U.K. Plans Citizenship for Hong Kong Residents in Row with China
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
During the decolonization of the British Empire, the UK did not want large numbers of non-white people immigrating to the British Isles. HK was only one instance of this. BN(O) nationality was one of many convenient bureaucratic fictions created in order to rationalize how someone born as a British subject in a British territory could lose the right to continue to live on British territory. Particularly affected were people of Indian ethnicity who had immigrated to other British colonies as civil servants; they became ethnic minorities in their newly independent countries and while their white coworkers were granted British citizenship, they were left behind.
Thousands of people became stateless as a result of this policy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_citizen [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_(Overseas)
You're either a full and free citizen of the empire or not imo; special classes of citizenship based on race and geography are an abomination to all lovers of freedom and justice.
Edited to add: why don’t people get angry when they realise there is blatant and systemic racism being funded with their money, on their behalf?
The US system does not raise the same concerns about racism. There are different political subdivisions in the US with different relationships with the federal union. For example, those in Puerto Rico don’t pay federal taxes. Washington DC has no independent sovereignty, unlike the states, etc. But those distinctions aren’t based on race or nationality (everyone is a US national). And in many respects they are mutual decisions. Puerto Rico has repeatedly rejected ballot measures to become a state. If a Puerto Rican person wants to vote in US elections, they can just move to any other political subdivision of the US that is a full state.
I have to disagree strongly with this, as we’re talking about differences of degree and not kind; the unique status of Peurto Rico is literally the result of a racist law effectively preventing non-whites from becoming US citizens: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
This law was finally repealed...in the 1950s, decades after the US claimed the territory as spoils of war, and the 1917 act that gave them quasi-citizenship. It is in truth just a facsimile of true US citizenship, because congress can revoke it and they are not allowed to vote in presidential elections while residing in their home territory. No citizen residing in Texas or Hawaii would consider that remotely fair, because it isn’t.
The US is an unusual case in the history of empires, because it was a colonial power that seems to downplay that fact publicly. Perhaps that is because it doesn’t fit with the national mythos. Whatever the reason, part of the legacy is having different degrees of citizenship based on race and geography that must eventually be reconciled one way or the other.
Per wikipedia's interpretation of The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Guamanians are US citizens at birth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Guam#U.S._citizenshi...
Probably more of an economic decision than one based in racism.
> You're either a full and free citizen of the empire or not
The British empire was disbanded, so there's nobody really to take your quarrel up with.
> special classes of citizenship based on race and geography
> are an abomination to all lovers of freedom and justice.
Again, you're assuming it's based in race and geography. It seems more like the motivation was based in economics.
It's always racism vs. economic reasons - not conservative enough for your voters, you lose votes; not economically sensible, you bring ruin upon your country. We have already saw this with Brexit.
Generally the answer to every problem in every other Country isn't to just ship them to your Country, that's an unsustainable model. Typically the people who migrate are either young, well educated or wealthy - which in the grand scheme of things does nothing to fix the problems in their originating Countries.
Yeah like denying service to "high risk" individuals(black people[0], muslims or women). It's all an economic decision which may be backed by some statistics and further keep the individuals in these statistics. Better, when you see high risk individuals (such black people) just run and gun them down because the economy tells us they may be dangerous. It's all about economy...right? Slavery was an economic decision as well.
[0] https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us...
[2] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/security-services-company-...
[3] https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna...
The comment really applies to the US empire, or indeed any empire in general.
I hear why you’re saying, but the economic argument just doesn’t make any sense to me; having more citizens should benefit a national economy. Besides, there are many things we do without economic rationale; maybe slavery would boost GDP, but we’ve decided that this is irrelevant because it’s morally reprehensible.
Generally that trend holds true - as long as migration is well handled. There are immediate infrastructure costs that need to be paid that the Country won't immediately see a return on.
Also governments aren't particularly profitable at the best of times, most of them are running at a deficit regardless of the number of people in their Country.
Your comment is particularly ridiculous if your intent was to apply it to “the US empire” (where everyone in the territories has the right to move anywhere in the country).
From the BBC:
"In fact, it is doubtful that caste had much significance or virulence in society before the British made it India's defining social feature."
The UK establishment embraced multiculturalism when it was flat on its back economically; it has subsequently sold out many people who were loyal to it for shameful political expediency, e.g. the Ghurka and Windrush scandals: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha_Justice_Campaign https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandal
It’s an obvious chance to parlay some good from the UK’s colonial legacy, why would anyone oppose it?
Citation needed. I seriously doubt your balance of probabilities.
Britain pre-Windrush was on its knees.
Britain pre-EEC was "the sick man of Europe".
Please bring up some actual numbers to back your reactionary talking points, at the very least.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_largest_h...
The United Kingdom represented 6.42% of the world's economy in 1960 (highest point), falling to 3.42% in 2012 (lowest point). It accounted for 5.2% of the world's economy in 1820, 9.1% in 1870, and 8.3% in 1913. England, Scotland and Wales generated 1.8% of the world's GDP in 1600
Windrush arrived in 1948. That "mass immigration" is literally what brought Britain to its highest point.
Then the rest of the world was de-colonized, started working for themselves rather than for Europe, and here we are.
So the question again is: Do you genuinely believe that this drop in relative output was caused by inward migration, considering all the other historical factors?
I'm not sure why you're coming up with a fictional hair-care product. If you aren't comfortable sharing your answer, then that's fine.
I’m afraid I don’t understand the logic behind what you’re trying to say regarding the relationship of GDP and immigration. Obviously net inward migration can only raise the total GDP of a country. The question of what happens to average incomes is much more nuanced, but there’s a fair bit of evidence that low paid workers can be hard hit in the short term, whereas everyone benefits in the long term: https://fullfact.org/immigration/immigration-and-jobs-labour...
I am not suggesting that you’re a racist or anti-immigration, just that your views on the relationship between GDP and immigration are wrong. Besides that, they do nothing to refute my original point that we should not have different classes of citizen based on race and geography.
You are talking about the same Britain that voted in favour of Brexit because they got tired of looking at Eastern Europeans? The same that allowed Tommy Robinson to rise to fame through even the main media channels? The same one that you can be called a 'paki' in while just walking down the street with your family in 2020? The same one that still has glass ceilings in finance and industry if you're not white?
Britain is a utopia compared to many countries, but don't get carried away. Also, don't half-understand things about other nations and then try and sell them over her as fact. You are out of your depth.
My suspicion is the rise of darwinism (who was a brit) intersected with the rise of colonialism. Colonizers may not have been too accepting of the whole "everyone comes from adam and eve" narrative when they met locals they deemed to be savages and inferior. Not that I am saying darwinism is the cause,just that their greed and arrogance thrived on any ideology that can be abused to help them with their goals.
We know that throughout human history, there had always been slaves. Whether they were from war conquests, prisoners, or what not. And maybe, some of them eventually got their freedoms, after serving for a term. Basically, they came and went, and no one thought anything of it.
But, what truly made the British and American system of slavery so evil, was that it became codified into laws. And written on papers, and enforced by the military, and police. And financed by the banks. This was truly, predatory capitalism, of the highest order. Thus, slavery became institutionalized.
This elevated slavery, from something that unfortunately happened to random people like prisoners, to completely enslaving, subjugating, humiliating, and genociding, a specific race of people, purely based on the color of their skin. And all this, happened in a democracy.
Try being a non-white boy dating a white girl. Do you think racism doesn't rear its head in that case?
In any case, this is pretty blatant whataboutism. The article is about the UK, not about other countries, and racism in other countries does not make racism in the UK less bad.
Fact is however, Britain is small and cannot possibly let in an enormous number of people. How many are we talking about?
Germany let in over a million in 2015 and the effects on rents are already devastating.
How would you like if we force a small African country to potentially let in every European citizen on moral grounds?
The British Isles wouldn’t need to let in an enormous number of people, but they could if they wanted to. The roughly 300,000 BN(O) and 63,000 BOTC passport holders could easily be accommodated.
The UK grew by 14 million people between 1950 and today, that’s net growth of 200,000 per year for 70 years. The idea that Britain is now full is just nonsense. Now that the birth rate is below replacement levels, mass immigration is required just to sustain the current population size anyway.
That being the case, most people are understandably reluctant to leave their homes unless absolutely forced to by war.
In short: all British citizens should be free to migrate around British territories any way they please, but they probably wouldn’t exercise that right anyway.
> How would you like if we force a small African country to potentially let in every European citizen on moral grounds?
Most of them are pretty relaxed about Western immigration, or have a reciprocation policy where the rules are a mirror of the rules of your Western country of origin.
In short, what caused the increased food and housing prices was government spending leading to inflation; immigration was only one of the causes of this spending (the financial crisis in the southern European countries was another.) The expected outcome on Germany is a net-positive one.
EDIT: For the idiots downvoting. I know that Puerto Rico held referendums, I lived there for a while and I know a lot of people in government. The most recent referendum was massively boycotted and got extremely low turn out. Because of this many politicians in Puerto Rico consider it invalid. Bottom line, way too many rich politicians in Puerto Rico benefit from the lack of taxes and oversight to allow statehood. If they want statehood they have to actually put together a delegation to handle the transition which they have NOT done yet.
What about these referendums?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Puerto_Rican_status_refer...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_refer...
Article IV (in part):
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
...
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;
Too many rich people and politicians benefit from the lack of oversight and low taxes plus the corruption that results for them to allow statehood. If Puerto Ricans are serious about wanting statehood they can stop voting for these corrupt clowns anytime and vote in people that will complete the process of obtaining statehood.
Turnout in the 2012 referendum was 78%.
But on 2012: of 1,878,969 voters, 515,115 (27% of turnout) left the choice between statehood, independence, or free association blank at the behest of the PPD, who’s governor elect immediately asked President Obama to ignore the results due to ambiguity, while the outgoing PNP governor asked President Obama to begin the legislation process.
It’s not even remotely as simplistic as you’re implying by dropping a 78% figure and flitting away without any further context, have the decency to at least read the links you’ve posted.
The Puerto Rican government chose not to pursue statehood based on the low turn out, but the option is still available to them anytime. This has nothing to do with the USA federal government and everything to do with Puerto Rican politics.
Let’s agree that having different classes of citizenship is just a terrible idea for the precious values of freedom, justice, and democracy. No other argument really matters. Working backwards from that, we should eliminate any circumstance in our control that creates any special class of citizen, be they living in gilded cages or rusty iron ones.
Besides, they are already U.S. citizens by right, they don’t need to vote on anything. They are just denied full constitutional rights because reasons. It’s a disgrace and we all know it.
The referendums they held were boycotted by a huge majority of the population and due to the low turn out not considered valid. There is a VERY strong anti-statehood movement in Puerto Rico and a minority that want full independence and a minority that want statehood.
The Puerto Rican government chose not to pursue statehood based on the low turn out, but the option is still available to them anytime. This has nothing to do with the USA federal government and everything to do with Puerto Rican politics.
Too many politicians in Puerto Rico benefit from the corruption and low taxes to allow statehood.
What is the threshold for determining whether an election is valid? If I don't like the choices can I also boycott? Would it have any effect if another 6% of the population did likewise?
1. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/21/u-s-voter-t...
What I’m saying is, there should be no option of quasi-citizenship. Either you enjoy all the rights and responsibilities of full citizenship, or you don’t.
We’ve already settled this argument long ago so it’s just a question of whether we’ll fairly enforce the conclusion we came to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-class_citizen
That's not true. Look at the results from the 2012 and 2017 referendums:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Puerto_Rican_status_refer...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_refer...
> The option is available to them anytime they want it.
That is not true either. None of these referendums have triggered a change of status.
The Puerto Rican government chose not to pursue statehood based on the low turn out, but the option is still available to them anytime. This has nothing to do with the USA federal government and everything to do with Puerto Rican politics.
Too many politicians in Puerto Rico benefit from the corruption and low taxes to allow statehood.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20160424062259/http://www.taiwan...
Jfc..
It was always more paternal than fraternal, quite a lot of the freedom was won with violence (e.g. Kenya), if it were equal there would be no talk of "carry the idea alone", the UK did not join the EU in 1973 it joined the EEC (EU free movement only appeared in 1992), and the British public made it clear that they were only OK with free movement so long as the number of nonwhite people in the UK remained small.
1971 and the Kenyan Asians was the trigger for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_1971 - that was the point at which Commonwealth citizens lost the right to live in the UK itself. Two years before EEC accession. (And the same year as decimalisation of the currency!)
At the height of the Empire there were effectively no internal movement restrictions other than income inequality and the difficulties of transport; you no more needed permission to move from Delhi to London than from Glasgow.
Oh and gave it a go as in gave letting everyone in the old empire continue to be able to come to UK a go.
Offering them citizenship will allow residents a way of moving to the UK, but it does not guarantee them consular rights in Hong Kong. China already takes the view that a HK Chinese resident is a citizen of China, subject to its laws irrespective of other citizenships and will not allow consular assistance.
As for Taiwan, Nixon and other swapped "allegiance" from the ROC to PRC in 1972. Most nations do not havce diplomatic relations with the ROC because if they do, then PRC withdraws diplomatic recognition and negotiation with them.
Note that Taiwan's government does not want "independence". They still claim to be the legitimate government of the whole of China, even though that status was lost in the UN in 1971. Both the ROC and PRC claim that Taiwan is part of China, but differ (obviously) as to which government is "legitimate".
https://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=A00000...
The statu quo is the only safe option for Taiwan, and that means keeping the historical claims. China prefers seeing Taiwan as a dissident government of China rather than as a successfully independentist territory.
So the Taiwanese governments have to make very gradual changes towards a fully independentist stance rather than straight up acknowledging that the island is independent.
Even if the KMT wins elections in the future, they still have to cater to that 70% of the population that want very little to do with the mainland.
It’s not too different from someone who is a German native but isn’t caucasian, for example.
Still, the distinction between Japan occupation-experiencing Han population and the evacuated Mainlander Han is an important one.
Taiwanese aborigines are firmly in the KMT/mainlander camp.
You either have it by announcing it and other countries recoginize it or you do not have it.
What I see is politicians play the rent-seeking game between China and the U.S.
The statement was "gradual changes towards independence". Are you saying it is not possible for a territory to take any steps that might lead towards independence or make it more likely?
Blatantly taking statements out of context and intentionally misrepresenting them is not appreciated.
They don't have to declare it. They just are independent already.
They control their own borders. They tax their own people. They have their own military. That makes them independent in my book, regardless of whether or not they announce it to the world or not.
The "announcement" part of it just doesn't matter that much.
You can go to a no-man island and declare your own independence and nobody will care about it.
However, a country that interact with other countries, their independence is recognized by both parties.
Further, as Taiwan is so close to mainland, whether geo-politically, or economically, made it detaching links to China infeasible.
Taiwan's independence is de facto recognized by the US and many (most?) other major powers, it's just not recognized de jure because of the PRC's diplomatic policy. For instance, the US basically has an embassy in Taiwan (they just don't call it one), which is staffed by State Department diplomats (who take a leave of absence to work there so they're not technically diplomats when there). It walks like a duck, it talks like a duck, but many have agreed to pretend it's not a duck for reasons.
This stuff isn't as black and white as you seem to think it is.
I'd say that puts it above many countries that might have wide de jure recognition, but limited, ineffective, or largely chilled diplomatic relations, like North Korea.
Declaring isn't the thing that is important.
As I said before, the important part is controlling your own borders, taxing your own people, and having your own military.
That is what makes a country a country. Not things like "declaring" or "recognition".
The HK events really destroyed the taiwainese public support which was left for reunification.
There are not many young people support reunification all along regardless of what happened in HK.
I’m not aware of the UK kidnapping anyone to stand trial in a foreign jurisdiction. On exploitation, in 1945 Hong Kong was bombed out rubble and in 1997 it was a first world city that had a higher GDP per capita than the United Kingdom. Some exploitation.
The nationality of HongKonger was the same as other UK citizen at the time called CUKC. For other UK ex-colony, they usually had a independent election to be an independent country or so, and these countries do not have the UK nationality anymore. But HKers never had such election taken place.
> China's leaders explicitly wanted to "preserve the colonial status of Hong Kong".[21] Liao Chengzhi, a senior Chinese official in charge of Hong Kong affairs, said in 1960 that China "shall not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories liberated" should the status quo (i.e. colonial administration) be changed. The warning killed any democratic development for the next three decades.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Ho...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pus...
Over 50 protestors were killed and hundreds more injured.
You mean these?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/opinion/ching-cheong-hong...:
> The May 6 riot was started by the local chapter of the Chinese Communist Party (C.C.P.), which hoped to bring the colonial government to its knees. The year before, its counterpart had done just that with the Portuguese authorities in Macau, becoming the de facto ruler there....
> The local C.C.P. created more terror by issuing a list of people targeted for assassination. These included a senior Chinese official in the British administration, a top business leader, a representative of the landed class and Louis Cha Leung-yung, the publisher of Ming Pao, a Hong Kong newspaper that had criticized the riot. Lam Bun, an outspoken radio broadcaster who had also condemned the disturbances, was burned to death, along with his cousin, on the way to work....
> Sino-British relations came to a standstill. According to a highly reputable source who spoke on the condition of anonymity, it appears that Zhou Enlai, the Chinese premier, asked Mao Zedong if he intended to claim Hong Kong back from Britain. Mao said that it wasn’t time and that he would honor the treaties China had signed allowing Britain to rule Hong Kong until 1997. Zhou then ordered an immediate halt to the riot in Hong Kong.
That's because the UK kidnapped the entirety of hong kong.
> On exploitation, in 1945 Hong Kong was bombed out rubble
Isn't that because that's where the colonizing brits were? You know the ones the japanese wanted to remove from asia?
> and in 1997 it was a first world city that had a higher GDP per capita than the United Kingdom.
The rise of Hong Kong's GDP entirely tracks the opening of china. Meaning the UK had nothing to do with hong kong's rise.
Also, it's a joke to compare a city ( hong kong ) to a country ( UK ). I see it done too many times in traditional and social media. Hong kong's GDP per capita is lower than london's. Using your logic, does it make that an exploitation?
Hong Kong was richer than Spain in 1980. China didn’t open for trade until the 80s. When Nixon went to China international trade was so low the leadership had to raid the entire country’s foreign reserves to get enough dollars to travel to the US. Hong Kong’s prosperity was not based on the China trade between 1945 and 1980.
Spain was pretty poor in 1980.
People really can't help themselves: "Also, it's a joke to compare a city ( hong kong ) to a country ( UK ). I see it done too many times in traditional and social media."
Also is that supposed to be impressive? I've never associated economic strength or wealth with 20th century spain.
> China didn’t open for trade until the 80s.
Wrong. They opened up in the 60s. They tested trade with Japan first in the 60s before opening up relations with the US in the 1970s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Japan_relations#...
There is a reason why hong kong's standing improved in the 60s and continued to do so.
> Hong Kong’s prosperity was not based on the China trade between 1945 and 1980.
Yes it was. Hong kong's only value is as an entry point/port into china. There is nothing inherently noteworthy about hong kong. It has no resources and only a few million people.
We know it wasn't based on the UK since from 1842 til china's liberation and opening up, hong kong was a dirt poor colonial outpost where only the british and a few chinese lackey's were wealthy. We know it had nothing to do with hong kong for the reasons I noted. So the only remaining option is china's opening up.
Lets put it this way, if china was still the colonized china of pre-ww2 or if china was the china of 1945-1965ish, then hong kong would still be relatively poor.
This.. seems a bit strident. Or a reach, anyway. I don’t recall a similar situation in HK in the 90’s. I also recall the joint declaration’s intent was to maintain HK autonomy until about 2047, something the U.K. advocated for, not China. The liberties the people in HK are used to and fighting to retain are there specifically because of the what the U.K. set up.
That said, British rule of HK, despite the UK having fairly authoritarian levels of power, was fairly restraint. I don’t recall many HK people feeling bitter towards the UK during that time I lived there — just prior to the handover.
Hong Kong was nearly[1] granted effectively autonomous status by Britain in the 1960s. China threatened a military intervention should that happen.
1. https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...
This QZ article is repeating a fairly disingenuous interpretation of the documents to suggest some missed opportunity for democratic reforms. The original narrative was put forth by VJMedia which bias towards HK local-ism (pro-independence). There was never any effort in the 60s up until years before handover to grant subjects of HK liberties or self-governance within the context of Extension of Hong Kong Territory lease.
Also did Britain do enough to protect and to take back HK during WW2.
If I remember correctly, HK was only given back to Britain after the final surrender of Japan in WW2. Japan had taken HK following the attack on the same day as Pearl Harbour attack.
Recall that this was attempted prior to the handover and the PRC thought it insufficient. Sufficiency is in the eye of the beholder, and relative to the norms of each society, no?
The US has laws to prevent sedition and treason, but they are nowhere near what the PRC finds appropriate for their own country. HK’s cultural expectations are somewhat closer to the occidental norms than the expectations of China proper, it would seem.
Frankly, I think the expectation was (and for some people still may be) that China would become a more socialized (pardon the pun) citizen of the globe by 2047, rather than the angry and aggressive economic rescue dog they’re turning out to be, and so the threat of HK takeover by a repressive, totalitarian regime would have been moot. Sadly it’s not looking like China will normalize in this sense prior to the JD expiring, and in fact, China has explicitly stated that they disregard the binding nature of the JD, calling it a mere “historic document”, despite its contemporaneous binding nature.
Maybe but no law at all is not sufficient to any objective observer.
Are you arguing China should have accepted HK’s proposal in the 90’s to fulfill BL 23?
Unclear what your point is. Oftentimes no law is preferable to bad law, given what’s at risk and a lack of compromise. Examples of this being “sufficient” are plentiful in any society where the people have a strong representation.
Yes, they should of but realistically they couldn't, life just isn't that simple. China had explicitly blocked that.
The hand over agreement to China was a very difficult and subtle balancing act.
Since the '60s China had apposed further moves towards democracy or extension of HK citizen rights with the threat of invasion.
However, as Thatcher pointed out in the 80s, China didn't even need to invade they could just cut the water supply off any time they felt like it.
This view of India, it's fall from grace in Asia, and its transformation from a source of knowledge to the sword of imperialism was very notable in the pan-Asian movt. in Japan (whose roots are actually in the anti-Meiji rebellions). This history is unacknowledged not only in India, but in Japan too. It's not surprising that the turban-clad 'asan' view of Indians as imperial-lackeys is a distinct point in Chinese movies.
Sun-Yat Sen, the founder of the first Chinese republic wa himself supported by this clan in Japan; and very interestingly, Rash-Behari Bose who was key to the formation of the INA, and the subsequent independence of India (via the Sepoy Mutiny), was helped by Sun-Yat Sen during in his early years in Japan (when he was being hunted down by the pro-British Japanese govt.) It's also very likely that Subhash Bose fakes his death in Taiwan and escaped to Russia via then Manchuria, and was in contact with CCP heads.
All said, it's unsurprising that today, 'India', a country often sneered at by the Caucasians (I say this measuredly), is suddenly being termed 'America's best friend' in line with Obama's 'pivot to Asia' (aka, the New Opium War).
I should hope so. That’s a stunning generalization if I get your intent, and to boot, wholly inaccurate as Indians are (and many can/do identify as) Caucasians.
Are you using The term as a proxy for the Occident as a whole? The United States specifically? Ignoring the technical inaccuracy, I think America remains a bit of an Indiaphiliac and has been that way for decades. It’s entirely compatible to hope the best for a nation, respect its intellectual achievements and regional challenges, value the alignment of interests while also remaining critical of its political and humanitarian shortcomings - as The US regards India and I’m sure the feeling is mutual.
At the same time, I think the US is wise to stay out of the growing conflict in Northern Kashmir. When it comes down to dust though, I’ve no doubt the US would help India defend against existential threats. China on the other hand isn’t worried about existential threats except maybe from Japan, and is in fact demonstrating and expansionist (if not imperial) foreign policy - which is to say, they would not conceivably need help from the US in the present conflict. I don’t see India attempting to seize territory from China any time soon.
I see absolutely no evidence of this being the case. The US has never in the history of India stepped in to help India.
In all likelihood, if IndanandnChina came to blows, the US would simply sit aside and not participate.
B) the two countries were conducting joint war games as late as last year. In fact, the US performs military exercises with India more than any other non-NATO partner.
C) since the sixties the US has provided billions in military equipment, economic aid and loans to India (US is heavily invested in their success and stability), to say nothing of remittances.
D) a strong ex-pat community in the US, one of the fastest growing, makes for political influence (did you see/watch the “Howdy Modi” rally in Texas?).
I could go on if those don’t make a compelling enough case, but I would like to address your prediction about China and India coming to blows.
I agree, until the conflict starts to threaten India existentially. I think current US policy is bending towards a preference for letting partners deal with their own regional issues to the extent they can. Witness the call for Europe to clean up its own backyard to their East and in Africa, the endorsement to Israel and Saudi Arabia for managing the Middle East, the slow unwinding if restrictions on Japan. I think this endorsement comes with a promise of air cover (literal and figurative) if things start to go sideways.
In point of fact, this process had already started in the lead-up to WW2. The war of Manchuria was in fact Russia and Japan fighting over a piece of China like two lions on the hide of a water buffalo that’s still walking upright.
> The war of Manchuria was in fact Russia and Japan fighting over a piece of China like two lions on the hide of a water buffalo that’s still walking upright.
In that metaphor, Japan was another water buffalo that was peacefully minding its own business, was told "you're next" by the lions, then shrugged and said "if you can't beat them, why not join them?"
Thank you for bringing up this often disregarded piece of history to light again.
It's a big irony that this alignment split has lasted to these days.
There is a bigger split in India's left than in between its left, and right side of the spectrum. One is pro-China, and one is militantly against.
They did.
If by 'exploited' you mean 'foisted Hong Kong to an immeasurably higher standard of living than the mainland, and protected them from the brutal oppression of the CCP, and enabled HK to be an example Asian country, one of the most sophisticated nations, with one of the highest GDP/capita in the region and world' ... then ok.
And of course 'The CCP now' will brutally oppress HK, bring them behind the curtain, throw away any legal process, watch their every move, subject them to any number of controls and censorship ...
So that's one funny way to look at it.
nope: https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/07/01/hong-kong-proteste...
The vast majority of that time without any real democratic participation of HK citizens as those were considered British subjects and did not have full rights nor citizenship [1].
[0] https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2122508/hong-...
Britain only started paying a bit of lip service to "freedom" and "democracy" when it became time to hand the territory back to China, and even now they aren't offering citizenship, they are simply saying they're considering allowing people to stay a few months longer in Britain.
> Both the ROC and PRC claim that Taiwan is part of China, but differ (obviously) as to which government is "legitimate".
We all know that if the "CCP" had lost the civil war and was reduced to ruling a tiny island off the coast, nobody would take the "PRC" any more seriously - as the true ruler of the whole country or as an independent state - than a "Confederate States of America" holed up on the Florida Keys.
They were going to make it a democracy in the 60s until China said they’d invade if they did.
> China's leaders explicitly wanted to "preserve the colonial status of Hong Kong".[21] Liao Chengzhi, a senior Chinese official in charge of Hong Kong affairs, said in 1960 that China "shall not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories liberated" should the status quo (i.e. colonial administration) be changed. The warning killed any democratic development for the next three decades.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Ho...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pus...
Perhaps not for the first 10 years. But 60 years and two generations later, it doesn't make any sense at all to refuse to recognize the independence of a self-governing group of over 20 million people.
Taiwan is made up of 70% of native Taiwanese people. It is disingenuous to say that the people living there, are made up of escaped refugees from the china mainline.
The fact that 70% of the population living their, has ancenstry dating back hundreds of years, is what make their claim valid.
Taiwan also has indigenous people that were colonized.
That said, I don't believe the solution here is to move every Hong Kong citizen en mass to the UK. Regardless, there would be many trapped there under the Chinese regime.
All British government administration of Hong Kong, terminated at the moment of the handover in 1997.
The Chinese honorably held up their end of the agreement, of their lease of Hong Kong to the British. They could have invaded at any time, but they didn’t. And the agreement was actually made by the Qing Dynasty, so the new China government at the time, could have rendered that agreement, null and void. But they didn’t.
And let’s be honest here, when the British signed the 99-year lease, they never really expected to leave Hong Kong. They were just toying with the Chinese, by signing the lease with the Qing government. Little did they know at the time, that their exploitative empire would crumble in less than 50 years.
If the people of the U.K. truly do support the people of Hong Kong, like you say, then they should take another referendum vote, on whether they want the Hong Kong people to move to Britain, and become British citizens. This is how you can support them.
> All British government administration of Hong Kong, terminated at the moment of the handover in 1997.
You answer your own question. The handover wasn't, but is a legally binding agreement with the United Kingdom, where among other things the "One country, two systems" principle was agreed to be in effect until 2047.
> And let’s be honest here, when the British signed the 99-year lease, they never really expected to leave Hong Kong.
The 99-year lease was only in regards to the New Territories. The Treaty of Nanking stipulates that HK Island was ceded "in perpetuity" to the UK. There's also the 1860 Convention of Peking. The PRC did not "recognize" this during negotiations, but as we can all see it seems par for the course for the PRC to simply "recognize" whatever parts they agree with at the time.
If one is to draw the purely legal argument here, at least be consistent.
And if PRC had simply taken the NT at end of lease, and not reached an agreement on the other areas, what would UK have done?
I'm just trying to make the point that had an empire still been in control of HK, things would have looked very different, but that's not the case so they don't. There's nothing inherently with HK's connection to mainland that makes it impossible for it to be self-sustaining, but there was never a point, or an economical or political will to do so.
The most obvious comparison to HK is Singapore, which is now a free state and has its own military, together with being one of the top financial spots in Asia. Yet the history is not that different from Hong Kong.
The different outcomes are not down to the simple fact that HK Island is a barren rock that would be technically impossible to sustain independently, but a complex result of geopolitics which today makes it impossible to release from the grasp of China.
The history is more complicated than most people think. As a child (early 90's) I had two friends from Hong Kong after a wave of immigration that started after Tiananmen.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20160424062259/http://www.taiwan...
* Food Hygiene and pandemics
* Rounding up minorities and religious groups
* Democracy
* Tibet and Taiwan
* Clashes with India
* Support for North Korea
The idea that 7m people should move out of Hong Kong because their requests for basic human rights is inconvenient to the CCP is frankly insane.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-05-28/trump-like...
> U.K. Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab warned the government will open a path to citizenship for 300,000 Hong Kong residents unless China backs down on its planned security laws....A key question for the U.K. is how to help the 300,000 people in Hong Kong who have British National (Overseas) passports. The foreign secretary said the U.K. will offer them a haven if Beijing does not back down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_(Overseas)_pa...:
> Holders of BN(O) passports are permanent residents of Hong Kong who were British Dependent Territories citizens until 30 June 1997 and had registered as BN(O)s....As British National (Overseas) cannot be passed through jus sanguinis to children of current BN(O)s, any children born on or after 1 July 1997 to parents with British National (Overseas) status only acquired either Chinese nationality or British Overseas Citizen status on birth (although it is possible for a BOC with no other nationalities to be registered as a British Citizen). Any British Dependent Territory Citizens with connections to Hong Kong who had failed to register themselves as British Nationals (Overseas) by the end of 30 June 1997 would also be ineligible to make further claims for BN(O) from 1 July 1997, and those people would either become Chinese nationals or British Overseas Citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_citizen:
> Naturalisation as a British Overseas citizen is not possible. It is expected that BOCs will obtain citizenship in the country they reside in and that the number of active status holders will eventually dwindle until there are none.[15] Currently, it is only possible to transfer BOC status by descent if an individual born to a BOC parent would otherwise be stateless.
So this doesn't affect anyone under the age of 23?
Quite easy for the british gov. to change the law on that though.
Similar to how the US no longer recognising HK as autonomous was framed as a pro HK gesture, but surely that's exactly what China wants. For people to recognize it's control over HK legitimises that control.
The title and Minister's position is very PR'ish and it sounds like a very tepid reaction.
Only 300.000 (of about 7.5million ) hk residents hold a BNO... What about everybody else? And how come those (few) BNO have been treated as less than British since 1997?
Next door Macau had given Portuguese nationality to virtually all it's population even ahead of handover. Argually, Macau population at the time represented only 5% of Portugal's population, compared to about 10% that hk population represents compared to UK's. But those BNO holders are much less than 5% of it's population...
If not done officially, but everyone knows that by being a political activist you can get foreign citizenship, you have just motivated people to fight!
Edit: dual-citizenship for an activist puts a China into a catch-22. China can’t complain if the optics are that the activist is just a normal person asserting their rights. If China does attack the activist, then the other country can rightfully argue that the activist is a political refugee, and as a citizen of their country they can defend them properly.
No, I think you'd end up motivating more to flee: a lot of people won't fight unless their backs' are against the wall.
You'd also probably end up stabilizing a bunch of nasty regimes by giving them someplace to dump their dissidents without inviting much backlash.
Would you punch a policeman if told "if you punch that policeman, there's a 28% chance we'll stop you getting in trouble for it" ? I think that's not an offer that's going to convince many people.
They do, just not immediately. All (most? are there any exceptions?) Western countries have a road to citizenship for accepted asylum seekers.
In an isolated system, the consequence of such advances in social structures should be that the newer higher cost of living is the price one pays for a higher standard of living. But countries aren't isolated, and thus democratic leaders try to exploit less democratic countries for their own benefits, be it via covert action, foreign aid or other forms of diplomatic pressure.
China, on the other hand, is one of the few (former, I should say) developing nations that have fought back, once they gained enough political power internationally. The Western world have become heavily reliant on China and its cheap production engine (to put it very simply), and China can thus force the same Western democracies to side with them on diplomatic issues closer to their home.
Ask an American or a Frenchman how important to their livelihood Hong Kong's freedom or Taiwan's independence is, and they would probably rate it low among their list of priorities. Their cheap electronics come first. Does it matter to a Canadian shopkeeper whether Muslim minorities in China are treated humanely? Probably not as much as access to Chinese manufactured equipment.
You may be quick to think our leaders are corrupted by the Chinese regime, but in reality, they are merely doing what their voters want them to do. Voters tend to be rather narrowly focused on what is in front of them, rather than wanting their government spent money and resources on someone else's freedom. Particularly if those regimes avoid directly attacking those democracies (see Pearl Harbor for an example of this mistake).
This is actually false. The reason Russia and China care so much about Ukraine and Taiwan, is because they worry having a functional democracy next door may destabilize their own regimes.
Correct, but none with a Slavic majority. Similar with China. Lots of democracies. None with mostly Han Chinese.
The threat to both comes from the disabling of their argument that democracy doesn’t work for “their” people. It’s difficult for Russia to define a set of people that encompasses its population but excludes Ukrainians. Same for Beijing with respect to Hong Kong and Taiwan.
China cared about Taiwan when it was a authoritarian dictatorship for most of its history. I don't think it's a matter of government but a matter of lost territory. Using your logic, the north was worried about the functional democracy of the confederacy.
Even if taiwan adopted communism, it wouldn't matter because it's a matter of territorial integrity. Meaning, it's just as lightly that we'd let south carolina secede than china would allow taiwan to leave.
As for russia, considering that it's a democratic republic, I don't think they are too worried about that. What they are worried about is the geopolitical issues with ukraine - especially foreign interference in ukraine.
But I would not say I am conflating the two. The simple equation is that democracy does not foster democracy by itself. Capitalism in those democracies hinters that.
they are merely doing what their lobbyists want them to do
FTFY.
I know this, because I am the same. I recognise that our systems are flawed, but I also recognise that I - as a voter - am partially to blame for this. And yet, I also feel comfortable enough to let and let live.
They may be the horses towing the cart, but they are not the driver. You are right that they won't want to revolt and potentially destroy the system because it's working "well enough" for them, but that's far from being the ones who decide the course of the nation.
When you have 2 parties that nominate oligarchs, your vote is already wasted.
The only influence that the average citizen has is to get involved at the city council level and help the right people climb into influence.
But when you have to choose between Trump and a Clinton, it's too late to make a difference.
At a minimum the PRC would break of diplomatic relations (it refuses to have relations with any country that also recognizes Taiwan). However it would be interesting (and dangerous) to see what the PRC would do if the US or an un-ignorable block of countries like the EU broke the status-quo and recognized Taiwan. The PRC is far less isolated and self-sufficient than it was when major powers last officially recognized Taiwan.
However, ROC law distinguishes its nationals into two classes – those with legal residence (household registration) in the area under ROC government control (the "Free Territory"), and those without. ROC nationals without legal residence in government-controlled territory lack residence and political rights in Taiwan. However, they can apply to ROC government Immigration Department to immigrate to Taiwan, and if approved, can then apply for full permanent residence and political rights after a period of temporary residence in Taiwan.
"Taiwanese politics is full of complex subtleties that not every news report can include. But if reporting on the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us anything, it is that accuracy matters. A simple change, describing Tsai and the DPP as “pro-status quo” instead of “pro-independence,” gives readers a more accurate and nuanced account of Taiwan’s reality."
https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/no-taiwans-president-isnt-pr...
For now, Taiwan is free.
And 'recognizing Taiwan' might trigger an invasion.
HK is a world banking and financial services hub in competition with the UK in many ways. Is this move a way for the UK to move these businesses who might feel unease where they are to the UK
What else might happen in the long term? What's between the lines?
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2156385...
Thus far, the statements by both entities that they condemn China’s behavior and will monitor the situation carefully are hollow. These entities must realize that their known lack of will to assert themselves physically very nearly nullifies their opinion. Their suspect ability to even assert themselves with sanctions and embargoes with respect to China completely nullifies their words.
China, on the other hand, showed their hand years ago with regard to the Joint Declaration, and I have to think some segment of the U.K. government apparatus had been expecting this inflection point to come.
The EU did not have anything to do with the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
Particularly not now after the UK decided to leave the EU.
The EU continues to have vast regional interests in HK/China and surrounding territory, despite the U.K.’s secession. I’m not sure how that development changes things. Literally I’m not sure. Time will tell. But the EU probably shouldn’t look at this as a strictly “British” problem.
It's overly simplistic to consider them part of the agreement because they did not veto it. The EU in 1985 is not even comparable to what it is now, this was before the Treaty of Maastricht, and well before the Treaty of Lisbon.
edit: This was literally years before the "Common Foreign and Security Policy"
To wit, they were in bed with the JD from the start, and have continued to voice opinion on the matter ever since, even after the U.K. seceded. Their regional interests have only increased.
The point is that this matters not if they have no follow through. Aside from some recent adventurism in “easy” Africa, as a body and a populace they show no inclination for giving the world reason to respect their dyspeptic opinions. If they can’t look after Crimea - literally their backyard, it tells China exactly how much runway they’ll give in HK.
Could you point to such an "EU's blessing and backing"?
Evoking the UN doesn't really make that case, in that context, you could evoke some kind of "obligation" from literally every UN country.
> It’s overly simplistic to consider them divorced because their name isn’t in the agreement title, and incorrect to say they did not have anything to do with it.
Imho it's overly simplistic to evoke EU obligation on the fact that in 1985 the UK only ratified the Single European Act, at that point, it was still the "European Community" which is not the same as the European Union.
Particularly in the context that back then HK was still considered UK territory, which the EC would have very little clout nor the authority to mess in. Even the modern-day EU does mostly refrain from interfering in such domestic territorial issues (Catalonia) as that's considered to be meddling too much in an individual EU country's sovereignty.
You have to remember that the EU isn't some kind of "federal European government" that dictates to member states, the EC was even less so.
Wasn’t that the point?
I also don't see the UN interfering because if the UN would be willing and able to go there, then the whole Taiwan situation wouldn't exist.
That's why as unpopular of a opinion it might be, I don't see the HK protesters getting any kind of international backing and if countries like the UK and US are so insistent on getting involved there then their best bet would be to offer people from HK citizenship, and with that, I mean actual proper citizenship and not this lip-service pseudo-citizenship.
But I don't see that happening because none of these countries actually care about that HK situation, for them, just like pretty much all Five Eyes countries, this is very much torn in China's side they can keep on twisting to justify further antagonizing of China on the international stage.
It's ice-cold and calculated geopolitics, the whole "humanitarian" angle might be pushed in the mainstream, like it's always to justify international interventions, but one has to be very naive to think any of that is rooted in serious and honest convictions and not just the "feel good" narrative it actually is.
That, and the cost of living in the UK so high, for such modest/low quality of life. Don't get me started on hot/cold separate water faucets.
You can tell I didn't exactly enjoy my time there.
The shitshow divestment of the Empire is the reason for many of the ethnographic and political conflicts the world currently faces.
They should never have colonized it in the first place.
These young protestors there today, seem to have a brainwashed and rose-colored-glasses view of their historical past. They think that their parent’s lives were better while still under the rule of the British, but I don’t think so.
If anything, the British created a very exploitative situation in Hong Kong. It was raw and predatory capitalism, and the rich exploited the poor. And who were the richest there? The white British man himself.
They were so damn rich from their opium exploits, that for the peasant Hong Konger, it was like basking in the presence of a god. That’s how despicable the situation was. And the British thoroughly enforced a racist and racial stratification there.
The British tends to take credit to the success of Hong Kong, but really, it was all about exploitation. They made Trillions of dollars in profit from Hong Kong, for over 100 years, by funneling opium to China, and drugging the people of China. Imagine America’s recent opioid epidemic, but 1000 times worse, and you might get an idea of the severity of the situation.
Then all the other rich businessmen in Hong Kong, they got rich by exploiting the situation for themselves, and their ability to trade with China.
But in reality, Hong Kong became successful because its residents are ethnically Chinese. It’s because of the hard work ethic, and Confucian culture, that drives them to succeed.
Otherwise, you only need to look at other British colonies, like South Africa, and see how much of a failure they are. The exploitation didn’t work so well in South Africa, when the natives hate you for your racism, and are willing to get violent for it.
Sadly, because of their misguided views, these protesters are about to turn Hong Kong into another South Africa. They just destroyed all the tourism and good will that the city had.
Anyways, the U.K. should do this. It was long in coming. They set a poison pill for Hong Kong, when they left. And now, it has finally exploded. They need to fix what they did wrong, and make amends to their historical failings of the past.
The U.K. should let the Hong Kong residents leave, and move to Britain, or other nations in their commonwealth. Or even to America, since Hong Kong gets so much support from the American politicians. It is finally, the right thing to do.
Also, the richest man there has been for quite a while (80s): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ka-shing
If you want to rewrite history, get your facts straight :-)
But, even his wealth, pales in comparison to what the British and Americans made from Hong Kong and China, in their illegal and immoral opium trade.
Realize that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the American president, who never held a job in his entire life, and became the president, was the offspring of wealthy opium smugglers.
Harvard and Yale, built their endowment money from the opium trade.
Forbes, and all the other big American businessmen, yup, all drug money from opium.
An uncomfortable fact, is that a lot of American riches, are built on the blood of a lot of dead Chinese drug addicts. Unsurprisingly, this fact is never discussed in American history textbooks. It is far easier to just brush this under the rug, and ignore it, and let history forget about it.
If I were a UK citizen I'd be extremely upset that my country's leaders are offering foreigners citizenship en mass with such careless expedition.
High quality sources of immigrants are hard to come by - the UK is right to extend a hand - particularly considering their strong historical ties to the region.