China signals plan to take full control of Hong Kong

In fact, while listening to the press conference of the pro-china party right now on National security law, they just said it: "compared to safety of the 1.4 billion Chinese citizens, stock market drop is insignificant". To me it sounds like that China has dropped the axes, HKers better be quiet.

Actually the legal advice from Government ( Which in the past 10-15 years has always been Pro-China ) on the issue was that the Pro-Democrats were right as it was listed very clearly by the rules. That there was no way "reinterpret" it. It was a surprise to the Pro-China party so they sort to external legal advice and suggest or basically completely changed the rule.

Is was at that moment, Hong Kong is officially Rule by Law and not Rule of Law.

And yes that is why the later part was an absolute mess. People were planning to protest about it anyway, but before anything was planned the new security law happened.

Feel free to look at the videos yourself and make up your own mind of course.

History is probably full of deaths of nonviolent (and violent) resisters.

Our modern tendency to compete on who can most hyperbolically denounce Western Imperialism strips us of any ability to calibrate between cultures. Do you know what Imperial Rome would have done to the nonviolent Indian revolt? They'd have executed it at its infancy and it would be a historical footnote. They wouldn't have even waited for it to become a big movement; the death penalty would have been used early and often. To some degree, even as entertainment.

My read on China is closer to first-century Rome than 20th century Britain. YMMV.

Unfortunately, the violence and instability that often accompanies secession doesn't always end up resulting in prosperity after independence. That is because violent or not, uprisings do not necessarily upset the power balance between the colonizer and the colonized. Some say the alphabet agencies that form the worldwide practice of SIGINT operate on this inertia -- well, I don't want to speculate about what I don't know about, but I think that at least my own country's declassified documents are telling. The USA has had a hand in kingmaking much of LatAm and the Middle East. Historically, I think this kind of proxying only ends when the empire itself shrivels.

Yes and no. China is almost crazily touchy about their image. They claim that it's an insult to their nation if anyone admits that Taiwan exists as a separate entity. You can't even mention Winnie the Pooh in China, because some people use it as a derisive label for Chairman Xi. (Imagine having the NSA notice every on-line mention of "Orange Man", and ordering the hosting site to remove it.)

Now, they may not care about their image as much as they care about suppressing Hong Kong. But the rest of the world can make them pay a price in terms of image - a price that China seems to find rather painful.

Note that Hong Kong was given to the Britain by three treaties in the 19th century (1842 Treaty of Nanking, 1860 Convention of Peking, 1898 The Second Convention of Peking), and the true copies of all treaties are in the hand of Taiwan, which were brought to Taiwan by the KMT government during its retreat to Taiwan before 1950.

So if the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, the declaration behind the handover of Hong Kong from Britain to China, is revoked (partly because CCP declares it invalid), Britain might declare that Hong Kong should return to the holder of the three treaties–Taiwan.

Extremely unlikely, but arguably has legal justification.

Sure. In that case, it would revert to British sovereignty, Britain wouldn't lift a finger to defend it, and it would go to China anyhow by right of conquest.

Treaties are nifty and all, but ultimately, no matter what pieces of paper are signed, you can't hold territory you have no intention to defend.

Bringing up "British rule was no panacea" when we're talking about the CCP's efforts to deliberalize a de facto free society reads like you're apologizing for what the CCP wants to do.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52425350

If Taiwan is ever going to unite with China peacefully, it is going to come after China changes its stance.

All pre-revolution government debt has been in default since the revolution. China claims it is the responsibility of Taiwan and Taiwan claims it is the responsibility of China. They owe many trillions to bondholders all over the world.

If the two merge, they can't dodge the claims anymore and still be part of the world financial system. It will have to be negotiated, and US law allows the government to collect on behalf of American bondholders. Any settlement will be very painful for China if they insist on taking Taiwan by force.

Korea and Japan won't either because they clearly have not the strength and, for Japan, are prevented from doing so by their constitution. Frankly it would be suicidal for them to do that so they won't.

If Taiwan were to be taken by force it would have serious consequences, politically and economically, but no-one would launch a military attack on China in response. The US, and perhaps others, would likely help Taiwanese forces, though.

I disagree, and this is a fun thought experiment.

1. The relationship would be a hybrid of the relationships that the US has with both Japan / South Korea and India. - China would be a friendly enough, export focused economy that's too large to be bullied by the US - It would historically have been a Cold War ally, giving it a larger edge over India

2. The West would have access to China's economy.

3. There would be less uncertainty about laws, helping the business climate.

4. Silicon Valley's crown would have been usurped 10 years ago or even far earlier. Why? Because China would have more personal freedoms and protections like with speech. Freedom of speech is instrumental to places like Silicon Valley where creativity is vital. Things like the adoption of the Internet would have been far earlier.

5. HK would have long been a shadow of itself. Shanghai would have taken its place far sooner.

6. While corruption would still be bad, it would be much better than present circumstances due to a free press and more transparency.

7. Tensions with Japan would be worse, due to freedom of speech and much earlier economic and technological rivalry

8. Chinese global economic influence and dominance would be much greater and would have happened much faster and earlier.

9. Chinese media such as TV shows and movies would be way more interesting instead of the boring period pieces or variety shows they keep cranking out today.

10. The male to female ratio would be almost equal due to more civil rights for women which leads to more economic opportunities for females

We could go on what China could have been... the Asian equivalent of the US. This would be a cool TV series. Reminds of The Man in High Tower TV show.

The fact they haven't outright invaded and smashed Hong Kong is hardly high praise.

There is zero chance that the CCP will hold up their end of any bargain Taiwan makes to join it, and the situation in Hong Kong proves it.

As it happens, there has been a Chinese government-in-exile in Taiwan since 1949. Its practical influence on the governance of China itself since then has been zero to two decimal places, and is unlikely to increase in the future.

I am not at all sanguine about China's oligarchy, either for Hong Kong or the world, but geopolitical fantasies are just a way of avoiding facing the facts.