Student group leader arrested on suspicion of inciting secession in HK
hongkongfp.com
hongkongfp.com
The state is small and a shares border with China, so it's not some situation where it will be easy to repeal invaders. And the people are at a severe military disadvantage. Even if every Hong Konger was armed, trained, and well lead, China could wage a war of attrition and win without a single shot fired.
I feel like their only hope would be if America deployed troops to HK and kept the city fed via air supply like with Berlin. And I can't imagine this having much, if any support within the US government or military.
Maybe these people just assume that protests and pressure from foreign governments will be enough to secure their freedom? I can't imagine China giving up on reintegrating HK and will do so by force, if required.
Not that there wasn’t plenty of protest, struggle and loss of life in things like the dissolving of the British Empire and USSR, but the more powerful actor did eventually give up, vs. simply saying “we have the bigger army, we’re gonna crush you.”
In most cases, there was extended protest, to the point where popular opinion shifted over time to heavily support secessionists, and the colony/whatever became an expensive inconvenience, that wasn’t worth the tax revenue. Hong Kong are probably hoping that eventually the same thing will happen with them.
This is a small area bordering close a billion people area.
[1]: https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/ch/component/k2/1535055-20200701.h...
[2]: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
[3]: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/China-People-s-Congress-20...
I don't know how the article about PAP relates, though I was going to mention in the original comment that HK wouldn't take more few PAP detachments to tame even without "military" intervention. The key point, being that it's not a "frontier" territory and surrounded by so much CCP para/military/security that secession is not possible.
It’s a long shot, but I imagine this is a more common dream among HKers who want independence than winning it in a war. Obviously they’ll never match China’s might.
When Japan invaded Hong Kong [3] in 1941 during WW II, the city fell after a bit more than two weeks.
Lastly, China is for historical reasons extremely protective of its territorial integrity (because loss of land often presaged the demise of a dynasty and subsequent disarray, and the touchy "century of humiliation" during which many territories were conceded to foreign powers [3b]), as you can see in its attitude towards Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan (China promulgated a specific law in 2005 authorising "non-peaceful means" if Taiwan seceded [4]), and HK and Macao. (See [5] on the contrast of the CCP vs western attitudes - not only can Californians discuss secession if they so wish, but Scotland, Quebec, etc. could vote on secession. Unthinkable in China.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in...
[2] https://hkfoodworks.com/research/food-supply/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hong_Kong
[3b] https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/29/asia/china-separatism-ind...
This entirely misses the point that China is openly willing to invade militarily.
There is absolutely no way to achieve HK independence without central Chinese government consent. ...which is about as likely as finding an ice cube on the surface of the sun.
Worth noting that China quietly accepted losing territories, such as pulling back with India [1], and more importantly to Russia’s Vladivostok (Chinese [2] Google translate [3])--Russia is one of the foreign powers listed in the “Century of humiliation” propaganda, which China quietly accepts losing territorial integrity to.
China appears to be protective loudly, so that she could give up quietly. She cites “historical reasons” only when convenient. See what she does, not what she says.
[1]: https://thewire.in/security/chinese-pullback-at-galwan-comes...
[2]: https://www.rfi.fr/tw/中國/20200703-俄羅斯微博高調慶祝海參崴建城160周年-網民怒批-官...
[3]: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
One of the core demands of the protestors is sort-of “independence light”, though. They’re asking for their leaders, including the Chief Executive, to be democratically elected by HKers, without interference from China.
Regardless, the question I was responding to said nothing about a majority of HKers. It was just saying, for those who do want independence, how do they see it happening? And I was speculating that they could be looking to wage a long term battle of public opinion/annoyance, where China might eventually give up, vs. any sort of military conflict.
It's quite possible for the larger power to be defeated by having to fight multiple smaller powers. Bigger army doesn't mean it's a fight you can win.
On a somewhat-related note, I read of an interesting case in Indian history involving a minor state that existed between two major powers. The situation was stable.
One of those major powers, feeling especially strong, conquered that minor state. It could do that -- it was much bigger! But this ended up directly exposing its (new) border to the other major power, which invaded. The first power fell apart.
Exhile
By doing so, the value of hk is lost (economic powerhouse loss and brain drain)
And the hk people can retain their freedom.
Along that train of thought, the UK offer for naturalization makes sense, and the US would greatly benefit from such a process.
It's much more likely they'll end up in the other four of the Five Eyes (The UK, CA, AU and NZ in rough order of how many people will land in each).
I think positioning 100,000 American troops would deter the CCP. Given the New Territories is connected to the mainland, I would position them all on Hong Kong Island to defend against any potential naval invasion.
When the invasion occurs, America would then mobilize its naval assets closer to Hong Kong and bombard any amphibious landings.
Given America's naval superiority, China would not want to engage in a decisive naval battle.
That's not positioning, that's an outright invasion and occupation of China. Now that they've become such a global power they'd never back down from that fight.
It helps if the area to be governed is full of sympathetic, English-speaking westerners with a lot of family ties back to the oppressing nation. That’s why this would never work in Xinjiang. It’s slightly less unlikely in HK.
Many of the secessionists hope for or expect an immediate collapse of the Chinese central government, either due to internal economic, political, or ethnic problems, or to external pressures applied especially by US, at which point, with support from the Anglosphere, they could obtain and sustain sovereignty.
Hang Seng Index,
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/28/asia-markets-hong-kongs-new-...
Wow.
Slightly facetious but HK really dropped the ball in not chasing tech IMO
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H_share
[2]: https://markets.ft.com/data/indices/tearsheet/summary?s=HSCA...
China among other nations have been playing a game for a while. I call it "can we get away with it" (all states play this game to some extent).
This listing of Chinese tech companies that are taking a hammering from Western policy as China becomes near peer (this is just the start) isn't subtle enough to be part of this game IMO. To me this listing was a statement - they are fully aware it's going to make the West double down on ending any outstanding preferential treatment. What they are saying is: "we don't care if we can get away with it. It's ours.".
(kidding, but not completely -- read Article 21: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Law_of_the_People%27s_Republi...)
He intends to run in a primary for the pro-democracy camp that will choose candidates for the Legislative Council vote on Sept. 6.
"If more people vote for us ... it could generate more pressure and more hesitation for Beijing," Wong said, in front of campaign posters with the slogan "Ballot, or bullet."
Wong has said he supports the idea of a non-binding referendum for people to have a say over Hong Kong’s future but that he is against independence.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-joshua-...
The CCP has consistently acted with great hostility and any attempt to change the system through existing political mechanisms, protests, and civil disobedience. And our global institutions have been seriously weakened by the election of various far-right, nationalist politicians who have no interest in, or are actively hostile towards promoting civil liberties and liberalism.
What other options do these activists have? Violence?
Are you an HK secessionist or merely seeking to delay / live out what was promised?
I.e., are you merely advocating for Hong Kong to peacefully continue the rest of its 20 years before full handover to China, under the system they've been used to? This is what was promised -- and you don't want China to prematurely erode HK's civil liberties?
Or are you seeking Hong Kong's independence, and a nullification of the treaty that was agreed to?
Because if you agree that the territory belongs to China, then we're just unhappy about it coming sooner than expected, right? It eventually would revert to China and have all the infringement of rights, which are now just being experienced sooner.
Specifically, since I consider the preservation of civil liberties as a foundational ethical value, I consider the broad infringement of it, whether now or in the future is fundamentally unethical. From that perspective I consider both cases unethical, and that places me as in the secessionist category, even though that would mean violating the treaty.
One could argue that from a utilitarian perspective, (that places overall societal utility over individual liberty), that China is acting consistently within it's own interpretation of utilitarian ethics. The CCP could argue that maximizing ethical value necessitates both infringing on civil liberties, and violating the treaty. They could even plausibly point towards their radical success in reducing poverty, and leadership on climate change as an example of the superiority of their system. However, the (ongoing) genocide of Uighurs should clearly illustrate the flaws in this system.
The future, indefinitely, could have been 1C2S. In theory, it could still be.
It's really the CCP that's choosing to impose its will on the people of Hong Kong -- to your point, prematurely, but also objectively as a belligerent in this conflict. I suspect that most of the people of Hong Kong would have happily continued to live their lives on the island as they have for 50+ years, an enclave with a different way of life.
> Because if you agree that the territory belongs to China, then we're just unhappy about it coming sooner than expected, right?
By not living out the terms of the treaty until 2047, it is _China_ that is already nullifying the treaty. The whole point of the treaty was that changes to the basic law would not occur until at earliest 2047 so being "unhappy about it coming sooner than expected" is the same as being "unhappy that China is breaking the treaty". To me it is crazy to expect Hong Kongers not to be protesting such duplicitous actions by China.
> It eventually would revert to China and have all the infringement of rights, which are now just being experienced sooner.
As arcticbull pointed out ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23992800 ), it is absolutely _not_ a foregone conclusion that they would lose their current rights in 2047. The CCP might not even be able to hold out in its current form until then (ignoring currently trade and military tensions in the area, China's aging workforce is basically a population bomb). If Hong Kongers' want to stay quasi-independent, holding to the terms of the treaty is actually quite crucial. My suspicion is that the CCP sees exactly the same thing and hence why they have chosen to break the terms of the treaty to avoid having Hong Kong causing them trouble if they were to enter rough times in the future.
The sentiment gradually shifted, because they lost whatever hope or trust that is left with the government.
It is still not a mainstream view, but it isn't so much a "hoax" like it was same time last year.
Can you imagine if the protesters in Kashmir were waving UK flags?
From free to slave, from Hk to mainland, from anti- to love of your master. That is how they want Hk becomes.
It is not because we see any hope we fight. Be water, my friend.
I think this was more like a willful delusion on the part of the supporters of such a theory. Either knowingly--so they exploit China's labor force and resources--or unknowingly--because they'd drank the cool aid offered by those trying to profit off of China.
I think we should flip the whole thing. Why would China democratize? If the rest of the world is okay with China's authoritarianism and continues to engage with China economically, why exactly shouldn't they just continue acting as they do. How much longer would apartheid have continued in South Africa, if international pressure didn't mount against it? I honestly don't know the answer to that question, but it's not some guarantee that it would have gone away, just as it's no guarantee that China will democratize. If we truly want China to democratize, we should engage with them economically with that as a _stipulation_ in some form or another. If we don't make such a stipulation, we should stop acting surprised that China does not change its system and instead accept that we are just there to economically exploit the country and that these dreams only exist to convince the rest of the world that it's acting morally even if it clearly is not.
Initially we got into bed with China (I am a brit, so by we I mean Europe as well as the US) to get them out of bed with the Russians because communism. That's why there were no stipulations around democracy etc, the stipulation was basically "fuck the USSR" and they stuck to that. They should have been added when the USSR feel, but most countries were too busy dealing with their internal politics (and cheap Chinese imports supported them there).
The excuse there is that by making them richer (and getting richer ourselves, whoops) we were assisting them towards a bloodless transition. That's clearly not working. Instead, china over the last 5 years at least has regressed politically. I would 100% support action on China (and I am an internationalist and until recently quite pro china). But this is hard, we would need most of the west to work together at exactly the time it's "every man for himself" (brexit, trump).
To be honest, I am actually quite worried right now. The total refusal of countries to work together on this and climate change mean the rest of this century is very uncertain. I am 36, quite old really but I won't be dead before most of the shit has hit the fan. Yet everyone both individually and nationally are basically ignoring the oncoming train to pickup pennies from the tracks...
This is my general feeling as well (at age 35). I agree on things like climate change as well, but I think even more concrete examples abound. Most of the diplomatic world has simply chosen to ignore the fact that China and Taiwan are two separate countries. The fact that we ignore the decades of threats of invasions coming from China concurrently with China's build up of the capabilities to actually attempt that invasion is totally unacceptable. And we do it so we can exploit cheap Chinese labor and resources. I find it morally despicable and extremely short-sited. If China ever puts its money where its mouth is, all I can hope is that the rest of the world doesn't pretend to be shocked and surprised.
The best scenario if that is the path is Switzerland model as a neutral ground. In fact that is what 1c2s model is. but that is unlikely now. You have that option if some acceptance of similarity (languages - French, Germany etc as English is the business and government internal language). Hk play a different game due to its proximity and multiple strong countries around (in influence, history and trade).
Unfortunately, China traditional cultural view That the world is one and no coexistence in heart. Its stands is really Hans or barbarian does not help. It got an economic of scale that is hard to beat. And once back on world stage it is a force that fit dominance more. Unless that change Hk fight, our fight here, is hard.
The china does not understand and take this. At least not for long. Dang ... No way out yet. But fight on. Cathedral vs bazaar. One vs many.
Brace yourselves, Trump is likely to re-recognize Taiwan soon, reversing a terrible decision which was made as a concession.
To those that wish to learn more deeply about the Hong Kong events, I recommend browsing Quora. There are quite some people there who say they live in Hong Kong.
If you disagree with this analysis, I would love to hear why.
Note that the coercion doesn't have to be blatant or explicit. China said some fairly threatening things about Hong Kong, and some number of residents may have decided that, for their own safety, they needed to signal that they were in support. What they actually feel or think may be different.
>> Last Friday Leung Chun-ying, Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing former leader, demanded that HSBC state its position after enjoying privileges in the territory that “should not be taken for granted”.
He also warned that it could “be replaced by banks from China or other countries overnight”.
In a Facebook post he wrote: “We need to let … British companies such as HSBC know which side of the bread is buttered.”
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/420764-chicago-alderman-ca...
And that is about as civilised and as polite as I could put it.
I live in Hong Kong–those people on Quora are wrong. Actually, I don't, but there's really no way to verify that; take online comments by people who supposedly live in a region with a grain of salt.
Petitions are bullshit, Quora is bullshit. Look for bodies, anything else is easy to fake.
Suppose a foreigner posts a video on Youtube, showing that he's on the street in China, speaking about Hong Kong. Would you say that that is a valid opinion?
Also, if we're so skeptical about all sorts of online comments, do you believe I should consider all HN comments about anything political, to be invalid too because they might be disinformation campaigns?
Also, yes, we generally are skeptical of political claims online. See this thread and any political discussion on HN. It's why political submissions are usually clusterfucks like this one where every top-level comment is greyed-out and making a strong claim. Or made by someone who registered an account just to post it.
Either way, you are here bringing Quora posts and a petition in into a superhot discussion that demands more. Linking to published opinion pieces from people at ground zero would definitely be more compelling than pointing us to an internet forum where you write your own byline credentials.
You read too much into why I mentioned "foreigner". I actually wanted to ask whether people consider the video that I posted above, which is made by an actual foreigner (as a fact, not as an insinuation of anything more) can be considered an honest opinion.
I also used the word "valid" as a shorthand for "an opinion that deserves to be heard and considered, rather than downvoted or dismissed", for the lack of a better term.
To point back to that comment, Chinese living in China have just as much a right to have opinions on it, and so do Americans living in America, but neither of their opinions are worth half as much as people living in Hong Kong. As long as they're representing themselves honestly (as Chinese or Americans, living in their respective countries), they've still got honest opinions, even if their opinions don't matter as much as the ones of people living in Hong Kong.
You're redirecting the conversation. Is this intentional? I didn't claim any which way as to the "validity" of opinion: I agreed with Saagar, saying that the fact of where you live is easy to obscure or lie about on the internet, and opinions that were possibly deceptively broadcasted should be taken with a grain of salt.
Suppose a foreigner posts a video on Youtube, showing that he's on the street in China, speaking about Hong Kong. Would you say that that is a valid opinion?
This is a fun question, because there are four or five layers to it! I'll try to answer it and the rest of your questions the best I can, because I don't think we're that far off from ideological alignment here.
First, I'll start off again by pointing out your usage of "valid opinion" isn't here nor there (all opinions are valid, even if some are deceiving and many are wrong): my statement wasn't on the validity of opinions, but on whether or not the opinions were coming from people who were being honest about where they were from. But I still like this question, so I'm going to answer.
You word this like it's a "gotcha," as if for some reason expats are primarily on the side against CCP (or China, because let's be honest, a lot of the hate directed in the CCP's direction is anti-Chinese xenophobia, despite there being a lot of valid reasons to hate the CCP and detest its actions), but most foreigners who'd be willing to film themselves talking in China and publicly broadcast it are pro-Chinese government. I don't think this is inherently a bad thing, and it's completely natural given that the Chinese government has some absolutely fantastic scholarships and has relatively accepting immigration policies.
But then, Hong Kong isn't China. I wouldn't trust an American living in France to tell me about Venezuela, even if their opinions are "valid" as long as they're representing themselves as an American living in France telling me about Venezuela. I'd trust a foreigner living in Hong Kong to tell me about Hong Kong, I'd trust a foreigner living in China to tell me about whichever part of China they're in (I'm not going to claim someone living in Chongqing could tell me much about Huangshan; people don't accept that China is more like USA than a tiny country like France, but I wouldn't trust a Californian to deliver a good summary of what Wisconsin is like, either).
It then follows that Chinese living in China and Americans living in the USA have opinions that are worth less than anyone living in Hong Kong, which I'd say is true if you think people should have a right to self-determination. Most online opinions claiming to be from Hong Kong online should probably be discounted then, solely because given the volume of people from both countries with an interest in interfering in Hong Kong's affairs (let's be honest, CIA is assuredly interfering too given the obvious benefits of an independent Hong Kong to US intelligence).
Also, if we're so skeptical about all sorts of online comments, do you believe I should consider all HN comments about anything political, to be invalid too because they might be disinformation campaigns?
Again, you're using "invalid" in a sense that I don't think is useful. Nonetheless, anyone claiming to be from anywhere online has a pretty strong chance of not being from there. Any dog can log on. So yeah, definitely discount HN pretty heavily. Even if HN isn't subject to any disinformation campaigns (ignoring that Amazon's been caught paying people to comment on here and some Amazon accounts have been banned for that), it's still primarily well-off people circlejerking about the dangers of economic systems they've only read the Wikipedia articles about; yes, absolutely throw the opinions away. Most importantly, do so when sides not directly involved (meaning not Hong Kong in this case, despite that China is 'directly' involved; China is 'directly' involved in the sense that USA was during Vietnam) have vested interests in making things go their way.
Also rather than “online polls”, the more damning feature are the local elections, or remnants thereof, where the Beijing faction is routinely getting crushed with pro-democracy candidates getting 70-80% Of the vote
edit: I worded this strangely and tried to recover it, hopefully it makes sense.
49% strongly opposed it.
7% somewhat opposed it.
27% strongly supported it.
7% somewhat supported it. [1]
[1]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-poll-ex...