I was confused how someone could become a tycoon in "pro-democracy" but it seems as if he became a wealthy businessperson before and has been active and influential in preserving Hong Kong autonomy since the transfer of management to the PRC/CCP.
Born in the Chinese city of Guangzhou, Lai was 12 when he arrived in Hong
Kong as a stowaway on a fishing boat. He started working menial jobs and
eventually founded a multi-million dollar empire that included the clothing
brand Giordano.
Lai began a new journey as a vocal democracy activist after China's crackdown
on pro-democracy protesters in Beijing's Tiananmen Square in 1989.
He went on to launch pro-democracy news outlets like Apple Daily and Next
magazine, while regularly participating in demonstrations.
There are plenty of nuance to be had on the situation in China but I wonder what you mean here.
Are you arguing that it's legitimate to put a 78 years old from a former democratic city forcefully reintegrated to another state in jail for 20 years because he is saying that the will of the people should be heard?
That's not why he and his company was convicted with multiple counts of sedition. This is what I am talking about. It's a rewriting of reality to fit a neat black and white narrative to suit whatever agenda you want.
The crime of "conspiracy to publish seditious materials" is an unethical law and should be abolished. We can argue that point if you'd like? Furthermore, promoting self rule is not seditious, it's anti imperialist. We can argue that one as well?
The charge of colluding with foreign governments is blowing his actions way out of proportion so as to artificially inflate the severity of his "crime" for political reasons. We can argue that?
We could also argue that the reason the CPC is doing this is to suppress any Hong Kong self-determinist agitation?
Is anything I've said disagreeable on the premise of them being strawmen?
The strawman is saying " legitimate to put a 78 years old from a former democratic city forcefully reintegrated to another state in jail for 20 years because he is saying that the will of the people should be heard?" That's not even close to reality.
I don't think anything you said is a strawman though. You can of course argue whether that's right or wrong or how it fits into the greater whole. That's showing nuance. You can come to it with your own opinions and feelings but it's another thing to approach with a predetermined idea of what happened that is nothing like what happened.
Forcefully reintegrated? Colonialism was the forceful part. Not a country having control of its own land.
He isn’t demanding any will of the people. Unlike the EU, US, etc, Chinese people are actually happy with their democratic China.
In no way in Europe or US can a city claim they want “democratic” independence and go completely against the rest of the country on the side of recent protests and meddling by outside state depts. They would correctly be viewed as traitors and agitators.
There is nothing democratic about China. This is just a fact. Admittedly western countries are also not democratic per definition, but at least they have an elected oligarchy, which is miles closer to democracy than Chinese despotic regime. Even if the regime in China is kinda benevolent to the subjects, it doesn't matter for this question. Democracy is a word used a for a very specific thing, and it's completely absent in China.
The PRC never owned Hong-Kong before the handover and I don't remember the population of Hong-Kong voting for reintegration so yes, forcefully reintegrated seems like a nice way to frame it. Actually taken over would be more correct, traded as merchandise would also be appropriate I guess. You get the idea.
The smugness and superiority about how the rest of the world are immoral barbarians and the global status quo of white/western hegemony is amazing and very moral is pretty funny.
It’s pretty obvious these same people in the past would’ve said the US’s chattel slavery is not that bad because other countries do slavery too. The equivocations westerners will do.
Sad that the international community doesn’t do more to intervene in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and Tibet. As a reminder, China has violated the treaty around Hong Kong’s handoff. So really the UK and the rest of the world should have demanded its return.
The dissonance between this comment and the one above is striking really :) . One user asks for non-China countries to intervene in China or the occupied territories, and another user is outraged that the same has actually happened in Venezuela, despite that the only person to suffer had been one of the top-10 worst alive humans in the world (per millions humans harmed directly).
Pray tell me, how exactly do you see international law intervening in Chinese crimes, so that it won't look like ops in Venezuela (at minimum)? Issuing a strongly worded letter and Xi would comply?
That's what Trump told you to sound badass and edgy. His advisors might have a more complicated rationale that's harder to explain to the public than a single 3-letter word.
Foreign policy of the US has always been about orchestrating coups to create passive client states for US capitalists more efficiently extract natural resources, going back to 1953 in Iran. Only difference with Trump is he has done away with pretenses. He says the quiet part out loud. He says things like "we want the minerals in Ukraine", and then negotiates a mineral deal. He talks about conquering Panama, Greenland, Canada. He is an unabashed imperialist. It's been at least 70 years of this happening, catch up already. And it goes back even further, to the US controlling the Philippines in 1898, and the Monroe Doctrine in 1823.
You're misunderstanding the analogy. The US's operation in Venezuela was itself a violation of international law, which the international community widely condemned and many countries wish they could have stopped. But there's no button they can push to make the US return Maduro, just as there's no button anyone can push to make China free Jimmy Lai. The only options are a variety of escalatory steps which implicate the relationship between one's own country and China as a whole.
> Which ratified treaty did the US's operation in Venezuela violate?
Even if it hadn't violated a ratified treaty (it did violate several, starting with the UN Charter and OAS Charter), it would still violate international law; the US has recognized (among other places, in the London Charter of 1945 establishing the International Military Tribunal) that the crime of aggressive war exists independently of the crime of waging war in violation of international treaties.
E.g. at least 2 children were executed by Maduro for protesting against him, along with at least hundreds of adults. Mass political arrests by masked men have been common since Chavez came to power, there have been executions of entire families. Torture of prisoners. It goes on and on and on and on, and all of it violates the core of international law: the Geneva convention.
Maduro's violations of international treaties include attacks on neighboring states (Maduro's "war on terror" (yes, really) included raids on Columbian territory, plus his promise to attack Guyana). Maduro's violations of international treaties includes, ironically, abducting foreign nationals.
And before you say "but ICE". First, this started more than a decade before ICE, it is actually about far more people than ICE, and with ICE there is at least the allegation that those people violated US law (immigration law). So no, it is not the same. ICE comes disturbingly close, true, but this is still a LOT worse.
So what is your point? Obviously Venezuela since more than a decade did not respect international law. Is your point that since international law exists, Venezuela should have been attacked way sooner, in fact as soon as it became clear what Chavez was doing? Or do you argue that US/Trump's attack is fine since international law can be ignored anyway?
Including Maduro's abduction I think it's very easy to argue that the US behavior is much more in line with international law than Venezuela's. So what is your point?
I mean, what reasoning, exactly, leads to your conclusion that Venezuela/Maduro is the victim here? Or should I put it differently and state the obvious: that your reasoning only makes sense if it defends the idea that Maduro's regime is allowed to kill and attack, and the US is not.
I would hazard to say that most people are upset because a single person decided the fate of our country, and in a manner contrary to the outlines defined in the constitution. And your description of the events there really do clarify just how awful things here are as well - executions in broad daylight, masked men kidnapping people extrajudicially, allegations of laws being violated as a pretext to detail lawful citizens.
It's all horrible and shocking to say the least. And it makes people question whether our actions are justified or the outright thuggery of a wanna-be dictator.
Putin doesn't need the US providing precedent to do that (and even if he was, there was plenty of that before Maduro), killing or capturing Zelenskyy in a decapitation strike was attempted more than once near the beginning of the 2022 escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian war. He wasn’t stopped by international law.
> Next time Putin will kidnap Zelenskyy with the exact same reasoning.
Putin DID do that. He ordered him kidnapped. And it wasn't international law stopping him, it was the Ukrainian army and apparently some regular Ukrainians.
Putin has tried to kidnap him at least twice, and sent out murder squads for him probably several dozen times now.
Putin did not face consequences for this, in fact a number of countries that profess to respect international law protected him against International law: South Africa, China, Mongolia, Belarus, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Azerbeidjan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and India.
Also, as I pointed out, "international law" didn't stop Maduro from committing warcrimes, he also sent out murder squads that even killed children, it didn't stop Putin from doing the same. Nothing at all changed for international law at all.
The only thing victimized is people's illusions about international law. Maduro is himself a war criminal! So using international law grounded arguments to protect him ... fuck that, even if you're technically right.
How does any of this make sense? Other than your first sentence (sorry about that, of course you're right, he tried) every claim is bogus.
> The point of international law isn’t protection but to distinguish wrong from right.
It is actually explicitly stated in almost all international law (mostly except human rights/Geneva convention, which would be the one Maduro violated and Trump didn't) that the ONLY point of international law is international cooperation. International law is completely voluntary for states and consists of individual treaties you can join ... or not join. Don't join or decide to leave? That bit of international law doesn't apply to you anymore.
> What do you think why even Putin made some bogus claims why his actions are justified?
Because Putin always does that. Even decades back, when he was backing gangsters, he did that. I'm sure at one point it was necessary, and now the guy is 73. His habits won't change anymore. Besides, his idol, the Soviet Union, also did that.
> In which war did Maduro commit war crimes?
No war required for that. Besides what even is a war? One of the older "international law" treaties which nobody remembers that a war is only a war when declared by at least one state. Very few declared wars in the last decades. Israel-Palestine? Not declared (according to hamas that's just how things are forever and Israel just defended I guess). Sudan? Not declared. The 123818th conflict between India and Pakistan? Not declared. Iran-Israel? Iran-Syria? Iran-Lebanon? (more like Iran-everyone) Turkey-Kurdistan? You get the picture. The only war that was declared was Russia attacking Ukraine.
> Law protects also criminals to a certain degree because the alternative is anarchy, chaos and global wars.
Unless you mean an extremely minimal degree law does not protect criminals against the state. And any amount of force that is required to get a criminal to stop is legally justified essentially everywhere. In fact, in the countries most humans alive live in, no law protects you against the state, criminal or innocent.
> International war was a lesson learned from the world wars.
Actually the history goes back quite a bit further than that. And if you consider international law is just treaties between countries/factions then ... The most famous bit of international law, the convention of Geneva, was a lesson learned in the holocaust.
> Seems like we need to learn again the hard way.
Why? "We"? Venezuela was not respecting international law before this happened. Neither was Russia. Neither was ...
> Tue right way of doing those things is rarely the glorious, it’s bureaucratic
I doubt Ukraine, or any other actual victims of war crimes will agree on that one. For instance, international law is clear that hamas must surrender to Israel, and obviously they should deliver anyone that had anything to do with taking hostages to the ICC (since both hamas and the PA signed the Rome treaty). The ICC doesn't even want that to happen. Could you explain how this can be achieved in a bureaucratic way?
The US agreed in Article 2 of the UN Charter, which they ratified on July 1945, that they would refrain from the use of force against the political independence of any state.
The reason you rarely see people cite the exact provision is that it's pointless to cite, because the US foreign policy establishment does not care and will not be swayed by persuasive arguments about their treaty obligations.
That's true. But the point still stands. People are outraged even for a small number of cartel criminals shot. Imagine what would happen if someone would try to liberate oppressed people in China. The count would be in millions.
>Imagine what would happen if someone would try to liberate oppressed people in China.
My original point is very much meant to counter absurd hypotheticals like these. No other sovereign nation on Earth at the current point in time would ever dare to "liberate" China, because this is no longer the 19th century, and so China is no longer weak.
Soft power may buy you hearts and minds; Japan and South Korea are good examples of that in Asia. But hard power is what truly matters at the end of the day when it comes to asserting your geopolitical interests, and that's clearly the philosophy China has decided to operate under.
The U.S. is clearly not oblivious to this reality either. Even if we grant your moral arguments that Maduro was a horrible dictator deserving his fate, the fact that Trump and his administration chose to act when it was geopolitically and domestically convenient strongly suggests that "taking out the big bad Latino dictator for the sake of humanity" was not the primary motivation.
One thing that never ceases to amuse is how people like yourself always inject moralistic prescriptions into what were meant to be purely descriptive commentaries.
My comment on U.S. actions against Venezuela was not a condemnation, but rather just a factual example. Russia's military actions against Ukraine is no different. Nor China's actions towards Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet.
Who "they"? If you want to say that this operation was completely botched and there was no quality improvement for the regular Venezuela citizens, then yes, i would agree completely. and international law also suffered as a result. At the same time it is also true that Maduro deserved to be smuggled out, tried and shot. By any possible law or moral standard of any country in the world. He is a horrible criminal even by known public facts. So these things are true at the same time. Same with China, if anyone would decide to intervene there, it would be good and bad simultaneously. There is no easy clear answer to that.
> it would be good and bad simultaneously. There is no easy clear answer to that.
Clearly, a weasel take on the "two wrongs make a right" doctrine. According to that new take two wrongs can be good and bad simultaneously, there is no easy clear answer, so any additional wrongs mustn't be called "wrongs", they must be called "maybe-rights".
Interesting, previous comment downvoted with no explanation. A sitting president can depict a former president and his wife as apes, but comments on HN are held to a much higher standard.
Homework assignment:
What is going to happen if Nazi-like propaganda (for example) can use colorful language but its detractors are only allowed to voice polite disagreement? What would the result of that be?
How many people should've died for Hong Kong? Should we have invaded China? Should we have drafted millions of men from across the west and put boots on the ground?
The US shifted from "China is an economic power we should worry about" to "China is a military power we should worry about", but to me it seems to be a recent mind shift serving the current administration narrative.
As a European, I don't think there is much hostility against China here. Sure, people don't like the overall humanitarian situation with Uyghurs; and there are the usual issues with lobbying, intelligence, and currency manipulation, but overall the general public sentiment is rather neutral I would say.
Not at all. Perhaps you weren't paying attention but the narrative around relations with China started shifting during the Obama administration circa 2011. The bipartisan national security establishment is now broadly aligned with treating China as an adversary and strategic competitor.
Be sure. The US national security establishment absolutely considers China to be an adversary. Look for terms like "pacing threat" when they discuss military acquisition programs.
This is an existential issue. Health has nothing to do with it.
It is amazing in fact how willingly Europe seems to be running into the arms of the actual fascist dictator, Xi, at the first sign of turmoil in the US. The US is written off as a lost cause and you cozy up with a government that is everything you dislike about the current US administration but on steroids. All because the US wants the EU to pay for its own war.
That’s quite an interesting take. You don’t think Europe doing more trade with China (I assume this is what cozying up means?), is a result of a wildly unpredictable trade policy and threats to invade Europe? Instead because the US with their global military presence are sick of footing the bill for it?
Nonsense. They can and should push back much more. If Europe were to show a united front there's little China could do to punish them. Their only option would be to cosy up to America/Trump, which is a realistic possibility, but it's something they would be very uncomfortable with.
its certain, i ensure you. taiwan wont get the treat like Hong Kong before. Hong Kong proves the one country two system policy is a failure. the only result is war and taiwan will lose
I don't think this is realistic. A few thoughts in no particular order:
- War is logistics and you're talking about trying to get involved in a war, that would necessitate supply lines thousands of miles long, between two countries that are separated by 80 miles.
- China is extremely technologically advanced with the largest military in the world, by a wide margin.
- China is the at-scale manufacturing king of the world. In a shift to a war economy, nobody would be able to come even remotely close to competing. They parallel the US in WW2 in a number of ways.
- China is a nuclear power, meaning getting involved is going to be Ukraine style indirect aid to try to avoid direct conflict and nuclear escalation.
- Any attempt to engage in things like sanctions would likely hurt the sanctioners significantly more than China.
- The "rest of the world" you're referring to is the anglosphere, EU, and a few oddballs like Japan or South Korea. This makes up less than 15% of the world, and declining.
- War fatigue is real. The US really wanted to invade Syria, but no matter how hard we beat the war drums, people just weren't down with it. I think this is because people saw major echoes of Iraq at the time, and Taiwan will have a far louder echo of Ukraine. This isn't a show many people will be enthusiastic about rerunning.
* The US has the largest military logistics system in the world and regularly uses it to fight wars. It's a well exercised muscle.
* Being close to the front lines is as much of a liability as an asset. China's ports and shipbuilding facilities will be bombed out, the US' will not.
* This will be a naval and air war. You can't march troops across the strait, and as we've seen in Ukraine, flying them is a no-go either.
* China hasn't fought a war within the living memory of anyone of fighting age.
* You have a weird way of trying to diminish what represents most of the economic power of the world. Let's also add the Philippines and Vietnam to those "oddballs". China will be alone. And don't forget that China's population is shrinking.
* War fatigue is not an issue here when it comes to Taiwan. Adventurism in Venezuela was emboldening. We'll see what happens with Iran. I live in the generally pacifist part of the US, and I think most folks would demand that we intervene.
The most likely start to hostilities will be if China declares a blockade. Someone in the US will call their bluff - with warships. If China starts shooting, we're in a war. Moral outrage is an (often unfortunate) American trait.
You're speaking of a hot war which isn't ever going to happen owing to nuclear weapons. And if it did happen it precludes many of your scenarios. For instance naval vessels are highly vulnerable to modern weapons technology. Aircraft carriers were constantly sunk in WW2. The main factor that shifted after WW2 is that nukes precluded direct war between major powers, so they ended up being exclusively used against places incapable of defending themselves. More generally Ukraine has provided many lessons in modern war, and among them is that experience in invading these sort of countries is not only useless but perhaps even harmful as it can contribute to flawed assumptions.
That 15% no longer has the majority of the economic power in the world, or anywhere near it. There's a great visualization of the G7 vs BRICS here. [1] That's obviously not all countries, but those omitted aren't going to change the result nor trend. Just as important is what "economy" means. When we speak of war we're referring to the ability to go from ploughshares to swords, but most of the 15% have neglected their core manufacturing competencies and transitioned to service economies where these large numbers don't really translate into economic might of the sort we might imagine. Again, yet another lesson from Ukraine.
US military logistics minnow in Indopac vs PRC mainland logistics. Peak US war fighting capability was calibrated around adversaries with 50% of US GDP, even Iraq took 50% of USN CSGs + extremely favourable region basing in multi month surge operations. PRC conservatively 100x larger high-end target than Iraq, 150% US GDP by PPP, and more by actual industrial output. Before VZ uber trip, US was flexing and failing vs Houthis, i.e. shit tier adversary that actually bothered shooting US ships.
CONUS targets are on the menu, there's a reason China Military Report from last month included US west coast under PRC conventional fire, which TBH was years out of date, i.e. most of CONUS will be vulnerable, and PRC has more harden targets to attrite and more ability to deny US fires in the first place, i.e. PRC taking out exquisitely vulnerable CSG/unrep/tankers logistics tail drops US ability to deliver fires to PRC to zero, vs PRC global strikes complex chilling in hardened tunnels is extremely survivable.
You can aggregate everyone in 1IC and PRC still out manpower and out produce by magnitude. Hence most will stay neutral for the simple reason they're within PRC logistics backyard which US don't have remote capability to defend against. PRC simply that big in scale, i.e. their acquisition of 1m loitering munitions on top of 1m drones and cruise missile Gigafactory that can churn 1000 components (likely floor) per day makes any US posture in 1/2IC not survivable outside of cope war games. PRC has the fire power to literally fight everyone simultaneously, with domestic resources (no imports) to maintain war economy basically indefinitely.
Ultimately, if PRC starts TW blockading, US will likely look at ledger/force balance and bail because PRC sees through US bluff. Doesn't matter if pacifist muricans demand intervention if PRC throws every TWnese in torment nexus, ultimately US unlikely to out attrite PRC in backyard, and more fundamentally, cannot out reconstitute faster than PRC after the fact. US isn't gambling shipyards, energy infra, semi fabs, hyperscalers, payment processors, boeing/lockheed plants over TW. Now 10 years ago, when US could theoretically asymmetrically hit PRC without CONUS vulnerability, US intervention strategically likely, but this 2026, we see the new national security strategy. Much more sensible for US planners to retreat to hemisphere and accept spheres of influence arrangement. Americans being powerless to US foreign policy is an (often unfortunate) American trait.
I think that, if China tries to take Taiwan, rather than a direct military confrontation, the US might just block the Straits of Malacca against oil heading for China - or maybe against anything heading for China.
China would enforce a blockade against Taiwan. The US might or might not be able to break it. But China would have a very hard time breaking a US blockade down there.
> supply lines thousands of miles long, between two countries that are separated by 80 miles
I think this one is particularly important. IIRC, it's usually phrased something like "if the USA sends aircraft carriers across the pacific, then China has an unsinkable aircraft carrier 80 miles away: the mainland". It's a huge home turf advantage.
The USA seems to have a very low appetite for helping allies against bullies at present too. And no appetite for taking US soldier casualties.
The PRC will happily sell chips to the West. I live in Taiwan, I don't want it to happen, but people need to stop acting like countries will prevent an invasion because it means the CPC will control chip manufacturing.
The choice is between possible nuclear war, or, the 5090s are more expensive and sometimes Americans can't buy them when the PRC is punishing the west for something.
Honestly, this is the most reasonable comment here, especially coming from someone in Taiwan. I hear similar views when I'm in Asia, which are very different from what I hear back in the West.
It's weirdly myopic how HN users always think of TSMC as the main factor here. In reality the greater concern has always been containing China within the first island chain. As long as mainland China doesn't control Taiwan they have no way to secure their sea lines of communication.
looks at Ukraine, its white people and NATO wont fight for it. how about another group of chinse vs chinese in far far away? and the global south supports china more?
That's a total non sequitur. Ukraine wasn't a NATO member so why would NATO fight for it? (Several NATO members have given substantial aid to Ukraine.) In terms of a potential conflict between mainland China and Taiwan, the only NATO member with the capacity to do anything is the USA. The other players will be Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and Australia so the outcome will largely depend on whether they decide to get involved.
You really believe that "the rest of the world" countries should conscript citizens and go to war to help Taiwan? Most people if faced with this choice would direct you to the place where the sun does not shine.
rightly or wrongly, I'm quite confident the US will not go to war with China if it invades Taiwan - the American people simply wouldn't support it. It's one thing to get public support for dropping a few bombs on a tiny opponent with little risk, as the US regularly does, it's another entirely to go to war with a major power with a very high casualty rate. The US wouldn't have even entered WW2 (as much as the administration may have wanted to) if the Japanese hadn't foolishly attacked Pearl Harbor and then Germany declared war as well. But unlike Japan and Germany, China has the manufacturing capacity and access to raw resources that would make it a very different enemy.
Not really. The world got other problems. Europe is out for now, since we got Fascists at our doorstep trying to conquer Ukraine. The US has the orange clown as president, who is cozy with Putin. I don't think you can ascribe it to others being cowards, if "the world" doesn't react to protect Taiwan. It is right at China's doorstep. The logistic imbalance of trying to protect Taiwan, being this close to China is insane.
In the end, if a war happens, it will be idiotic again, from an economical point of view and from a humanitarian point of view. Economically, of course it will cost huge amount of resources to conquer Taiwan, and it will only disturb trade and what is already established on Taiwan. From a humanitarian point of view, of course many people will die.
The smartest China could do, would be to return to a soft power approach, and continue to develop mainland China, to continue to rival and even surpass Taiwan/Taipei. There are many young people, who don't have the walls in their minds, that the older population has. They don't want war, they want their freedom, and they want a high living standard. All this would be theoretically possible, if China didn't let ideology rule, but instead went for the economically best route, which is most certainly not an invasion.
China's takeover of Hong Kong proved that any notion of "one country, two systems" is a total lie and assurances from the Chinese Communist Party are completely worthless. There's no coming back from that, at least as long as Xi Jinping remains in power. Young people in Taiwan are less supportive of reintegration with the mainland than ever before. Fewer of them even have direct family ties there now.
> Young people in Taiwan are less supportive of reintegration with the mainland than ever before.
Well, go figure, if you run military "exercises" at the doorstep of your neighbor, people are not gonna like you very much, duh. But there was a time before more recent escalations, when lots of young Taiwanese people did not think too badly about being part of China. That's why I said that the smartest move would be (or would have been) to continue an approach of soft power and development, to rival life in Taiwan. Give the people comfort and high living standard, and they are less likely to dislike you.
This thread casually talks about Taiwan being a vassal state of the US during a civil war and Hong Kong being a colony of the British. Yet the world, largely the global south, should intervene and help the global north to exploit the rest of the world more?
Every one gets that far away countries across the world can’t put military bases right next to Europe or the US. However when it comes to China, that is not only acceptable but it’s the anti-cowardly move to support outsider aggressors.
> can’t put military bases right next to Europe or the US
Indeed, Japan and Korea and the Philippines have American military bases on them.
You mentioned Taiwan, curious why? It has no American military bases. Perhaps of all the countries in the region, it's the most sovereign in that sense.
This doesn't make any sense, the USA hasn't touched anything about Taiwan in any meaningful way ever since it became the ROC, and certainly not at all since the KMT was overthrown. In fact American overtures to control chip manufacturing here were rejected explicitly as "economic imperialism."
What's with this Americentric geopolitical analysis?
You mean when the American ambassador escorted Mao to the signing of the Double Tenth agreement because the Americans were worried the KMT would go back on their word and assassinate him? Or in 1950 when Truman announced Taiwan as "Chinese territory" and directed that no American navy presence was to be permitted in the Taiwan strait?
Anyway take up your grievances with the KMT, don't worry, they're about to come crying back into the CPC's arms begging for a shred of political power now that their regime has been overthrown for 30 years, and their efforts to sell Taiwan to the CPC in exchange for a teaspoon of political legitimacy are failing spectacularly.
Chinese Muslim Uyghurs who were preparing to fight for their people in China started consolidating a home base in Syria where they collected arms and a militia.
They are finally off the terrorist list a few years ago, but for a long time the US policy was to feign outrage but then declare anyone using any teeth to push back against China as a terrorist.
I mean, they were blowing up buses of civilians in China. Then looking up those Brave Uyghur Peace fighters, Wikipedia says they had child soldiers and they were allied with various Islamic state groups (the white text on black flag types, of which they also had their own) and wanted to impose strict sharia law.
I'm pretty confident that most women in Xinjiang are pretty happy that that group was smeared out. You can think Xinjiang and Uyghurs shouldn't be oppressed without supporting actual, unironic terrorist groups who want total theocratic control and full on jihad. I'm more amazed they're removed from the terrorist list. Seems like a weird political decision.
Presume all you've said is true, which, for various factious or groups of Uyghurs likely was true.
That still doesn't establish it as the distinguishing factor as to why the US declared them as terrorist. I fought in the YPG in the Syrian Civil War, an ally of the USA. Guess what, there were those who looked 13,14,15 usually because the Syrian government or ISIS had incapacitated their parents somehow. Mostly they were way back as token guards at training outposts but I also saw some near the front. The YPG also had to ally with a bunch of nasty theocratic arab militias to survive, in fact, that's why the SDF/YPG just got largely wiped out because the consolidation of the rebels in Damascus resulted in their arab allies turning their back. (In fact, Wikipedia page says IS is opponent of Uyghur militia). And I won't even get into the fact that the YPG and PKK are ideologically and pragmatically incredibly similar, yet PKK is magically a terrorist and the YPG is a brave US ally, one gets the blame anytime a Kurdish person does something horrible against innocent people and one doesn't.
As sister poster alludes, the US has never had an issue allying with "terrorists" when it suits their goals. Especially when fighting against USSR.
So knowing that this isn't the distinguishing factor, can you point to any other present-day armed group in or of China that has credible potential for an armed political uprising that hasn't been declared a terrorist? There might be one, I just don't know who they are, but I am very interested to read about them.
To me it looks like the difference is that they were a credible threat of violence against China, not that they have slaughtered innocent people which the USA and China has done as have many of US allies.
I think by definition any group supporting an armed political uprising in a stable country is considered a terrorist group. Should we consider armed groups in America or Belgium to not be terrorists?
And considering the Syrian civil war ended with a guy from Al Qaeda (famous terrorist group) becoming president and the country now having massacres under his watch, yeah, I think it's correct for groups that support armed uprising to be considered terrorist groups. Because they are. That armed uprising in Syria led to hundreds of thousands being killed, millions displaced, for what? A guy no better than the predecessor took his place, and he ruined countless lives to get there.
OK so anyone fighting a stable tyrant country for political ends is a terrorist in your estimation. I think by some definition of "terrorist" you are correct.
But that's different than what the US uses for listed terrorist organizations.
And that's what I'm pointing out. The US is happy to support these groups when they're actually on board with eliminating tyrants. I think they publicly shit-talk China but low-key they are happy to list as terrorists any group that can credibly threaten them, because it buys them political points in dealing with China. I'm judging them with their value system in mind, which provides a better assessment of the motivations behind their actions than judging them with your value system in mind. That is, by the value system of the US government, if they actually support the overthrow of the government they will also not usually list as terrorists those who are tactically in a position to weaken the government in question, even though by your value system you might.
And I don't agree with your assessment that even if it ends with another tyrant in power, it was for nothing. The Kurds had a slice of relative freedom for a decade. In their estimation it was worth the violence. Obviously I agree with that, otherwise I wouldn't have fought for them. I always knew there was a good chance it ends with everyone slaughtered and I saw my share of artillery and rounds come at me, so I'm not just speaking as a hypothetical on behalf of someone else. Sometimes it's better to be alive for a moment than a slave for a lifetime. (The Chechens, also came to a similar conclusion, with similar ends and a period of relative freedom between the two Chechen wars; I find them to be a less palatable example though I don't blame them for the general idea behind their actions).
If we measure the cost of freedom, that simply becomes the level of violence a would-be oppressor needs to promise in order to deny it. There isn't an easy or universal answer here and I'd argue there can't be. To give two historical examples, many Americans raised similar objections against entering WW2 to fight the axis. Some of those same people also opposed the US Japanese concentration camps, for the same reasons.
You might disagree on whether HKers' freedoms are truly being abridged or whether you care, but the questions you posed weren't complete enough on their own.
World did nothing (meaningful) for Gaza. It's hard to believe anyone will be willing to act against China which is much more powerful than Israel.
It was easy to turn the blind eye on Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc. because for most people in western hemisphere it's a different culture and it's somewhere else.
It was heart breaking when Russia invaded Ukraine and western media were doing lengthy coverage on every single civilian casualty when thousands of people were silently dying in Gaza without a single mention.
And the initial reaction to the invasion was that the Ukraine should simply surrender. It's like calling police about home invasion only to hear "oh, just give them what they want and stop calling us already".
And now US is doing exactly the same. The attack on Venezuela was a carbon copy of what Putin did, only difference was that the US succeeded. And now Greenland.
It's time to stop pretending there are good and evil forces out there. There's no difference.
Unfortunately nothing could be done, once HK was China territory. Enforcing the domestic policies of an SAR inside of China was completely unfeasibly for the UK and they knew it when they signed it. Zhao Ziyang (CCP chairman at the time), who signed the treaty, was a reformist and if he had remained in power and China continued down that path, things might have ended very differently for HK. Unfortunately the hardliners won out after the Tiananmen Square protests and he was removed from power.
Given what US companies did to ICC, it’s not hard to imagine, if UN intervine, their officials’ Chinese EV will be taking over remotely and driven off the bridge.
UK “taking back” HK is also very imaginative , like white people dreaming of recolonizing Asia in 21st century? Good luck.
Welcome to the real world. The UK is obviously in no position to challenge China. And with the US invading and threatening to take over other sovereign nations solely because "it's in our national interest", we're certainly not one to talk.
If any external force tried to "fix" the US it would result in stubborn revanchism and a deeper slide into corruption. To grossly generalize - the American culture of self-reliance means that any imposition of order, even if positive, would be rejected by most of the population (which is somewhat fair, since external impositions do compromise sovereignty).
If a good outcome is to happen - it needs to be driven and supported domestically.
Are you saying the rest of the world should have stood up for what ultimately is colonialism? And colonialism of the British out of all the people? And also in a territory, that is directly on or neighboring the Chinese landmass? The Chinese people have a long history of others trying to conquer them or colonize them. They are probably pretty allergic to such notions, and will reject them. Realistically speaking, no one would have had the resources to force HK staying the same enclave it has been. This all sounds rather unrealistic.
We can agree on the treatment of HK being far from ideal, and I would go as far as saying, that even economically for China itself, it was not good to handle the matter as they did. That is where their ideology shows. HK was an economical hub. In recent times though many businesses left and more are unwilling to invest. This is the economical downside, that could simply have been avoided by not doing what they did. The question should be asked "Why not just leave it as it is, since it is working well, economically?" But they had to mess with it. Another downside is international reputation damage of course. China has achieved many great things in the past decades and now has cities more modern and convenient than most of what you find in Europe. Their one problem remains ideology. That they sometimes feel the need to do things, that are not economically sound, for the sake of ideology.
However, I can't agree with anyone arguing, that HK should not be part of China, like some people do in the comments here. It's a separate matter from policies implemented. Of course I wish for HKers to keep their freedoms. Who doesn't. Of course I wish China would not implement policies, that endanger the freedom of its people. But territorial? Nope, HK always was bound to become a part of China.
What I can say more from visiting HK twice is, that they still got Internet (uncensored), in contrast to other parts of China. Every week I am speaking with someone from HK, using Signal, which is not practical for anyone from (most?) other parts of China. When traveling in China, I used a HK eSIM, to have reliable and uncensored Internet. I hope that these aspects still remain intact for a long time, or that the rest of China will open up. At some point they should have the confidence in their own economy to compete on global scale.
Why so? Do you think Monaco should be part of France? Do you think Singapore should be part of Malaysia? A lot of big countries respect the sovereignty of neighboring smaller countries, although that is unfortunately becoming less true now.
It isn't about colonialism. I have never seen anyone seriously argue it should go back to the British. It is about a framework to ensure they maintain their rights. It would be great if that looked like expanded rights for all of China but it can also look like some degree of sovereignty, which was in place for quite some time.
Monaco is already 90% part of France. There was an agreement until recently that Monaco would become French if the Princeship went extinct. By law the Prime Minister and the Police has to be French. France also handles their defense etc. It's very conditional sovereignty, the deal being that they can be a tax heaven if they want to, but not to France and Italy.
> Do you think Singapore should be part of Malaysia?
AFAIK they've been expelled from Malaysia after independence.
I'm not trying to disprove your point, just that it's fluid and fragile. Sovereignty itself has only been conceptually defined with the Treaties of Westphalia, it's recent and quintessentially Western.
Last time, I checked Hong-Kong didn't become a free city but part of another country. So they have traded a master for another one.
I am genuinely lost in your argument. You start against colonialism then justify Hong-Kong being reintegrated to China because they would have taken it by force anyway which is pretty much the same thing as colonialism.
You then pivot to arguing HK was always going to be part of China for a reason I find unclear. Hong-Kong was never part of the PRC before the handover so I don't really see the appeal to continuity.
Have you considered that people are not arguing for colonialism but actually against any form of coercitive control?
Why are you lost in the argument? The point I am making is, that it would be great to have both. HK as part of China, no longer a UK colony, but also having freedoms remain intact. Shouldn't be too hard to grasp. Furthermore, I am saying, that economically how HK has been handled does not make much sense, and that ideology was at play.
Giving back HK might have been the only sensible move back then, and it might have bought HKers time and avoided a more open conflict, that wouldn't have ended well for HK.
At least Wikipedia disagrees with your sentiment, that HK was never part of China. Well, technically you said "PRC", maybe even intentionally, and you could take some weird position of claiming, that nothing inside China is part of China, because it was a different entity before PRC. But then so do many countries all over the world lose any claim to their territory. Germany, after second world war, France after French revolution, most prominently the US, after its founding ... Historically, HK was a grab of land by the UK. Granted, they built something nice up there, but only after the despicable acts they committed historically in the region. If we get into what the UK did historically in the region, it will not lead to a moral high ground.
China is repressive, autocratic, dictatorial, illiberal, unaccountable, coercive, censorious, surveillance-heavy, propagandistic, corrupt, brutal, heavy-handed, intolerant, secretive, and very very very militarised.
I was confused how someone could become a tycoon in "pro-democracy" but it seems as if he became a wealthy businessperson before and has been active and influential in preserving Hong Kong autonomy since the transfer of management to the PRC/CCP.
Right. His business empire, and Apple Daily, were started before the handover.
Not surprising to see all the comments devolve into hyperbole. Nuance and thoughts on China in the west are just impossibilities.
There are plenty of nuance to be had on the situation in China but I wonder what you mean here.
Are you arguing that it's legitimate to put a 78 years old from a former democratic city forcefully reintegrated to another state in jail for 20 years because he is saying that the will of the people should be heard?
Just one point of clarification, Hong Kong was never a democratic city.
All previous governors were simply appointed by the UK.
That's not why he and his company was convicted with multiple counts of sedition. This is what I am talking about. It's a rewriting of reality to fit a neat black and white narrative to suit whatever agenda you want.
Nice strawman. Where's your nuance?
I would be happy for you to explain where exactly is the straw man and where you expect more nuance.
You think he wasn't condemned because he expressed pro-democracy view and this is not a speech issue?
I would like to read it rather than vague call for nuance.
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/33...
The crime of "conspiracy to publish seditious materials" is an unethical law and should be abolished. We can argue that point if you'd like? Furthermore, promoting self rule is not seditious, it's anti imperialist. We can argue that one as well?
The charge of colluding with foreign governments is blowing his actions way out of proportion so as to artificially inflate the severity of his "crime" for political reasons. We can argue that?
We could also argue that the reason the CPC is doing this is to suppress any Hong Kong self-determinist agitation?
Is anything I've said disagreeable on the premise of them being strawmen?
The strawman is saying " legitimate to put a 78 years old from a former democratic city forcefully reintegrated to another state in jail for 20 years because he is saying that the will of the people should be heard?" That's not even close to reality.
I don't think anything you said is a strawman though. You can of course argue whether that's right or wrong or how it fits into the greater whole. That's showing nuance. You can come to it with your own opinions and feelings but it's another thing to approach with a predetermined idea of what happened that is nothing like what happened.
Forcefully reintegrated? Colonialism was the forceful part. Not a country having control of its own land.
He isn’t demanding any will of the people. Unlike the EU, US, etc, Chinese people are actually happy with their democratic China. In no way in Europe or US can a city claim they want “democratic” independence and go completely against the rest of the country on the side of recent protests and meddling by outside state depts. They would correctly be viewed as traitors and agitators.
Europe actually has quite a few independent cities with their own little micro nations that are democratically independent.
There is nothing democratic about China. This is just a fact. Admittedly western countries are also not democratic per definition, but at least they have an elected oligarchy, which is miles closer to democracy than Chinese despotic regime. Even if the regime in China is kinda benevolent to the subjects, it doesn't matter for this question. Democracy is a word used a for a very specific thing, and it's completely absent in China.
So all the elections that happen in China are not democratic?
If the outcome is predetermined (which it obviously is), then no?
Every villages election is predetermined? Really?
The PRC never owned Hong-Kong before the handover and I don't remember the population of Hong-Kong voting for reintegration so yes, forcefully reintegrated seems like a nice way to frame it. Actually taken over would be more correct, traded as merchandise would also be appropriate I guess. You get the idea.
Much of Hong Kong was under a 99 year lease. Which is why the Brits had to hand it back in 1997 when the lease expired.
Sure, it was a lease from the Qing dynasty which doesn't exist any more, but still.
The smugness and superiority about how the rest of the world are immoral barbarians and the global status quo of white/western hegemony is amazing and very moral is pretty funny. It’s pretty obvious these same people in the past would’ve said the US’s chattel slavery is not that bad because other countries do slavery too. The equivocations westerners will do.
Meanwhile Han Chauvinism being used to justify CPC imperialism isn't bad because uh, their country has a cool flag.
Imperialism is whatever westerners don’t like, right? How is China imperialist?
Sad that the international community doesn’t do more to intervene in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and Tibet. As a reminder, China has violated the treaty around Hong Kong’s handoff. So really the UK and the rest of the world should have demanded its return.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration
Because “international law” is a farce, recent U.S. actions against Venezuela is but the latest example of that fact.
The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
The dissonance between this comment and the one above is striking really :) . One user asks for non-China countries to intervene in China or the occupied territories, and another user is outraged that the same has actually happened in Venezuela, despite that the only person to suffer had been one of the top-10 worst alive humans in the world (per millions humans harmed directly).
Pray tell me, how exactly do you see international law intervening in Chinese crimes, so that it won't look like ops in Venezuela (at minimum)? Issuing a strongly worded letter and Xi would comply?
>the only person to suffer had been one of the top-10 worst alive humans in the world
That's just what they told you to justify taking their oil
>taking their oil
That's what Trump told you to sound badass and edgy. His advisors might have a more complicated rationale that's harder to explain to the public than a single 3-letter word.
Foreign policy of the US has always been about orchestrating coups to create passive client states for US capitalists more efficiently extract natural resources, going back to 1953 in Iran. Only difference with Trump is he has done away with pretenses. He says the quiet part out loud. He says things like "we want the minerals in Ukraine", and then negotiates a mineral deal. He talks about conquering Panama, Greenland, Canada. He is an unabashed imperialist. It's been at least 70 years of this happening, catch up already. And it goes back even further, to the US controlling the Philippines in 1898, and the Monroe Doctrine in 1823.
What are you getting at here? That more people suffered in Venezuala? Or that Maduro is a swell fella?
That nothing really changed for the people of Venezuela
You're misunderstanding the analogy. The US's operation in Venezuela was itself a violation of international law, which the international community widely condemned and many countries wish they could have stopped. But there's no button they can push to make the US return Maduro, just as there's no button anyone can push to make China free Jimmy Lai. The only options are a variety of escalatory steps which implicate the relationship between one's own country and China as a whole.
Which ratified treaty did the US's operation in Venezuela violate?
> Which ratified treaty did the US's operation in Venezuela violate?
Even if it hadn't violated a ratified treaty (it did violate several, starting with the UN Charter and OAS Charter), it would still violate international law; the US has recognized (among other places, in the London Charter of 1945 establishing the International Military Tribunal) that the crime of aggressive war exists independently of the crime of waging war in violation of international treaties.
And how are you supposed to act against states that openly violate international law? In Venezuela's case, law they explicitly agreed to uphold.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/v...
E.g. at least 2 children were executed by Maduro for protesting against him, along with at least hundreds of adults. Mass political arrests by masked men have been common since Chavez came to power, there have been executions of entire families. Torture of prisoners. It goes on and on and on and on, and all of it violates the core of international law: the Geneva convention.
Maduro's violations of international treaties include attacks on neighboring states (Maduro's "war on terror" (yes, really) included raids on Columbian territory, plus his promise to attack Guyana). Maduro's violations of international treaties includes, ironically, abducting foreign nationals.
And before you say "but ICE". First, this started more than a decade before ICE, it is actually about far more people than ICE, and with ICE there is at least the allegation that those people violated US law (immigration law). So no, it is not the same. ICE comes disturbingly close, true, but this is still a LOT worse.
So what is your point? Obviously Venezuela since more than a decade did not respect international law. Is your point that since international law exists, Venezuela should have been attacked way sooner, in fact as soon as it became clear what Chavez was doing? Or do you argue that US/Trump's attack is fine since international law can be ignored anyway?
Including Maduro's abduction I think it's very easy to argue that the US behavior is much more in line with international law than Venezuela's. So what is your point?
I mean, what reasoning, exactly, leads to your conclusion that Venezuela/Maduro is the victim here? Or should I put it differently and state the obvious: that your reasoning only makes sense if it defends the idea that Maduro's regime is allowed to kill and attack, and the US is not.
I would hazard to say that most people are upset because a single person decided the fate of our country, and in a manner contrary to the outlines defined in the constitution. And your description of the events there really do clarify just how awful things here are as well - executions in broad daylight, masked men kidnapping people extrajudicially, allegations of laws being violated as a pretext to detail lawful citizens.
It's all horrible and shocking to say the least. And it makes people question whether our actions are justified or the outright thuggery of a wanna-be dictator.
International law is the victim.
Next time Putin will kidnap Zelenskyy with the exact same reasoning.
Don’t forget that the US don’t put him on trial for what he did to the people of Venezuela but some bogus crimes.
Putin doesn't need the US providing precedent to do that (and even if he was, there was plenty of that before Maduro), killing or capturing Zelenskyy in a decapitation strike was attempted more than once near the beginning of the 2022 escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian war. He wasn’t stopped by international law.
> Next time Putin will kidnap Zelenskyy with the exact same reasoning.
Putin DID do that. He ordered him kidnapped. And it wasn't international law stopping him, it was the Ukrainian army and apparently some regular Ukrainians.
Putin has tried to kidnap him at least twice, and sent out murder squads for him probably several dozen times now.
Putin did not face consequences for this, in fact a number of countries that profess to respect international law protected him against International law: South Africa, China, Mongolia, Belarus, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Azerbeidjan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and India.
Also, as I pointed out, "international law" didn't stop Maduro from committing warcrimes, he also sent out murder squads that even killed children, it didn't stop Putin from doing the same. Nothing at all changed for international law at all.
The only thing victimized is people's illusions about international law. Maduro is himself a war criminal! So using international law grounded arguments to protect him ... fuck that, even if you're technically right.
He obviously did not, he tried.
The point of international law isn’t protection but to distinguish wrong from right.
What do you think why even Putin made some bogus claims why his actions are justified?
In which war did Maduro commit war crimes?
> So using international law grounded arguments to protect him ... fuck that, even if you're technically right.
Law protects also criminals to a certain degree because the alternative is anarchy, chaos and global wars.
International war was a lesson learned from the world wars.
Seems like we need to learn again the hard way.
Tue right way of doing those things is rarely the glorious, it’s bureaucratic
How does any of this make sense? Other than your first sentence (sorry about that, of course you're right, he tried) every claim is bogus.
> The point of international law isn’t protection but to distinguish wrong from right.
It is actually explicitly stated in almost all international law (mostly except human rights/Geneva convention, which would be the one Maduro violated and Trump didn't) that the ONLY point of international law is international cooperation. International law is completely voluntary for states and consists of individual treaties you can join ... or not join. Don't join or decide to leave? That bit of international law doesn't apply to you anymore.
> What do you think why even Putin made some bogus claims why his actions are justified?
Because Putin always does that. Even decades back, when he was backing gangsters, he did that. I'm sure at one point it was necessary, and now the guy is 73. His habits won't change anymore. Besides, his idol, the Soviet Union, also did that.
> In which war did Maduro commit war crimes?
No war required for that. Besides what even is a war? One of the older "international law" treaties which nobody remembers that a war is only a war when declared by at least one state. Very few declared wars in the last decades. Israel-Palestine? Not declared (according to hamas that's just how things are forever and Israel just defended I guess). Sudan? Not declared. The 123818th conflict between India and Pakistan? Not declared. Iran-Israel? Iran-Syria? Iran-Lebanon? (more like Iran-everyone) Turkey-Kurdistan? You get the picture. The only war that was declared was Russia attacking Ukraine.
> Law protects also criminals to a certain degree because the alternative is anarchy, chaos and global wars.
Unless you mean an extremely minimal degree law does not protect criminals against the state. And any amount of force that is required to get a criminal to stop is legally justified essentially everywhere. In fact, in the countries most humans alive live in, no law protects you against the state, criminal or innocent.
> International war was a lesson learned from the world wars.
Actually the history goes back quite a bit further than that. And if you consider international law is just treaties between countries/factions then ... The most famous bit of international law, the convention of Geneva, was a lesson learned in the holocaust.
> Seems like we need to learn again the hard way.
Why? "We"? Venezuela was not respecting international law before this happened. Neither was Russia. Neither was ...
> Tue right way of doing those things is rarely the glorious, it’s bureaucratic
I doubt Ukraine, or any other actual victims of war crimes will agree on that one. For instance, international law is clear that hamas must surrender to Israel, and obviously they should deliver anyone that had anything to do with taking hostages to the ICC (since both hamas and the PA signed the Rome treaty). The ICC doesn't even want that to happen. Could you explain how this can be achieved in a bureaucratic way?
The UN Charter is a rather unambiguous one.
The US agreed in Article 2 of the UN Charter, which they ratified on July 1945, that they would refrain from the use of force against the political independence of any state.
The reason you rarely see people cite the exact provision is that it's pointless to cite, because the US foreign policy establishment does not care and will not be swayed by persuasive arguments about their treaty obligations.
> operation
Putin has one too.
Pro tip: Try to get the facts straight before commenting.
"There was a lot of death on the other side, unfortunately. But a lot of Cubans were killed yesterday trying to protect him," Trump said.[0]
[0]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-officials-reveal-new-detail...
That's true. But the point still stands. People are outraged even for a small number of cartel criminals shot. Imagine what would happen if someone would try to liberate oppressed people in China. The count would be in millions.
>Imagine what would happen if someone would try to liberate oppressed people in China.
My original point is very much meant to counter absurd hypotheticals like these. No other sovereign nation on Earth at the current point in time would ever dare to "liberate" China, because this is no longer the 19th century, and so China is no longer weak.
Soft power may buy you hearts and minds; Japan and South Korea are good examples of that in Asia. But hard power is what truly matters at the end of the day when it comes to asserting your geopolitical interests, and that's clearly the philosophy China has decided to operate under.
The U.S. is clearly not oblivious to this reality either. Even if we grant your moral arguments that Maduro was a horrible dictator deserving his fate, the fact that Trump and his administration chose to act when it was geopolitically and domestically convenient strongly suggests that "taking out the big bad Latino dictator for the sake of humanity" was not the primary motivation.
One thing that never ceases to amuse is how people like yourself always inject moralistic prescriptions into what were meant to be purely descriptive commentaries.
My comment on U.S. actions against Venezuela was not a condemnation, but rather just a factual example. Russia's military actions against Ukraine is no different. Nor China's actions towards Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet.
>"despite that the only person to suffer "
Actually they killed whole bunch of people. And according to POTUS they're currently running the country so cut the bullshit please.
Who "they"? If you want to say that this operation was completely botched and there was no quality improvement for the regular Venezuela citizens, then yes, i would agree completely. and international law also suffered as a result. At the same time it is also true that Maduro deserved to be smuggled out, tried and shot. By any possible law or moral standard of any country in the world. He is a horrible criminal even by known public facts. So these things are true at the same time. Same with China, if anyone would decide to intervene there, it would be good and bad simultaneously. There is no easy clear answer to that.
> it would be good and bad simultaneously. There is no easy clear answer to that.
Clearly, a weasel take on the "two wrongs make a right" doctrine. According to that new take two wrongs can be good and bad simultaneously, there is no easy clear answer, so any additional wrongs mustn't be called "wrongs", they must be called "maybe-rights".
Very clever.../s
Interesting, previous comment downvoted with no explanation. A sitting president can depict a former president and his wife as apes, but comments on HN are held to a much higher standard.
Homework assignment:
What is going to happen if Nazi-like propaganda (for example) can use colorful language but its detractors are only allowed to voice polite disagreement? What would the result of that be?
How many people should've died for Hong Kong? Should we have invaded China? Should we have drafted millions of men from across the west and put boots on the ground?
That is, some people want more people to die, to prove they are righteous.
There are more options than nothing or war.
It's not like relations between China and the West aren't already as hostile as the West can tolerate.
Where are you from?
The US shifted from "China is an economic power we should worry about" to "China is a military power we should worry about", but to me it seems to be a recent mind shift serving the current administration narrative.
As a European, I don't think there is much hostility against China here. Sure, people don't like the overall humanitarian situation with Uyghurs; and there are the usual issues with lobbying, intelligence, and currency manipulation, but overall the general public sentiment is rather neutral I would say.
Not at all. Perhaps you weren't paying attention but the narrative around relations with China started shifting during the Obama administration circa 2011. The bipartisan national security establishment is now broadly aligned with treating China as an adversary and strategic competitor.
>"China as an adversary and strategic competitor."
Nut sure about adversary. As for strategic competitor - this is normal state of affairs. Countries do compete and it is healthy
Be sure. The US national security establishment absolutely considers China to be an adversary. Look for terms like "pacing threat" when they discuss military acquisition programs.
This is an existential issue. Health has nothing to do with it.
>"The US national security establishment absolutely considers China to be an adversary"
I think any country that does not agree that the US should rule the world and is able to challenge it is considered an adversary.
It is amazing in fact how willingly Europe seems to be running into the arms of the actual fascist dictator, Xi, at the first sign of turmoil in the US. The US is written off as a lost cause and you cozy up with a government that is everything you dislike about the current US administration but on steroids. All because the US wants the EU to pay for its own war.
youll get cheaper EVs though I guess
That’s quite an interesting take. You don’t think Europe doing more trade with China (I assume this is what cozying up means?), is a result of a wildly unpredictable trade policy and threats to invade Europe? Instead because the US with their global military presence are sick of footing the bill for it?
You’ll get cheaper oil though I guess?
Just out of curiosity, what country manufactured the device you typed that comment on? There’s a lot of room for relations to get more hostile.
Nonsense. They can and should push back much more. If Europe were to show a united front there's little China could do to punish them. Their only option would be to cosy up to America/Trump, which is a realistic possibility, but it's something they would be very uncomfortable with.
> It's not like relations between China and the West aren't already as hostile as the West can tolerate.
It's just the US that's publicly wary of china, heck, it's just Trump
It is uncertain if there are more options for Taiwan. Hong Kong was a lost cause since the British withdrew
its certain, i ensure you. taiwan wont get the treat like Hong Kong before. Hong Kong proves the one country two system policy is a failure. the only result is war and taiwan will lose
> Hong Kong proves the one country two system policy is a failure.
Does Macau prove one country two systems is a success?
> taiwan will lose
That depends on how cowardly the rest of the world acts if/when the time comes.
I don't think this is realistic. A few thoughts in no particular order:
- War is logistics and you're talking about trying to get involved in a war, that would necessitate supply lines thousands of miles long, between two countries that are separated by 80 miles.
- China is extremely technologically advanced with the largest military in the world, by a wide margin.
- China is the at-scale manufacturing king of the world. In a shift to a war economy, nobody would be able to come even remotely close to competing. They parallel the US in WW2 in a number of ways.
- China is a nuclear power, meaning getting involved is going to be Ukraine style indirect aid to try to avoid direct conflict and nuclear escalation.
- Any attempt to engage in things like sanctions would likely hurt the sanctioners significantly more than China.
- The "rest of the world" you're referring to is the anglosphere, EU, and a few oddballs like Japan or South Korea. This makes up less than 15% of the world, and declining.
- War fatigue is real. The US really wanted to invade Syria, but no matter how hard we beat the war drums, people just weren't down with it. I think this is because people saw major echoes of Iraq at the time, and Taiwan will have a far louder echo of Ukraine. This isn't a show many people will be enthusiastic about rerunning.
* The US has the largest military logistics system in the world and regularly uses it to fight wars. It's a well exercised muscle.
* Being close to the front lines is as much of a liability as an asset. China's ports and shipbuilding facilities will be bombed out, the US' will not.
* This will be a naval and air war. You can't march troops across the strait, and as we've seen in Ukraine, flying them is a no-go either.
* China hasn't fought a war within the living memory of anyone of fighting age.
* You have a weird way of trying to diminish what represents most of the economic power of the world. Let's also add the Philippines and Vietnam to those "oddballs". China will be alone. And don't forget that China's population is shrinking.
* War fatigue is not an issue here when it comes to Taiwan. Adventurism in Venezuela was emboldening. We'll see what happens with Iran. I live in the generally pacifist part of the US, and I think most folks would demand that we intervene.
The most likely start to hostilities will be if China declares a blockade. Someone in the US will call their bluff - with warships. If China starts shooting, we're in a war. Moral outrage is an (often unfortunate) American trait.
You're speaking of a hot war which isn't ever going to happen owing to nuclear weapons. And if it did happen it precludes many of your scenarios. For instance naval vessels are highly vulnerable to modern weapons technology. Aircraft carriers were constantly sunk in WW2. The main factor that shifted after WW2 is that nukes precluded direct war between major powers, so they ended up being exclusively used against places incapable of defending themselves. More generally Ukraine has provided many lessons in modern war, and among them is that experience in invading these sort of countries is not only useless but perhaps even harmful as it can contribute to flawed assumptions.
That 15% no longer has the majority of the economic power in the world, or anywhere near it. There's a great visualization of the G7 vs BRICS here. [1] That's obviously not all countries, but those omitted aren't going to change the result nor trend. Just as important is what "economy" means. When we speak of war we're referring to the ability to go from ploughshares to swords, but most of the 15% have neglected their core manufacturing competencies and transitioned to service economies where these large numbers don't really translate into economic might of the sort we might imagine. Again, yet another lesson from Ukraine.
[1] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1412425/gdp-ppp-share-wo...
US military logistics minnow in Indopac vs PRC mainland logistics. Peak US war fighting capability was calibrated around adversaries with 50% of US GDP, even Iraq took 50% of USN CSGs + extremely favourable region basing in multi month surge operations. PRC conservatively 100x larger high-end target than Iraq, 150% US GDP by PPP, and more by actual industrial output. Before VZ uber trip, US was flexing and failing vs Houthis, i.e. shit tier adversary that actually bothered shooting US ships.
CONUS targets are on the menu, there's a reason China Military Report from last month included US west coast under PRC conventional fire, which TBH was years out of date, i.e. most of CONUS will be vulnerable, and PRC has more harden targets to attrite and more ability to deny US fires in the first place, i.e. PRC taking out exquisitely vulnerable CSG/unrep/tankers logistics tail drops US ability to deliver fires to PRC to zero, vs PRC global strikes complex chilling in hardened tunnels is extremely survivable.
You can aggregate everyone in 1IC and PRC still out manpower and out produce by magnitude. Hence most will stay neutral for the simple reason they're within PRC logistics backyard which US don't have remote capability to defend against. PRC simply that big in scale, i.e. their acquisition of 1m loitering munitions on top of 1m drones and cruise missile Gigafactory that can churn 1000 components (likely floor) per day makes any US posture in 1/2IC not survivable outside of cope war games. PRC has the fire power to literally fight everyone simultaneously, with domestic resources (no imports) to maintain war economy basically indefinitely.
Ultimately, if PRC starts TW blockading, US will likely look at ledger/force balance and bail because PRC sees through US bluff. Doesn't matter if pacifist muricans demand intervention if PRC throws every TWnese in torment nexus, ultimately US unlikely to out attrite PRC in backyard, and more fundamentally, cannot out reconstitute faster than PRC after the fact. US isn't gambling shipyards, energy infra, semi fabs, hyperscalers, payment processors, boeing/lockheed plants over TW. Now 10 years ago, when US could theoretically asymmetrically hit PRC without CONUS vulnerability, US intervention strategically likely, but this 2026, we see the new national security strategy. Much more sensible for US planners to retreat to hemisphere and accept spheres of influence arrangement. Americans being powerless to US foreign policy is an (often unfortunate) American trait.
I think that, if China tries to take Taiwan, rather than a direct military confrontation, the US might just block the Straits of Malacca against oil heading for China - or maybe against anything heading for China.
China would enforce a blockade against Taiwan. The US might or might not be able to break it. But China would have a very hard time breaking a US blockade down there.
> supply lines thousands of miles long, between two countries that are separated by 80 miles
I think this one is particularly important. IIRC, it's usually phrased something like "if the USA sends aircraft carriers across the pacific, then China has an unsinkable aircraft carrier 80 miles away: the mainland". It's a huge home turf advantage.
The USA seems to have a very low appetite for helping allies against bullies at present too. And no appetite for taking US soldier casualties.
Taiwan is also unsinkable.
> That depends on how cowardly the rest of the world acts if/when the time comes.
Or how weary of not having access to TSMC the rest of the world is.
The PRC will happily sell chips to the West. I live in Taiwan, I don't want it to happen, but people need to stop acting like countries will prevent an invasion because it means the CPC will control chip manufacturing.
The choice is between possible nuclear war, or, the 5090s are more expensive and sometimes Americans can't buy them when the PRC is punishing the west for something.
Honestly, this is the most reasonable comment here, especially coming from someone in Taiwan. I hear similar views when I'm in Asia, which are very different from what I hear back in the West.
It's weirdly myopic how HN users always think of TSMC as the main factor here. In reality the greater concern has always been containing China within the first island chain. As long as mainland China doesn't control Taiwan they have no way to secure their sea lines of communication.
looks at Ukraine, its white people and NATO wont fight for it. how about another group of chinse vs chinese in far far away? and the global south supports china more?
That's a total non sequitur. Ukraine wasn't a NATO member so why would NATO fight for it? (Several NATO members have given substantial aid to Ukraine.) In terms of a potential conflict between mainland China and Taiwan, the only NATO member with the capacity to do anything is the USA. The other players will be Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and Australia so the outcome will largely depend on whether they decide to get involved.
> Ukraine wasn't a NATO member so why would NATO fight for it?
so is taiwan.
> The other players will be Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and Australia so the
i can ensure you Vietnam and SK wont. and we want Japan to join so much. Aus is like a bonus maybe
You really believe that "the rest of the world" countries should conscript citizens and go to war to help Taiwan? Most people if faced with this choice would direct you to the place where the sun does not shine.
rightly or wrongly, I'm quite confident the US will not go to war with China if it invades Taiwan - the American people simply wouldn't support it. It's one thing to get public support for dropping a few bombs on a tiny opponent with little risk, as the US regularly does, it's another entirely to go to war with a major power with a very high casualty rate. The US wouldn't have even entered WW2 (as much as the administration may have wanted to) if the Japanese hadn't foolishly attacked Pearl Harbor and then Germany declared war as well. But unlike Japan and Germany, China has the manufacturing capacity and access to raw resources that would make it a very different enemy.
Based on how cowardly the world acted when Russia invaded Ukraine (and continues to act) I don't have much hope for Taiwan.
Not really. The world got other problems. Europe is out for now, since we got Fascists at our doorstep trying to conquer Ukraine. The US has the orange clown as president, who is cozy with Putin. I don't think you can ascribe it to others being cowards, if "the world" doesn't react to protect Taiwan. It is right at China's doorstep. The logistic imbalance of trying to protect Taiwan, being this close to China is insane.
In the end, if a war happens, it will be idiotic again, from an economical point of view and from a humanitarian point of view. Economically, of course it will cost huge amount of resources to conquer Taiwan, and it will only disturb trade and what is already established on Taiwan. From a humanitarian point of view, of course many people will die.
The smartest China could do, would be to return to a soft power approach, and continue to develop mainland China, to continue to rival and even surpass Taiwan/Taipei. There are many young people, who don't have the walls in their minds, that the older population has. They don't want war, they want their freedom, and they want a high living standard. All this would be theoretically possible, if China didn't let ideology rule, but instead went for the economically best route, which is most certainly not an invasion.
China's takeover of Hong Kong proved that any notion of "one country, two systems" is a total lie and assurances from the Chinese Communist Party are completely worthless. There's no coming back from that, at least as long as Xi Jinping remains in power. Young people in Taiwan are less supportive of reintegration with the mainland than ever before. Fewer of them even have direct family ties there now.
> China's takeover of Hong Kong proved that any notion of "one country, two systems" is a total lie...
Macau seems to be doing one country, two systems just fine.
> Young people in Taiwan are less supportive of reintegration with the mainland than ever before.
Well, go figure, if you run military "exercises" at the doorstep of your neighbor, people are not gonna like you very much, duh. But there was a time before more recent escalations, when lots of young Taiwanese people did not think too badly about being part of China. That's why I said that the smartest move would be (or would have been) to continue an approach of soft power and development, to rival life in Taiwan. Give the people comfort and high living standard, and they are less likely to dislike you.
This thread casually talks about Taiwan being a vassal state of the US during a civil war and Hong Kong being a colony of the British. Yet the world, largely the global south, should intervene and help the global north to exploit the rest of the world more?
Every one gets that far away countries across the world can’t put military bases right next to Europe or the US. However when it comes to China, that is not only acceptable but it’s the anti-cowardly move to support outsider aggressors.
> can’t put military bases right next to Europe or the US
Indeed, Japan and Korea and the Philippines have American military bases on them.
You mentioned Taiwan, curious why? It has no American military bases. Perhaps of all the countries in the region, it's the most sovereign in that sense.
Interesting. I didn’t know there were no US military bases there. Still Taiwan exists as it does because of the US meddling across the world.
This doesn't make any sense, the USA hasn't touched anything about Taiwan in any meaningful way ever since it became the ROC, and certainly not at all since the KMT was overthrown. In fact American overtures to control chip manufacturing here were rejected explicitly as "economic imperialism."
What's with this Americentric geopolitical analysis?
taiwan only exist because USA navy intervene in the war
You mean when the American ambassador escorted Mao to the signing of the Double Tenth agreement because the Americans were worried the KMT would go back on their word and assassinate him? Or in 1950 when Truman announced Taiwan as "Chinese territory" and directed that no American navy presence was to be permitted in the Taiwan strait?
Anyway take up your grievances with the KMT, don't worry, they're about to come crying back into the CPC's arms begging for a shred of political power now that their regime has been overthrown for 30 years, and their efforts to sell Taiwan to the CPC in exchange for a teaspoon of political legitimacy are failing spectacularly.
In 1997, China had nowhere near the leverage it has today.
Chinese Muslim Uyghurs who were preparing to fight for their people in China started consolidating a home base in Syria where they collected arms and a militia.
They are finally off the terrorist list a few years ago, but for a long time the US policy was to feign outrage but then declare anyone using any teeth to push back against China as a terrorist.
I mean, they were blowing up buses of civilians in China. Then looking up those Brave Uyghur Peace fighters, Wikipedia says they had child soldiers and they were allied with various Islamic state groups (the white text on black flag types, of which they also had their own) and wanted to impose strict sharia law.
I'm pretty confident that most women in Xinjiang are pretty happy that that group was smeared out. You can think Xinjiang and Uyghurs shouldn't be oppressed without supporting actual, unironic terrorist groups who want total theocratic control and full on jihad. I'm more amazed they're removed from the terrorist list. Seems like a weird political decision.
The Mujahideen fighting in Afghanistan against USSR in the 70’s were co-trained by China and the CIA. Guess where in China.
Presume all you've said is true, which, for various factious or groups of Uyghurs likely was true.
That still doesn't establish it as the distinguishing factor as to why the US declared them as terrorist. I fought in the YPG in the Syrian Civil War, an ally of the USA. Guess what, there were those who looked 13,14,15 usually because the Syrian government or ISIS had incapacitated their parents somehow. Mostly they were way back as token guards at training outposts but I also saw some near the front. The YPG also had to ally with a bunch of nasty theocratic arab militias to survive, in fact, that's why the SDF/YPG just got largely wiped out because the consolidation of the rebels in Damascus resulted in their arab allies turning their back. (In fact, Wikipedia page says IS is opponent of Uyghur militia). And I won't even get into the fact that the YPG and PKK are ideologically and pragmatically incredibly similar, yet PKK is magically a terrorist and the YPG is a brave US ally, one gets the blame anytime a Kurdish person does something horrible against innocent people and one doesn't.
As sister poster alludes, the US has never had an issue allying with "terrorists" when it suits their goals. Especially when fighting against USSR.
So knowing that this isn't the distinguishing factor, can you point to any other present-day armed group in or of China that has credible potential for an armed political uprising that hasn't been declared a terrorist? There might be one, I just don't know who they are, but I am very interested to read about them.
To me it looks like the difference is that they were a credible threat of violence against China, not that they have slaughtered innocent people which the USA and China has done as have many of US allies.
I think by definition any group supporting an armed political uprising in a stable country is considered a terrorist group. Should we consider armed groups in America or Belgium to not be terrorists?
And considering the Syrian civil war ended with a guy from Al Qaeda (famous terrorist group) becoming president and the country now having massacres under his watch, yeah, I think it's correct for groups that support armed uprising to be considered terrorist groups. Because they are. That armed uprising in Syria led to hundreds of thousands being killed, millions displaced, for what? A guy no better than the predecessor took his place, and he ruined countless lives to get there.
OK so anyone fighting a stable tyrant country for political ends is a terrorist in your estimation. I think by some definition of "terrorist" you are correct.
But that's different than what the US uses for listed terrorist organizations.
And that's what I'm pointing out. The US is happy to support these groups when they're actually on board with eliminating tyrants. I think they publicly shit-talk China but low-key they are happy to list as terrorists any group that can credibly threaten them, because it buys them political points in dealing with China. I'm judging them with their value system in mind, which provides a better assessment of the motivations behind their actions than judging them with your value system in mind. That is, by the value system of the US government, if they actually support the overthrow of the government they will also not usually list as terrorists those who are tactically in a position to weaken the government in question, even though by your value system you might.
And I don't agree with your assessment that even if it ends with another tyrant in power, it was for nothing. The Kurds had a slice of relative freedom for a decade. In their estimation it was worth the violence. Obviously I agree with that, otherwise I wouldn't have fought for them. I always knew there was a good chance it ends with everyone slaughtered and I saw my share of artillery and rounds come at me, so I'm not just speaking as a hypothetical on behalf of someone else. Sometimes it's better to be alive for a moment than a slave for a lifetime. (The Chechens, also came to a similar conclusion, with similar ends and a period of relative freedom between the two Chechen wars; I find them to be a less palatable example though I don't blame them for the general idea behind their actions).
If we measure the cost of freedom, that simply becomes the level of violence a would-be oppressor needs to promise in order to deny it. There isn't an easy or universal answer here and I'd argue there can't be. To give two historical examples, many Americans raised similar objections against entering WW2 to fight the axis. Some of those same people also opposed the US Japanese concentration camps, for the same reasons.
You might disagree on whether HKers' freedoms are truly being abridged or whether you care, but the questions you posed weren't complete enough on their own.
World did nothing (meaningful) for Gaza. It's hard to believe anyone will be willing to act against China which is much more powerful than Israel.
It was easy to turn the blind eye on Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc. because for most people in western hemisphere it's a different culture and it's somewhere else.
It was heart breaking when Russia invaded Ukraine and western media were doing lengthy coverage on every single civilian casualty when thousands of people were silently dying in Gaza without a single mention.
And the initial reaction to the invasion was that the Ukraine should simply surrender. It's like calling police about home invasion only to hear "oh, just give them what they want and stop calling us already".
And now US is doing exactly the same. The attack on Venezuela was a carbon copy of what Putin did, only difference was that the US succeeded. And now Greenland.
It's time to stop pretending there are good and evil forces out there. There's no difference.
> UK and the rest of the world should have demanded its return
Demand its return based on what principles ? How did the UK gain control of Hong Kong
Would the UK be able to go to war with China over HK ?
in the words of Dave Chappell - hello UN, if you got problems, bring ya army! oh you ain't no army
I always wonder what exactly the “more” is that other countries have to do that would prevent any of this?
The UK was happy to ignore the violation of the handover agreements and offer BNO passports to steal all the young brains of HK, unfortunately.
Steal? You mean at gunpoint? Or did these people want to leave of their own free will, and take a chance they were given?
Unfortunately nothing could be done, once HK was China territory. Enforcing the domestic policies of an SAR inside of China was completely unfeasibly for the UK and they knew it when they signed it. Zhao Ziyang (CCP chairman at the time), who signed the treaty, was a reformist and if he had remained in power and China continued down that path, things might have ended very differently for HK. Unfortunately the hardliners won out after the Tiananmen Square protests and he was removed from power.
Given what US companies did to ICC, it’s not hard to imagine, if UN intervine, their officials’ Chinese EV will be taking over remotely and driven off the bridge.
UK “taking back” HK is also very imaginative , like white people dreaming of recolonizing Asia in 21st century? Good luck.
Welcome to the real world. The UK is obviously in no position to challenge China. And with the US invading and threatening to take over other sovereign nations solely because "it's in our national interest", we're certainly not one to talk.
Sad that international community doesn't do more to intervene in US. Seriously, please help.
If any external force tried to "fix" the US it would result in stubborn revanchism and a deeper slide into corruption. To grossly generalize - the American culture of self-reliance means that any imposition of order, even if positive, would be rejected by most of the population (which is somewhat fair, since external impositions do compromise sovereignty).
If a good outcome is to happen - it needs to be driven and supported domestically.
Congratulations on figuring out why foreign intervention does not work in general!
Are you saying the rest of the world should have stood up for what ultimately is colonialism? And colonialism of the British out of all the people? And also in a territory, that is directly on or neighboring the Chinese landmass? The Chinese people have a long history of others trying to conquer them or colonize them. They are probably pretty allergic to such notions, and will reject them. Realistically speaking, no one would have had the resources to force HK staying the same enclave it has been. This all sounds rather unrealistic.
We can agree on the treatment of HK being far from ideal, and I would go as far as saying, that even economically for China itself, it was not good to handle the matter as they did. That is where their ideology shows. HK was an economical hub. In recent times though many businesses left and more are unwilling to invest. This is the economical downside, that could simply have been avoided by not doing what they did. The question should be asked "Why not just leave it as it is, since it is working well, economically?" But they had to mess with it. Another downside is international reputation damage of course. China has achieved many great things in the past decades and now has cities more modern and convenient than most of what you find in Europe. Their one problem remains ideology. That they sometimes feel the need to do things, that are not economically sound, for the sake of ideology.
However, I can't agree with anyone arguing, that HK should not be part of China, like some people do in the comments here. It's a separate matter from policies implemented. Of course I wish for HKers to keep their freedoms. Who doesn't. Of course I wish China would not implement policies, that endanger the freedom of its people. But territorial? Nope, HK always was bound to become a part of China.
What I can say more from visiting HK twice is, that they still got Internet (uncensored), in contrast to other parts of China. Every week I am speaking with someone from HK, using Signal, which is not practical for anyone from (most?) other parts of China. When traveling in China, I used a HK eSIM, to have reliable and uncensored Internet. I hope that these aspects still remain intact for a long time, or that the rest of China will open up. At some point they should have the confidence in their own economy to compete on global scale.
> HK always was bound to become a part of China
Why so? Do you think Monaco should be part of France? Do you think Singapore should be part of Malaysia? A lot of big countries respect the sovereignty of neighboring smaller countries, although that is unfortunately becoming less true now.
It isn't about colonialism. I have never seen anyone seriously argue it should go back to the British. It is about a framework to ensure they maintain their rights. It would be great if that looked like expanded rights for all of China but it can also look like some degree of sovereignty, which was in place for quite some time.
> Do you think Monaco should be part of France?
Monaco is already 90% part of France. There was an agreement until recently that Monaco would become French if the Princeship went extinct. By law the Prime Minister and the Police has to be French. France also handles their defense etc. It's very conditional sovereignty, the deal being that they can be a tax heaven if they want to, but not to France and Italy.
> Do you think Singapore should be part of Malaysia?
AFAIK they've been expelled from Malaysia after independence.
I'm not trying to disprove your point, just that it's fluid and fragile. Sovereignty itself has only been conceptually defined with the Treaties of Westphalia, it's recent and quintessentially Western.
This is kind of the point I am trying to make that sovereignty is somewhat of a spectrum and there are a lot of options for preserving parts of it.
I think the Westphalia thing is somewhat overblown there were lots of sovereignty analogs throughout human history all over the world before that.
> It isn't about colonialism. I have never seen anyone seriously argue it should go back to the British.
Then you should read more of the comments here, and you will have that completely new experience.
Last time, I checked Hong-Kong didn't become a free city but part of another country. So they have traded a master for another one.
I am genuinely lost in your argument. You start against colonialism then justify Hong-Kong being reintegrated to China because they would have taken it by force anyway which is pretty much the same thing as colonialism.
You then pivot to arguing HK was always going to be part of China for a reason I find unclear. Hong-Kong was never part of the PRC before the handover so I don't really see the appeal to continuity.
Have you considered that people are not arguing for colonialism but actually against any form of coercitive control?
Why are you lost in the argument? The point I am making is, that it would be great to have both. HK as part of China, no longer a UK colony, but also having freedoms remain intact. Shouldn't be too hard to grasp. Furthermore, I am saying, that economically how HK has been handled does not make much sense, and that ideology was at play.
Giving back HK might have been the only sensible move back then, and it might have bought HKers time and avoided a more open conflict, that wouldn't have ended well for HK.
At least Wikipedia disagrees with your sentiment, that HK was never part of China. Well, technically you said "PRC", maybe even intentionally, and you could take some weird position of claiming, that nothing inside China is part of China, because it was a different entity before PRC. But then so do many countries all over the world lose any claim to their territory. Germany, after second world war, France after French revolution, most prominently the US, after its founding ... Historically, HK was a grab of land by the UK. Granted, they built something nice up there, but only after the despicable acts they committed historically in the region. If we get into what the UK did historically in the region, it will not lead to a moral high ground.
cruel and obviously politically motivated, meant to send a message to HK and anyone who publicly criticizes the CCP.
China is repressive, autocratic, dictatorial, illiberal, unaccountable, coercive, censorious, surveillance-heavy, propagandistic, corrupt, brutal, heavy-handed, intolerant, secretive, and very very very militarised.
Just an FYI.
FYI, you're shadowbanned. Your comments by default show up as hidden for most users.