Thatcher was a lot of things but naive certainly wasn't one of them. The Western powers simply wanted to become closer to China for economic and geopolitical reasons, but need an excuse to back away from the Red Scare. "Bringing Democracy" is the oldest page of the manufacturing consent playbook. It's honestly embarrassing of how well it works (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya).
Looking back, I think it worked quite well for as long as it did.
Also not known to most is that Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and the US all have larger Chinese populations than Singapore.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong%E2%80%93United_Sta...
and in particular
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Hong_Kong_Poli...
(though this seems a little focused on export controls)
but I'd love to have been a fly on the wall in whatever meetings American diplomats had with one another and with the various other parties (Hong Kong, China, and Britain).
It sounds like the US was pretty hands-off at the time, though. Maybe that's just the official position, but it's surprising. I suppose 90s optimism could have caused this behavior...
Now I imagine what would have happened instead, say, under an Eisenhower administration, with John Foster Dulles as secretary of state.... It's hard to say: They were much more aggressive (e.g. Iran, Korea, ...), but they were also trying to get the British out of places (the Suez Crisis, the subtext of The Quiet American, ...). At this point it all just becomes alternate history though...
Practically, Britain should just offer citizenship to Hong Kongers...
I wish there were freedom of movement within AUKUS + ASEAN (+ OAS?), as a block, like there is within the EU... Instead it's almost like the neo-empire has hukous. Which sucks. Just come out as an empire and let subjects get some benefits, like the freedom to live anywhere... Or, I don't know, maybe that would just result in Americanization of the world, which would be kind of tragic... Hmm... Well anyway, at least invite Hong Kongers in; it's the least you can do...
Hm, actually CUKCs used to be a thing (unfortunate acronym now in 2022):
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/the-staggers/2017/05/f...
(Sounds like the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 should be repealed.)
Maybe this can all just be done in a bilateral way instead... Problem is, western countries have no incentive to bargain for looser visa regulations that let their people leave...
Still, it's nice to imagine a world where a person from Hong Kong or London or New York could freely move to any of the other cities...
Hm, maybe the collapse of national legitimacy and the rise of sanctuary cities (somewhat overhyped) paired with something more prosaic like sister cities could do this... Why can't a mayor have a foreign policy? Eric Adams or Sadiq Khan: "Hong Kongers are welcome here!" Hm...
How would such a league of city-states defend itself though? I mean, this is the problem in Hong Kong to begin with...
Hm...
Maybe we just need Mr. Lee's franchises... Make it real, people... If Mark Zuckerberg can get 15,000 engineers to try to build the Metaverse, surely we can raise an army to construct good things from cyberpunk...
Well, if the UK wanted to, they would have done it before 1997 but they chose to give the majority a chance to apply for a BNO passport which was literally a slap in the face. No right to live and work in the UK when you are a 'British National Overseas'.
Even when they let BNO passport holders apply for the right to live and work in the UK recently, they could pick and choose who they wanted to let in.
BNO passport = joke of the century
I would regard it more as a “pull out” than anything. Set up HK the best you can than wash your hands of it.
See here: Saudi-Arabia, Oman, UAE, Philippines, Egypt (military junta), Turkey, etc.
If being friendly with an authoritarian state yields economic or military geographical advantage then that overrides any ideological hang-ups involved.
They attack democracies that they don’t like labeling them autocratic and dictatorships. Then install their military juntas. See numerous examples like Chile, Ethiopia, Iran etc.
Stephen Kinzer has written extensively on this in the book Overthrow:
https://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Cha...
On overthrowing the Iranian democracy and installing the Shah:
https://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/B00S...?
On the Jakarta Method:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jakarta_Method
https://www.amazon.com/Jakarta-Method-Washingtons-Anticommun...?
In your view how is it different from today's situation where China might declare the same thing about Taiwan?
* by 1997 (handover date) Britain lacked a colonial empire from which it could assist in a defense of Hong Kong, and of the overseas posts it did have, the regiments were fairly small. Sending a large military force all the way from Britain itself would take too long in any sort of conflict. Taiwan has always come with the implicit security guarantee of the United States, which maintains a very active presence in the Pacific.
* the PLA has the law of numbers on their side, not only due to part 1 but because of how large their army is in general, and the border between Hong Kong and the rest of China is a fairly small river. The PLA generally lacks the amphibious capacity to do a land invasion of Taiwan.
* the New Territories in Hong Kong, unlike the rest of it, were signed over in a 99 year lease. 1997 was the end of those 99 years. The New Territories are a mountainous area with a good deal of Hong Kong's postwar population and also its major water supplies; without it and bordering a hostile China, Hong Kong would quickly cease to be a functioning city. Holding onto the territories wouldn't last a very long time due to parts 1 and 2, and unlike Taiwan where international law depends on who you think China is, the UK would clearly be in the wrong by violating the 99 year lease unilaterally.
The alternative is war.
>today's situation where China might declare the same thing about Taiwan?
And everyone pretty much agrees the alternative is war.
Calling for war in times of peace from your couch is a very easy thing do; but it's not something to be taken lightly. There's no telling how quickly this appetite for war against our 3rd largest trading partner will dry up once we start having to deal with the economic fallout.
UK has no legitimate claim to Hong Kong, so the non-China option is independence.
Taiwan has always had a local military.
A big part of it is that the "democrats" (which was a catch-all term for all Western-minded liberals) favored a quick reset of the vestigial planned economy into a free market-based one; words like "shock therapy" were thrown around. The idea was that any inconveniences would be temporary, and more than made up for when the transition is complete.
The immediate result, however, was a significant drop in quality of life for the majority of the population, with a corresponding rise in crime. And because the "democrats" were the ones spearheading the efforts, they carried the reputational hit. This gave people like Putin the opportunity to ride to power on "strong hand" policies that were supposed to fix all that.
I grew up in Russia during that era, and remember the rhetoric then. One thing I'd say the West did very wrong was to let organizations like the IMF run wild, pushing for their (austerity-centric) ideological view of the economy through loans. Then again, from what I've read later, it wouldn't be the first or the last time they messed up a country they were supposed to help.
Like all simple economic theories, it looked good on paper, and convincing to the crowd. Then it turned out that the new owners were largely the same people who were in charge in Soviet days, except for a few talented and lucky grifters who made their way from the very bottom to the very top.
(Side note: Zelensky's "Servant of the People" is available on Netflix with decent subtitles, and I would heartily recommend it to anyone in the West who wants to understand the historical trajectory of former Soviet republics - Russia and Belarus especially, of course. What I found interesting is that, while it was targeted at contemporary Ukrainians in 2015-2019, the world that it depicts was very familiar to me from my memories of 1990s in Russia, aside from uniquely local issues like the languages.)
The difference is that one of Russian oligarchs decided to make a new political puppet with a "strong man" image. He was very successful, but then the puppet decided that it can make it on its own - and did so.
The exact same kind of thinking the led US to invade Irak.
We're bringing democracy!
They will love us over there!
What could possibly go wrong!
With exactly zero understanding of the history and culture of the place.
I mean had Bremer ever crossed a US border once in his life before he was posted there?
That level of blindness and self-righteousness, while rather commonly on display in the US, is unfortunately not an american monopoly.
> The exact same kind of thinking the led US to invade Irak.
Encouraging (maybe there's a better word to use) a different way of running a foreign economy to bring about political change is not the exact same kind of thinking as overthrowing a foreign government to bring about political change. Yeah, there is the belief that political change needs to happen, but in practice these things are very different.
Those arguments always sound like straw men though: they are designed because they are easy to tear down. China is...weird. You can't really take anything at face value, good or bad. And I say that having lived there for 9 years. E.g. sometimes a ghost mall or district is one waiting to be populated, otherwise times it's just waiting to be torn down (either way positive GDP is generated).
And then all of a sudden it collapsed.
The US is getting more fascist in observable ways. Suspension habeas corpus in GWs time, pepper spraying college students in 2008 for a seated protest in Cali, to no abortion rights, and the political snowflakes in both parties calling for each other’s heads, kids in cages and yet everyone tucks their chin and goes on, inequality and taxation without holistic demographic representation; SCOTUS Justices openly demanding the public just accept things it does not like.
Keep complaining about Russia and China, USians. Virtue signaling while actually operating as moral relativists is creating the culture you talk to be against in your own backyard.
Consider that the UK only barely managed to defend the Falklands. Thatcher saved her and her country's face in the negotiations which is the main job of any politician.
Are you serious? I am not, I am being sarcastic.
One out of two ain't so bad. /s
I think the CCP’s strategy is much simpler. They don’t expect Taiwan to be annexed any time soon, they just want to quell dissent in China. I believe popular opinion among Mainlanders is that HK citizens are spoiled drama queens (negative sentiment) so a display of force is a way of showing internally that HK - once a far more prosperous part of China, that saw itself as superior/gave mainlanders an inferiority complex - is now subservient to China. Basically a demonstration that China is a rising power (internally)
It's a display of strength, in my opinion. "Struggle all you want, but in the end we will have our way with you." I'm not a geopolitical expert or anything but I fully expect China to take Taiwan by force while the West is busy with Russia. I'm fairly certain that we couldn't effectively sanction both China _and_ Russia
The US is still giving out Purple Hearts medals meant for the land invasion of Japan, which was expected to be horrific in terms of casualties due to the terrain. In this context, the US actually investigated and totally gave up on the idea of a land invasion of Taiwan, because the geography is so much worse; there are very few flat beaches from which to do an amphibious D-day style landing, and all of them are a few km away from mountains from which to rain down artillery.
It's funny people think these are all random occurrences or all the doing of the CCP. During the detente, even the Dalai Lama suddenly went to the "Middle Way" and shut up for 15 years.
HK is one of my favourite cities but one thing that I do not like about HK is how its citizens of Chinese descent (not all of course) think that they are superior to people in the Mainland. They try to make the differentiation by identifying themselves as Hongkongers (香港人) and not Chinese.
When they are outside of Hong Kong and have to fill in their ethnicity on application forms etc, no country has 'Hongkonger' as an ethnicity or even nationality.
My friends of Chinese descent born in the UK with parents from HK identify their ethnicity as Chinese. I really don't understand the minds of these Hongkongers sometimes..
The CCP/PRC knows that very well so there is no point for them to allow HK to persist, especially considering that this could give ideas on the mainland ("if HK can have this, why can't we?")
(Also, no-one ever talks about Macao, but it's the same as HK)
Unification. You can’t reunify something that wasn’t once unified.
But in any case China screwed that up because the world and Taiwan have seen what China has done and is doing and Taiwan doesn’t want any part of it.
After the Qing Dynasty took over they did nothing with Taiwan. The Qing Dynasty called Taiwan a ball of mud in the sea not worth the effort of China. There was some people who travelled and setup in Taiwan but ultimately the Qing Dynasty never controlled Taiwan and was in constant conflict with the locals.
In 1887 they decided to call Taiwan a Provience in order to defer Japan from attacking. During this time they tried a little bit to build Taiwan, but again, ultimately not controling the Island.
When Japan attacked, they threw their hands in the air and ceeded to Japan. Japan wasn't even convinced that China controlled Taiwan, and China convinced Japan they did by saying there are other countries where the governments cannot control the indigenous people.
Japan took over and ruled with an iron fist.
After the war the US handed Taiwan to KMT as temporary administer the Island until the fate of the Island had been decided. This part has never happened and is why the US is ambigious on the status of Taiwan.
So no. The populations were NEVER unified in any way.
Like how we shipped factories to China.
A government has an obligation to protect national security. Letting another country be a single point of failure in your supply chain is a major failure of national security and ability to self determine. The government failed to regulate IP transfers and failed to restrict businesses from behavior that, while individually harmless, is collectively harmful.
The US governments failure to regulate very much ceded power directly to China.
Add to that the unequal trade agreements of china practicing protectionism while America does not and the result is a stunning American foreign policy failure.
The prevailing idea was that the west thought an economically successful china would liberalize, and therefore this ceding of power was ok and a net benefit. I think the violation of Hong Kong and Xi's wolf warrior diplomacy has been the turning point where the west now understands that China is an ideological enemy with a zero sum ideology.
We invested specifically and heavily into the PRC, and there’s a case to be made that that was a mistake as long as the CCP was the exclusive dominant political party within the PRC because right now, it’s still that. Not that a democratic China is necessarily a friendly China, but it’s at least one we wouldn’t have to trade against our liberal values to trade with.
Do something about China? Like shipping factory machines wholesale?
The idiots in charge built up the Chinese into a manufacturing superpower!
I lived in HK during the protests. There is a big gap between what was being reported in the western media (which I assume you consumed) and what was actually true.
I was not involved in political activities at all, but still went out to protest for the first (and last, currently) time in 2019. The situation escalated quickly, and for reasons that I cannot understand, some protesters started to act violently, which we know from history that the CCP will not compromise and protestors have no chance of winning the fight... And then there is the national security law, using the pandemic as an excuse to ban every protests, etc. People either leave or become silent.
Actually I am not sure why I would want to write this, perhaps I just wanted to say something like this for a long time but was too afraid to. Some of the protesters were illogical at the time, so saying that their action is naive and will only worsen the situation may cause me trouble. Writing these now may trigger the police, although I don't think they will arrest me due to this alone.
I also lived in Hongkong during the last rounds of protests. One of the comments I frequently heard from foreigners from stable, highly-functioning democracies: "I cannot condone (support) violence during political protests." On the surface, it sounds great -- very pithy (short, succint)! Then, I thought a long time about it. Peaceful protests mostly do not work in non-democracies (dictatorships). For me, this is the reason why transition to democracy in Taiwan, (South) Korea, and Indonesia was so violent. (OMG: Go and read about Korea. It reads like a civil war. Protesters stole automatic weapons from police stations to used against the police. It was crazy!)
If readers are unfamiliar with the transition to democracy for these three countries, or the current state of affairs, I strongly recommend a "rabbit hole" deep-dive on Wiki. You will be impressed! And when you observe these three democracies from afar, you will be further impressed by their passion to create a great society that is governed by the people. People in their 50s sound like high school students from highly functioning democracies when they discuss government affairs. It is very inspiring!
A different angle: When you live in a highly functioning democracy, protests of any size always capture the attentions of politicians (members of parliment, etc.). Why? Because they represent the people, and they can lose the next election if they do not listen. In low functioning/non-democracies, protests can be ignored and protesters arrested / beaten / gassed. Why? Because accountability is so low.
I will never forget walking through a Hongkong wet market to buy groceries (veg, fish, etc.) and being tear-gassed by the HK riot police. Yes, I regularly attended protests, but on that day, I was simply shopping for a weekend meal. Their annoucements were only in Cantonese. The domestic helpers (Indos and Fils) in the market were terrified. It was an all-out assault on humanity. I sent careful documentation of the event and evidence to the police, but my complaint was entirely ignored. I knew this would happen, but still, I filed my complaint.
At the peak of the 2019 protests, there were unjustified, daily beatings by police of protesters. An unimaginable amount of mobile phone video footage was captured, but not a single HK police officer ever faced the court system for their appalling behaviour. They was an incident on the HK metro where police officers boarded a train to confront protesters peacefully delaying service. It was a particularly grotest display of police brutality. They swung metal batons at unarmed civilians causing so much harm. (These YouTube videos were later used in Taiwan election adverts!) It does not mean that every protester was innocent, but you will never win peacefully against a dictatorship. Sadly, violence is required. (See Burma / Myanmar!)
At some point, HK gov't pledged to create an international council to help them decide how to handle arrests on both sides. Once the foreigners selected saw the total lack of accountability, 100% of them resigned from the board. It was a collassal embarassment to the still paper-thin democratic system in HK.
To be honest, I think technology is increasing the power imbalance between the public and the ruler. We have AI for surveillance system that can track the activity of every single citizen. The media and social media can overload most of the people with useless information, distracting them from the important issues. Advanced weapons so people have no chance in winning the fight if the authority don't care about casualties.
During the HK protests, I can imagine the same thing happening. Actually, in only a few cases where a strong leader and organization is involved (MLK, Gandhi, etc...) can protests be largely peaceful and more effective (not giving the other side an excuse to crackdown without losing face, and even these movements weren't perfect).
Yet, planted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur are a well documented and widely used tactic. It has proven to be effective in many cases to justify a reaction in the eyes of public opinion.
A planted agent definitely in the realm of possibility, but it is just more likely that some kids took a chance to get angry, violent, and cause chaos. Some combination could also have happened (e.g. a plant takes advantage of enraging people who are already closed to being enraged). In all cases, better leadership and some practiced discipline that comes with that could have helped avoided the problems.
If we interpret this to mean independent and free to set its own foreign policy, independent of conformance to the global rules-based order, then I think it’s true. There is pride in answering to no-one. Unfortunately they appear to be using that freedom to trample on the freedom of other countries.
They are, of course, utterly delusional.
Slowly increase temperatures so so frogs in the water don’t realize they’re in danger. It’s not a real thing though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
I’ve seen this stated before but it seems very confusing. Widespread poverty sucks. There’s no way people are fine with returning to it because they saw it decades ago. Surely nobody thinks that’s ok?
I think most of us are aware of how propaganda works.
Since the protests, their politics is completely controlled by the mainland; their last bits of wiggle room removed. I remember clearly the lead up to and results of the 2019 district election, with its unprecedented turnout and results. I'm curious what you feel the gap was since I rarely read western media about the protests while I lived there.