Hacker News Reader

Comment by supernova87a | Hacker News Reader

But let me play a moderate and ask you:

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.

View on HN

> 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?

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 handover treaty did not promise "an erosion of civil liberties in 2047." What it promised was that the territory would retain its basic law, constitution and freedoms until at least 2047. What was to happen next was to be up to the CCP and HK. You seem to think that moving to authoritarian control of HK was a foregone conclusion in 2047, but the past and present have shown great benefit to both of retaining 1C2S. Domestic peace, and an sort of a no-mans land where the rest of the world can meet the (relatively) insular CCP and do business.

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.

This is a good point. I feel like I have a somewhat unsatisfying answer to this, which is that I am approaching this from a first-principles reasoning of ethical value, which logically leads to the arguing for secession.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com