13 ms·

“The whole world ought to be concerned”: HK lawyers on Beijing’s “clarification”

91 points by endswapper 10y ago

vinceguidry 10y ago
> “I do not know how we are supposed to proceed,” Dennis Kwok, a lawyer and legislator said. Call your local Communist Party office. They will tell you how to proceed. Oh you wanted rule of law and freedom of expression? Move somewhere that respects it. The Chinese government gives approximately 0 shits about Hong Kong's silly foreign ideas and just wants to extract as much wealth from the area as possible before redwashing it. Their days of freedom were numbered from the day the Brits took over.
- seszett 10y ago
  Well, I'm not sure where you're from but I'm thankful my ancestors didn't have your attitude when confronted to dictatorship. Your contempt for those people who are fighting for their freedom in their own country is astonishing.
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    What, exactly, do you think Hong Kong could possibly do to preserve their freedoms? China has been moving its citizens over to Hong Kong for a decade now, citizens who answer to the Communist Party and vote Communist in all matters. How many more years do you think they'll have to do that before the people who grew up in the old system are completely outvoted in every matter? I'll all for standing up to the man, but let's get real, this battle is unwinnable. Even if all of Hong Kong decided to really start fighting to preserve their way of life, China would just declare martial law and that will be that.
    - rawnlq 10y ago
      Mainlanders actually have to go through a lot of hoops to move to Hong Kong so I am pretty sure you have no clue what you're talking about. They don't even speak the same dialect. I am pretty sure you had no idea about the mass protests[1] that are ongoing in the past few years either. How can you look at this crowd of several hundred thousand protesters and claim that they are powerless? Another Tiananmen square probably can't happen again in the digital age. Or maybe it can, but only due to our defeatist indifference. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Hong_Kong_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Hong_Kong_protests [2]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-30390820 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-30390820
      - vinceguidry 10y ago
        Okay, ask yourself exactly what these protests can hope to accomplish. Protests happen all the time, everywhere. Nobody hears about them because the state controls the media. Nothing happens because the Communist Party has plenty of people there taking notes on who is there and they keep careful tabs on them. If it starts to look like they're getting uppity, they'll get a visit from their local Party leadership and gently encouraged to stop their foolishness. Escalate as appropriate. Defeatism is precisely appropriate here. You have to ask yourself how badly you want change. Enough to put your family's livelihood at risk? Nothing here is worth fighting a war over, and that's what it would take to meaningfully change the way politics is conducted in China. Everybody's best bet is to just fall in line and hope the Party doesn't totally bungle this five year plan.
  - MrZongle2 10y ago
    In vinceguidry's defense, most countries don't have the kind of heads-up about looming dictatorships that Hong Kong had: the Sino-British Joint Declaration in December 1984 made it clear that handover would take place in 1997. If you were concerned about being governed by Communists, you had 13 years to get the hell out. And if you weren't concerned about being governed by Communists...well, you clearly hadn't been paying attention to history. Tiananmen Square (1989) alone should have been a wake-up call to China's future subjects. This doesn't make what's happening now less appalling, but HK residents had ample opportunity to avoid the inevitable. Compare that to other dictatorships that sprung up relatively overnight; in Turkey, for instance, Erdogan has been president for little more than 2 years.
    - 11thEarlOfMar 10y ago
      >13 years to get the hell out This is exactly why my father-in-law sent all 5 of his kids to the US for college. All 5 now have US passports and can leave Hong Kong if and when it becomes worse than they can stand. So far, 2 of them have made the move.
    - rodgerd 10y ago
      > you had 13 years to get the hell out. Good luck with immigration. Britain certainly didn't want to let many of its former subject leave.
    - brian_cloutier 10y ago
      Erdogan founded Akparty, the ruling party, 15 years ago (In 2001). He was prime minister for 11 years before becoming president. What has happened to Turkey happened quickly but took much longer than 2 years. To add, I don't know much about Hong Kong, but it's pretty difficult to leave Turkey if you're a citizen, not many countries want to give you a Visa meaning only the educated, upper class, is able to leave. If you're proposing a solution you should propose one which doesn't leave behind all the poor.
    - jahewson 10y ago
      And where exactly were 7 million people supposed to move?
- shaobo 10y ago
  How does the Chinese Government extracts wealth from Hong Kong? I am genuinely curious.
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    By allowing their bureaucrats free rein to terrorize local businesses and extract mob-style protection payments, among other things. Excessive regulation. Basic, garden-variety corruption. Same stuff that goes on in every other autocratic country the world over. Right now, Hong Kong is way too valuable as an economic engine, but the political dangers are more pressing to the CCCP. So the government will clamp down on freedoms as best they can until the citizens can't take it anymore, then keep beating the horse until it's dead. You should read the book The Dictator's Handbook if you want to understand it better. https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845/ref=sr_1_1 https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Po...
    - shaobo 10y ago
      The book is all well and good, but I would prefer to read an actual article about "allowing their bureaucrats free rein to terrorize local businesses and extract mob-style protection payments". It is easy claim that China is autocratic therefore it must do X bad things
      - vinceguidry 10y ago
        > It is easy claim that China is autocratic therefore it must do X bad things If you read the book you wouldn't need the articles because then you'd understand how they work. A good China-specific book to read is: https://www.amazon.com/Age-Ambition-Chasing-Fortune-Truth/dp/0374535272/ref=sr_1_1 https://www.amazon.com/Age-Ambition-Chasing-Fortune-Truth/dp... It doesn't deal with corruption per se, rather how China has been operating politically and economically for the last few decades. The gist of it is, so long as you play ball with the CCCP, then you can enrich yourself. But the second you step out of line, officials will happily confiscate your life's work and tell you you're lucky you're not in jail. And the only reason you're not in jail is because as long as you can make wealth that they can take, you're more useful to them free than imprisoned. If that changes, a life behind bars awaits you. What you can do in China, any autocratic regime really, is precisely what the local thugs will allow you to do, or what you can get away with outside their attention. They may not be as smart as you, but they are more numerous and have the legal system on their side. To complete your political education, this book will fill in the gaps between dictatorship and the kind of democracy that Anglosphere nations enjoy: https://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Freedom-English-Speaking-Peoples-Modern/dp/006223174X/ref=sr_1_1 https://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Freedom-English-Speaking-Pe... This book will show you the conditions in which freedom develops and really makes you appreciate the United States, tempered of course by the lessons in the Dictator's Handbook that tell how democratic regimes are, in general, not the forces for good in other countries that you'd like to believe they are. Would-be freedom fighters are fighting forces so much larger than they are that success or failure is entirely out of their control. Either the conditions are ripe for revolution or they aren't. Barring some massive worldwide event, Hong Kong's future is dimming by the day. The Internet was supposed to be that event, but autocrats are more than capable of suppressing freedom there too, up to and including just shutting the whole damn thing off.
- endswapper 10y ago
  Acquiesce or move are not adequate options. Bringing the matter to the public stage and attempting to hold Beijing accountable is the best available option. Will this influence Beijing? I don't know, but I doubt it. Will 10 or 100 instances like this, or disputes in the South China Sea identify Beijing as a bad actor? Yes. I don't disagree with where you are coming from, but it sounds like you are endorsing giving up. Matters such is this will take decades, now is not the time to give up for the Hong Kong or Chinese citizens that seek freedom.
  - fennecfoxen 10y ago
    > Acquiesce or move are not adequate options. We live in an inadequate world. (See also: ongoing US election, or Erdogan's purges in Turkey)
    - endswapper 10y ago
      The point is that the options are not binary as proposed by the post I was responding to. I'd argue the third option, which I proposed, is adequate, and the best if only because it includes hope over the long-term.
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    > Matters such is this will take decades, now is not the time to give up for the Hong Kong or Chinese citizens that seek freedom. In decades Hong Kong as we know it won't exist anymore. In a century, maybe China will have it's Magna Carta movement. But the pendulum is swinging in the other direction right now.
  - bufordsharkley 10y ago
    > Acquiesce or move are not adequate options. Hong Kong is an amazing city, international and self-governing, competitive and self-funding-- in almost every way, it seems like a glimpse of the future; Tomorrowland. However, its leverage to fight for its own sovereignty (or the rest of the world's leverage to fight on its behest), is extremely weak, and unable to grow. I fear that Hong Kong is a lost cause, which is extremely sad. ...In any case, I hope the idea of Hong Kong lives on, and we see more cities like this as we progress. One city isn't worth fighting a war over, especially because the lessons Hong Kong taught us show that we can make more Hong Kongs in the future. Preserving emigration rights for HK citizens seems the most practical way to keep people safe.
- baybal2 10y ago
  >The Chinese government gives approximately 0 shits about Hong Kong's silly foreign ideas That's why it must be crushed and CCP members' families flayed alive before them. A full scale airborne landing from Japan and Korea on Beijing. Finish them! What concerns the HK situation. There are only 4, possibly 3 proper military garrisons in immediate vicinity of HK. Only one hosts a modern and trained mechanised force. In case of mainlanders pulling the trigger, striking that garrison before forces stationed there will be mobilised will leave PLA with nothing that can strike on day one other than lightly equipped forces on machine gun equipped apcs/armoured cars. This will leave defenders with three threats on day one: guys with assault rifles trying to swim across from the new territories, air bombardment and assault from sea. Air attacks are inefficient in densely built up areas with reinforced concrete buildings. One can simply run into any multi-storey concrete building to hide, anything below a 1 tonne bomb can't outright destroy it. The naval landing will remain a threat. Yes, even if PLAN will send disembarked ship crews alone without marines it will be enough to outnumber defenders and overwhelm them without use of heavy weaponry. PLAN does train ship crews to double as a landing force. The likeliness of Beijing ordering the navy to capture HK using what ever means possible, at any cost is high if their land forces will be rendered impotent. The above scenario of disembarked crews being used as a land force was simulated in recent military exercises. Here, a third force intervention is definitely needed to prevent this outcome. With a cooperation of the defenders and a third party, HK will be able to stand for 3 days for sure. High displacement ships (read a big frigate sized and above) can't navigate close to the shore all around HK island except for the West Lamma Channel between Lamma and HK island. A capable pilot familiar with local hydrography can get close to land in the region of Shek O village, but the likeliness of that is low and the locations is strategically unfavourable for naval landing. This leaves the control of waters south to Bluff Head as the main concern. There, scuttled civilian ships can be used to block access to the Lamma channel and provide radar clutter to disable enemy long range anti ship weapons. A defender allied ship, can then hide in the channel behind the cover of scuttled ships to prevent landing from smaller crafts.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
What is the world going to do? Boycott Chinese goods? That would entail massive economic pain. Do a UN resolution? China is a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power. Launch a military intervention? This would make people wish for a low casualty war like WW2. Secretly arm a Hong Kong insurgency? No matter what arms Hong Kong has, China could destroy the rebellion with an army armed only with sticks due to the massive population difference. There honestly is pretty much nothing Hog Kong or the rest of the world can do except whine.
- nickff 10y ago
  If you dismiss all your options because they are inconvenient or painful, you end up with no options. You successfully described a tautology.
- ting_bu_dung 10y ago
  the world could impose import tariffs on China. cripple China economically. US and EU have started already with steel tariffs
- ebp 10y ago
  This is a silly reply. We should calmly and firmly articulate our objection to the Beijing's hardball tactics. This interpretation, like PRC behavior in the South China Sea, represents further evidence that Beijing has little regard for rules that constrain their power to act. If the international system has an investment in rule of law, we should see these actions as evidence that China is an unreliable partner in a rules-based order. We should be wary of including China in liberal institutions that are at the core of that order. Nations around the globe should adjust their relations with China accordingly. A good start would be public statements supporting rule of law and respect for the use of the judicial system to resolve issues questions of legal interpretation. Foreign businesses with significant operations in Hong Kong should take note that Hong Kong is at risk of becoming more like mainland China (i.e. weaker courts, stronger political control), and consider moving operations if this would impact their operations or bottom line.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
bitwize 10y ago
Inasmuch as Trump gets significant mindshare/voteshare today, it's largely because of fears that something similar might happen here. Hillaty Clinton has stated that she thinks the SCOUTS decisions in Citizens United and Heller v. DC were wrong. She wants do-overs on them both, and will nominate only justices who will reinterpret the laws as she sees fit. I'm no Trump supporter but that is scary. Inasmuch as we have a constitution that means anything, it means the rights so protected by that constitution can't be just interpreted away by nine men and women who don't think you should have them anymore. And no, Citizens United isn't about campaign finance or "getting the money out of politics". It was about a corporation paying for their own movie to be distributed and advertised with their own dollars. The movie could be wildly inaccurate and needlessly fearmongering -- and probably is, I've never seen it -- but the First Amendment should nevertheless forbid government from banning private entities from producing or exhibiting it, or the amendment has not very much meaning at all.
- blackguardx 10y ago
  My understanding of the case is different that yours. I don't want to get into a political disagreement so I'll leave it at that. I think it is unfortunate that Hillary made that statement about SCOTUS, but at the same time it is not unprecedented for SCOTUS to reverse itself. Look at Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. There are many others as well. Also, it seems disingenuous to call out Hillary for this and not Donald Trump (and many more republicans) who only want to nominate SCOTUS justices who will strike down Roe v. Wade.
  - MrZongle2 10y ago
    "Also, it seems disingenuous to call out Hillary for this and not Donald Trump (and many more republicans) who only want to nominate SCOTUS justices who will strike down Roe v. Wade." Every election, the boogeyman of a Republican-stacked SCOTUS tearing down Roe v. Wade is brought up. There have been five Republicans in office following the ruling (Nixon [in office at the time], Ford, Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43) and it has yet to happen, under far more conservative atmospheres. I don't buy the fearmongering on this front.
mathattack 10y ago
Forgive my being naive, but isn't HK part of China? Why is it the rest of the world's problem? If China wants to mess up one of the world's great cities, it's their right. If the US wants to mess up New Orleans, it's not for other countries to intervene.
- jahewson 10y ago
  Unlike New Orleans, Hong Kong was not a part of its current country just 19 years ago, but was under the control of Britain. It's also one of the world's most important financial centers. So it is deeply connected to the outside world and its existence and current status are owed entirely to outside forces and agreements with them. Hong Kong may be a part of China but China does not own the people of Hong Kong like some sort of property.
  - vkou 10y ago
    They never chose to be part of the British empire... Which gave them back to China.
    - jahewson 10y ago
      True, but they didn't choose to leave it either. Britain had agreed 100 years earlier to return HK to China and kept its promise. Really HK should have become independent, but no doubt China would still claim it as theirs.
      - taejo 10y ago
        Actually, the 100 year lease was only for the New Territories, which make up the bulk of Hong Kong's territory, but only about half its population; Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were fully annexed by Britain. However, Britain decided it couldn't sustain Hong Kong without the New Territories, and that's part of why it was returned to China at the same time.
      - jza00425 10y ago
        Did they have even have a choice under Britain control? Nowadays at least you hear the voice
jza00425 10y ago
The media really downplayed what those two did. I really want to know what American gonna do if Hillary call all African American the n word after she wins.

91 points by endswapper 10y ago

> “I do not know how we are supposed to proceed,” Dennis Kwok, a lawyer and legislator said. Call your local Communist Party office. They will tell you how to proceed. Oh you wanted rule of law and freedom of expression? Move somewhere that respects it. The Chinese government gives approximately 0 shits about Hong Kong's silly foreign ideas and just wants to extract as much wealth from the area as possible before redwashing it. Their days of freedom were numbered from the day the Brits took over.

seszett 10y ago
Well, I'm not sure where you're from but I'm thankful my ancestors didn't have your attitude when confronted to dictatorship. Your contempt for those people who are fighting for their freedom in their own country is astonishing.
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  What, exactly, do you think Hong Kong could possibly do to preserve their freedoms? China has been moving its citizens over to Hong Kong for a decade now, citizens who answer to the Communist Party and vote Communist in all matters. How many more years do you think they'll have to do that before the people who grew up in the old system are completely outvoted in every matter? I'll all for standing up to the man, but let's get real, this battle is unwinnable. Even if all of Hong Kong decided to really start fighting to preserve their way of life, China would just declare martial law and that will be that.
  - rawnlq 10y ago
    Mainlanders actually have to go through a lot of hoops to move to Hong Kong so I am pretty sure you have no clue what you're talking about. They don't even speak the same dialect. I am pretty sure you had no idea about the mass protests[1] that are ongoing in the past few years either. How can you look at this crowd of several hundred thousand protesters and claim that they are powerless? Another Tiananmen square probably can't happen again in the digital age. Or maybe it can, but only due to our defeatist indifference. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Hong_Kong_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Hong_Kong_protests [2]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-30390820 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-30390820
    - vinceguidry 10y ago
      Okay, ask yourself exactly what these protests can hope to accomplish. Protests happen all the time, everywhere. Nobody hears about them because the state controls the media. Nothing happens because the Communist Party has plenty of people there taking notes on who is there and they keep careful tabs on them. If it starts to look like they're getting uppity, they'll get a visit from their local Party leadership and gently encouraged to stop their foolishness. Escalate as appropriate. Defeatism is precisely appropriate here. You have to ask yourself how badly you want change. Enough to put your family's livelihood at risk? Nothing here is worth fighting a war over, and that's what it would take to meaningfully change the way politics is conducted in China. Everybody's best bet is to just fall in line and hope the Party doesn't totally bungle this five year plan.
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  In vinceguidry's defense, most countries don't have the kind of heads-up about looming dictatorships that Hong Kong had: the Sino-British Joint Declaration in December 1984 made it clear that handover would take place in 1997. If you were concerned about being governed by Communists, you had 13 years to get the hell out. And if you weren't concerned about being governed by Communists...well, you clearly hadn't been paying attention to history. Tiananmen Square (1989) alone should have been a wake-up call to China's future subjects. This doesn't make what's happening now less appalling, but HK residents had ample opportunity to avoid the inevitable. Compare that to other dictatorships that sprung up relatively overnight; in Turkey, for instance, Erdogan has been president for little more than 2 years.
  - 11thEarlOfMar 10y ago
    >13 years to get the hell out This is exactly why my father-in-law sent all 5 of his kids to the US for college. All 5 now have US passports and can leave Hong Kong if and when it becomes worse than they can stand. So far, 2 of them have made the move.
  - rodgerd 10y ago
    > you had 13 years to get the hell out. Good luck with immigration. Britain certainly didn't want to let many of its former subject leave.
  - brian_cloutier 10y ago
    Erdogan founded Akparty, the ruling party, 15 years ago (In 2001). He was prime minister for 11 years before becoming president. What has happened to Turkey happened quickly but took much longer than 2 years. To add, I don't know much about Hong Kong, but it's pretty difficult to leave Turkey if you're a citizen, not many countries want to give you a Visa meaning only the educated, upper class, is able to leave. If you're proposing a solution you should propose one which doesn't leave behind all the poor.
  - jahewson 10y ago
    And where exactly were 7 million people supposed to move?
shaobo 10y ago
How does the Chinese Government extracts wealth from Hong Kong? I am genuinely curious.
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  By allowing their bureaucrats free rein to terrorize local businesses and extract mob-style protection payments, among other things. Excessive regulation. Basic, garden-variety corruption. Same stuff that goes on in every other autocratic country the world over. Right now, Hong Kong is way too valuable as an economic engine, but the political dangers are more pressing to the CCCP. So the government will clamp down on freedoms as best they can until the citizens can't take it anymore, then keep beating the horse until it's dead. You should read the book The Dictator's Handbook if you want to understand it better. https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845/ref=sr_1_1 https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Po...
  - shaobo 10y ago
    The book is all well and good, but I would prefer to read an actual article about "allowing their bureaucrats free rein to terrorize local businesses and extract mob-style protection payments". It is easy claim that China is autocratic therefore it must do X bad things
    - vinceguidry 10y ago
      > It is easy claim that China is autocratic therefore it must do X bad things If you read the book you wouldn't need the articles because then you'd understand how they work. A good China-specific book to read is: https://www.amazon.com/Age-Ambition-Chasing-Fortune-Truth/dp/0374535272/ref=sr_1_1 https://www.amazon.com/Age-Ambition-Chasing-Fortune-Truth/dp... It doesn't deal with corruption per se, rather how China has been operating politically and economically for the last few decades. The gist of it is, so long as you play ball with the CCCP, then you can enrich yourself. But the second you step out of line, officials will happily confiscate your life's work and tell you you're lucky you're not in jail. And the only reason you're not in jail is because as long as you can make wealth that they can take, you're more useful to them free than imprisoned. If that changes, a life behind bars awaits you. What you can do in China, any autocratic regime really, is precisely what the local thugs will allow you to do, or what you can get away with outside their attention. They may not be as smart as you, but they are more numerous and have the legal system on their side. To complete your political education, this book will fill in the gaps between dictatorship and the kind of democracy that Anglosphere nations enjoy: https://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Freedom-English-Speaking-Peoples-Modern/dp/006223174X/ref=sr_1_1 https://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Freedom-English-Speaking-Pe... This book will show you the conditions in which freedom develops and really makes you appreciate the United States, tempered of course by the lessons in the Dictator's Handbook that tell how democratic regimes are, in general, not the forces for good in other countries that you'd like to believe they are. Would-be freedom fighters are fighting forces so much larger than they are that success or failure is entirely out of their control. Either the conditions are ripe for revolution or they aren't. Barring some massive worldwide event, Hong Kong's future is dimming by the day. The Internet was supposed to be that event, but autocrats are more than capable of suppressing freedom there too, up to and including just shutting the whole damn thing off.
endswapper 10y ago
Acquiesce or move are not adequate options. Bringing the matter to the public stage and attempting to hold Beijing accountable is the best available option. Will this influence Beijing? I don't know, but I doubt it. Will 10 or 100 instances like this, or disputes in the South China Sea identify Beijing as a bad actor? Yes. I don't disagree with where you are coming from, but it sounds like you are endorsing giving up. Matters such is this will take decades, now is not the time to give up for the Hong Kong or Chinese citizens that seek freedom.
- fennecfoxen 10y ago
  > Acquiesce or move are not adequate options. We live in an inadequate world. (See also: ongoing US election, or Erdogan's purges in Turkey)
  - endswapper 10y ago
    The point is that the options are not binary as proposed by the post I was responding to. I'd argue the third option, which I proposed, is adequate, and the best if only because it includes hope over the long-term.
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  > Matters such is this will take decades, now is not the time to give up for the Hong Kong or Chinese citizens that seek freedom. In decades Hong Kong as we know it won't exist anymore. In a century, maybe China will have it's Magna Carta movement. But the pendulum is swinging in the other direction right now.
- bufordsharkley 10y ago
  > Acquiesce or move are not adequate options. Hong Kong is an amazing city, international and self-governing, competitive and self-funding-- in almost every way, it seems like a glimpse of the future; Tomorrowland. However, its leverage to fight for its own sovereignty (or the rest of the world's leverage to fight on its behest), is extremely weak, and unable to grow. I fear that Hong Kong is a lost cause, which is extremely sad. ...In any case, I hope the idea of Hong Kong lives on, and we see more cities like this as we progress. One city isn't worth fighting a war over, especially because the lessons Hong Kong taught us show that we can make more Hong Kongs in the future. Preserving emigration rights for HK citizens seems the most practical way to keep people safe.
baybal2 10y ago
>The Chinese government gives approximately 0 shits about Hong Kong's silly foreign ideas That's why it must be crushed and CCP members' families flayed alive before them. A full scale airborne landing from Japan and Korea on Beijing. Finish them! What concerns the HK situation. There are only 4, possibly 3 proper military garrisons in immediate vicinity of HK. Only one hosts a modern and trained mechanised force. In case of mainlanders pulling the trigger, striking that garrison before forces stationed there will be mobilised will leave PLA with nothing that can strike on day one other than lightly equipped forces on machine gun equipped apcs/armoured cars. This will leave defenders with three threats on day one: guys with assault rifles trying to swim across from the new territories, air bombardment and assault from sea. Air attacks are inefficient in densely built up areas with reinforced concrete buildings. One can simply run into any multi-storey concrete building to hide, anything below a 1 tonne bomb can't outright destroy it. The naval landing will remain a threat. Yes, even if PLAN will send disembarked ship crews alone without marines it will be enough to outnumber defenders and overwhelm them without use of heavy weaponry. PLAN does train ship crews to double as a landing force. The likeliness of Beijing ordering the navy to capture HK using what ever means possible, at any cost is high if their land forces will be rendered impotent. The above scenario of disembarked crews being used as a land force was simulated in recent military exercises. Here, a third force intervention is definitely needed to prevent this outcome. With a cooperation of the defenders and a third party, HK will be able to stand for 3 days for sure. High displacement ships (read a big frigate sized and above) can't navigate close to the shore all around HK island except for the West Lamma Channel between Lamma and HK island. A capable pilot familiar with local hydrography can get close to land in the region of Shek O village, but the likeliness of that is low and the locations is strategically unfavourable for naval landing. This leaves the control of waters south to Bluff Head as the main concern. There, scuttled civilian ships can be used to block access to the Lamma channel and provide radar clutter to disable enemy long range anti ship weapons. A defender allied ship, can then hide in the channel behind the cover of scuttled ships to prevent landing from smaller crafts.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago

What is the world going to do? Boycott Chinese goods? That would entail massive economic pain. Do a UN resolution? China is a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power. Launch a military intervention? This would make people wish for a low casualty war like WW2. Secretly arm a Hong Kong insurgency? No matter what arms Hong Kong has, China could destroy the rebellion with an army armed only with sticks due to the massive population difference. There honestly is pretty much nothing Hog Kong or the rest of the world can do except whine.

nickff 10y ago
If you dismiss all your options because they are inconvenient or painful, you end up with no options. You successfully described a tautology.
ting_bu_dung 10y ago
the world could impose import tariffs on China. cripple China economically. US and EU have started already with steel tariffs
ebp 10y ago
This is a silly reply. We should calmly and firmly articulate our objection to the Beijing's hardball tactics. This interpretation, like PRC behavior in the South China Sea, represents further evidence that Beijing has little regard for rules that constrain their power to act. If the international system has an investment in rule of law, we should see these actions as evidence that China is an unreliable partner in a rules-based order. We should be wary of including China in liberal institutions that are at the core of that order. Nations around the globe should adjust their relations with China accordingly. A good start would be public statements supporting rule of law and respect for the use of the judicial system to resolve issues questions of legal interpretation. Foreign businesses with significant operations in Hong Kong should take note that Hong Kong is at risk of becoming more like mainland China (i.e. weaker courts, stronger political control), and consider moving operations if this would impact their operations or bottom line.
- M_Grey 10y ago

bitwize 10y ago

Inasmuch as Trump gets significant mindshare/voteshare today, it's largely because of fears that something similar might happen here. Hillaty Clinton has stated that she thinks the SCOUTS decisions in Citizens United and Heller v. DC were wrong. She wants do-overs on them both, and will nominate only justices who will reinterpret the laws as she sees fit. I'm no Trump supporter but that is scary. Inasmuch as we have a constitution that means anything, it means the rights so protected by that constitution can't be just interpreted away by nine men and women who don't think you should have them anymore. And no, Citizens United isn't about campaign finance or "getting the money out of politics". It was about a corporation paying for their own movie to be distributed and advertised with their own dollars. The movie could be wildly inaccurate and needlessly fearmongering -- and probably is, I've never seen it -- but the First Amendment should nevertheless forbid government from banning private entities from producing or exhibiting it, or the amendment has not very much meaning at all.

blackguardx 10y ago
My understanding of the case is different that yours. I don't want to get into a political disagreement so I'll leave it at that. I think it is unfortunate that Hillary made that statement about SCOTUS, but at the same time it is not unprecedented for SCOTUS to reverse itself. Look at Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. There are many others as well. Also, it seems disingenuous to call out Hillary for this and not Donald Trump (and many more republicans) who only want to nominate SCOTUS justices who will strike down Roe v. Wade.
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  "Also, it seems disingenuous to call out Hillary for this and not Donald Trump (and many more republicans) who only want to nominate SCOTUS justices who will strike down Roe v. Wade." Every election, the boogeyman of a Republican-stacked SCOTUS tearing down Roe v. Wade is brought up. There have been five Republicans in office following the ruling (Nixon [in office at the time], Ford, Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43) and it has yet to happen, under far more conservative atmospheres. I don't buy the fearmongering on this front.

mathattack 10y ago

Forgive my being naive, but isn't HK part of China? Why is it the rest of the world's problem? If China wants to mess up one of the world's great cities, it's their right. If the US wants to mess up New Orleans, it's not for other countries to intervene.

jahewson 10y ago
Unlike New Orleans, Hong Kong was not a part of its current country just 19 years ago, but was under the control of Britain. It's also one of the world's most important financial centers. So it is deeply connected to the outside world and its existence and current status are owed entirely to outside forces and agreements with them. Hong Kong may be a part of China but China does not own the people of Hong Kong like some sort of property.
- vkou 10y ago
  They never chose to be part of the British empire... Which gave them back to China.
  - jahewson 10y ago
    True, but they didn't choose to leave it either. Britain had agreed 100 years earlier to return HK to China and kept its promise. Really HK should have become independent, but no doubt China would still claim it as theirs.
    - taejo 10y ago
      Actually, the 100 year lease was only for the New Territories, which make up the bulk of Hong Kong's territory, but only about half its population; Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were fully annexed by Britain. However, Britain decided it couldn't sustain Hong Kong without the New Territories, and that's part of why it was returned to China at the same time.
    - jza00425 10y ago
      Did they have even have a choice under Britain control? Nowadays at least you hear the voice

jza00425 10y ago

The media really downplayed what those two did. I really want to know what American gonna do if Hillary call all African American the n word after she wins.