Have there been any political leaders in Hong Kong who have publicly opposed returning to China or who have requested recognition by other UN member States?
That's a very simplistic view. Many people who oppose the Chinese government do not support complete independence. If there's a referendum on this I expect it to fail on a large margin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handover_of_Hong_Kong
The eyes of the world indeed do "know what China is like". They do not care. Should HK move towards independence, tanks will roll south and the world will do nothing.
P.S. Also, not that it makes the situation any less reprehensible, keep in mind that heavy majority of Crimea population at the time of capture was ethnically Russian and was supportive of RF actions. Hong Kong residents, on the other hand, seem to be way less supportive of PRC.
Becoming independent from China != completely severing ties with China. Also, I think these days a better served purpose of HK is as the access point to the whole Asian/SEA region, rather than the access point to China alone.
Also, HK seems to be (from an outsider perspective) one of the most (if not the most) "westernized" cities in the region, with the proliferation of English language and all, so I can totally see it becoming the central hub in the Asian/SEA region for a lot of companies from the west.
Should there be a most "easternized" city in the heart of Europe that should have a prolific Mandarin speaker base?
HK as an Asia/SEA hub is a reasonable point, but Singapore already serves that role and is much less reliant on China.
This is why the underlying sentiment of Hong Kong independence is especially offensive to Chinese sensibilities.
Edit - And this most recent round of demonstrations is the nail in the coffin. No business would ever do business in HK now with the political uncertainty, easier to simply set up shop in Shanghai or form a JV.
There was something else still: the population of Crimea was mostly Russian. Like, really Russian. Using only Russian language, calling hryvnas rubles, and in general feeling Russian. Many of these people actually liked the idea of Crimea being a part of Russia (at least before the invasion - things changed a bit since then). In HK the situation is completely different: people know what kind of country China is, and will fight for whatever rights they still have.
https://newrepublic.com/article/116814/crimean-tatars-primer...
More than 15% of Ukrainians opposed Maidan (including Crimeans). Yet they were subjected to it.
And also yes minority have there rights.
Crimea is occupated and this is reality. All other talks about how much Crimea is more Russian sounds like a Russian propaganda.
>Crimea is occupated and this is reality. All other talks about how much Crimea is more Russian sounds like a Russian propaganda.
While I am very opposed to the capture of Crimea by RF, I feel you are being disingenuous when you say that. According to the latest census, russians make up 67.9% of Crimean population, while tatars make up just 12.6% [1]. Those numbers seem to support the point that Crimea is indeed majority russian, with tatars being outnumbered by almost a factor of 6.
1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#Ethnici...
Tatars from Tatarstan and Tatars from Crimea share only name, they are different nationalities.
>While I am very opposed to the capture of Crimea by RF, I feel you are being disingenuous when you say that. According to the latest census, russians make up 67.9% of Crimean population, while tatars make up just 12.6% [1]. Those numbers seem to support the point that Crimea is indeed majority russian, with tatars being outnumbered by almost a factor of 6.
This logic is totally misleading. If there are more Russians it does not make Crimea Russian.
Tatars are not the oldest owner of Crimea. 2500 years ago Crimea was a Greek colony, then it was part of a Persian Empire, then Roman Empire, then Byzantine Empire [1] Mongols conquered Crimea only in 13th century.
We do not know what people of Crimea wanted. Nobody during military occupation of Crimea asked their opinion.
After the invasion cam ethe period of disillusionment. It turned out the situation only changed for worse. But nobody should be surprised there was practically no opposition when Russians took over Crimea.
Sure, the topic has disappeared from the news. But that does not mean everything is back to normal. It just indicates the situation is frozen.
More generally, territorial expansion by force has been extremely rare in recent history, compared to previous times. That would indicate that the practice generally being frowned upon, and the available actions in response, are somewhat effective.
As to Syria, I remember hearing about it on the first day of protests. That's not to say it went well in any meaning of the word–there really aren't any good options once a government has decided to brutalise its own people. But it did get attention.
Every country has secessionist movements, and no country wants to encourage that sort of thing abroad, lest it bite it in the ass domestically.
Don't forget that Scotland very nearly did leave the UK, with the government's consent, in 2014 (but the referendum didn't pass).
The Catalonia case is a bit murkier, since the Catalan government did not actually reach an agreement with the Spanish government before they went ahead with the referendum. Also because of irregularities seen by international observers during the referendum, the Catalonia referendum result was generally not recognized.
If you need bilateral support to exercise your right to self-determination, you don't actually, in practice, have any right to self-determination.
It's like saying that you have the freedom to leave your abusive job, but only as long as your boss lets you quit. That's not freedom, that's slavery.
[1] And yes, I am aware that the case in Scotland was a bit different. Props to the UK for being, as an outside observer, reasonable about the whole affair.
1997 China is very different than 2019 China with regard to the successes in Shanghai's free trade zone and Guangzhou. The Communist Party is very very far from the teachings of Karl Marx and there is no outcome of a communist utopia that dissolves the central planners, after the means of production are completely egalitarian (a communist state is supposed to be a means to an end, all communist states have failed during this supposedly transitionary stage, China is stable in its central control of power, but doesn't seem to be aiming for a transaction to this fictional untested standard of governance). I don't get the impression that the people buy it, with so many known ways to effect private ownership and capital formation. The effect being that Hong Kong itself isn't that relevant and is more of a blight to undermine the Communist Party's power.
How many resources does the party need to deploy to maintain this information leakage? There would be considerably less international heat on the Communist Party if they let go of their Special Administrative Regions. Other provinces don't derive their adherence to the party based on what happens to the SARs.