring for democracy so much that they'll revolt. My main point of contention with your original comment is that democracy is inevitable. I'd like for you to be right, but I'm just not seeing it. (I'd also like for the American system to be more effective for all than it is, but I won't betting on that...)
Classic... this is why democracy is a lot less important than some less-obvious factors when it comes to quality of governance - especially things like upholding the rule of law. BTW, there's nothing particularly "westernizing" about that, either - in fact, it's something that Confucianism explicitly calls for (albeit historically with other labels, such as "Rectification of Names") and I believe it's even mentioned in the official PRC Constitution.
Taiwan wasn't a democracy until fairly recently. Ironically enough, the first elections in taiwan was created by the japanese when they conquered taiwan. When the nationalist chinese took over taiwan, they banned elections. It was only within the past few decades that "democracy" flourished in taiwan.
I suspect the only problem China has with the elites in hong kong and particularly taiwan are the pro-western elites. After all, Taiwan is a "client state" of the US and many of the nationalists and their descendents who rule taiwan are backed by the US.
Look at how much hysteria and suspicion there is about Trump's unproven collusion with Russia. The nationalists and their descendents in taiwan actually colluded with the west.
If china was really worried about "democracy" in Hong Kong, they would have simply not allowed it in the first place. And the idea that the elites of hong kong or taiwan care about democracy is simply not true. They, like all elites around the world, care about wealth and power.
Not yet [1], not technically. Hong Kong, through the UK, has legal redress in international law which would at least make overt subjugation politically costly for Beijing.
The UK has gradually lost interest in ensuring that Hong Kong’s Basic Law is respected. For the UK, fighting for Hong Kong would jeopardize its relationship with the mainland, which is much more important in terms of business and trade.
Plus, mainland China has become more assertive and its leadership claims that China is rising back up again after the colonial era kept it down – an era in which the UK played no small role, both in the Opium Wars and in holding Hong Kong as a colonial possession. That means that if the UK tries to really fight for Hong Kong, it will be attacked for acting like a meddling colonial power again. The UK is just too sensitive to the propaganda campaign that China could throw at it.
I agree. When I say through the UK, I mean through the UK’s standing in international law. That gives Hong Kong the ability to petition various bodies and sue in certain courts. It also gives legitimacy to e.g. the U.S. taking it on as a cause.
TL; DR There are ways for Hong Kong to make an overt treaty violation costly to Beijing. Unless Beijing is concerned about an imminent threat to its legitimacy and power, it’s unlikely to find those costs worth incurring.
When I sign contracts with a company, I negotiate against the imaginary dick who replaces the gentleman I know. Agreements outlast their signers. Politics can change.
The closer the 2047 deadline gets the tighter the control will become.
Growing up with some semblance of individual liberty (small L liberalism) and then knowing it will be gone in your lifetime. It would have been better to always be under authoritarian rule... then you wouldn’t know what you were about to go without.
Also, most major businesses have moved to Singapore as their APAC HQ since the China handover.