4 ms·

Because Hong Kong is a separate state. They govern themselves.

by giarc 10y ago

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Yes, but no. Hong Kong is officially the "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". It's an autonomous region, but it's part of the PRC, not a separate state.
- giarc 10y ago
  I was just going from this quote from the article. >who saw his abduction as a violation of the city state’s ability to run its own affairs, guaranteed by international treaty until 2047.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    Exactly. It's a special administrative region with contractually guaranteed freedom to run its own affairs in all aspects (law, immigration, currency, economic policy, etc. etc) except for defence and foreign affairs.
    - true_religion 10y ago
      This arrest is seen as necessary for 'national security', thus it would be arguable that Hong Kong has no standing here to complain. Even without that excuse, if you break a law in one country and flee to 'another state', you can still be arrested and remanded into custody of the country that you fled. The US for example has sent the FBI to foreign nations to arrest foreign nationals and return them to the US for trial----all with the backing of the allied government. Is it fair to expect Hong Kong, which is a territory of China, to not permit China the same sort of action?
      - FabHK 10y ago
        Yes. You'd have to obtain that backing first, and it is not clear whether that has happened here. Just going in (like the Mossad in Argentina for Eichmann) is not legal (even if it might be morally justified). National security is a bit tricky, because the HK Basic Law allows for exceptions there, I think - but has that seriously been invoked?
    - RugnirViking 10y ago
      I know very little about this kind of thing; how does one -avoid- representing one's self in foreign affairs? isn't being the government basically that in entirety?
- EdHominem 10y ago
  Ahh, right, right. The people were given to one country by another. Silly people.
  - RugnirViking 10y ago
    'given' to whom? The only way I can construe this is that the Chinese government 'gave' hong-kong on a 100 year lease and the UK held up this deal. Unless you expect the UK to avoid the deal, which while I wish they could, they aren't in a position to say no to china
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      They gave the people to another government because of a treaty signed before anyone currently alive was born. Yes, I do expect the UK to "renege" in the sense that I expect everyone else to support self-government for Hong Kong. Maybe not to fight for it with them, but at least not to support the abusers with petty arguments of legality, etc. > which while I wish they could, they aren't in a position to say no to china Right. The same way Taiwan is a separate country, and a great one, but we pretend it's Chinese and essentially property of China because we don't want to get in a fight. But might doesn't make right. We shouldn't give it the veneer of decency and legality. It's slavery through and through. If North Korea or Iran acted that way we'd call it like it is.

Because Hong Kong is a separate state. They govern themselves.

by giarc 10y ago

Because Hong Kong is a separate state. They govern themselves.

Yes, but no. Hong Kong is officially the "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". It's an autonomous region, but it's part of the PRC, not a separate state.

giarc 10y ago
I was just going from this quote from the article. >who saw his abduction as a violation of the city state’s ability to run its own affairs, guaranteed by international treaty until 2047.
- FabHK 10y ago
  Exactly. It's a special administrative region with contractually guaranteed freedom to run its own affairs in all aspects (law, immigration, currency, economic policy, etc. etc) except for defence and foreign affairs.
  - true_religion 10y ago
    This arrest is seen as necessary for 'national security', thus it would be arguable that Hong Kong has no standing here to complain. Even without that excuse, if you break a law in one country and flee to 'another state', you can still be arrested and remanded into custody of the country that you fled. The US for example has sent the FBI to foreign nations to arrest foreign nationals and return them to the US for trial----all with the backing of the allied government. Is it fair to expect Hong Kong, which is a territory of China, to not permit China the same sort of action?
    - FabHK 10y ago
      Yes. You'd have to obtain that backing first, and it is not clear whether that has happened here. Just going in (like the Mossad in Argentina for Eichmann) is not legal (even if it might be morally justified). National security is a bit tricky, because the HK Basic Law allows for exceptions there, I think - but has that seriously been invoked?
  - RugnirViking 10y ago
    I know very little about this kind of thing; how does one -avoid- representing one's self in foreign affairs? isn't being the government basically that in entirety?
EdHominem 10y ago
Ahh, right, right. The people were given to one country by another. Silly people.
- RugnirViking 10y ago
  'given' to whom? The only way I can construe this is that the Chinese government 'gave' hong-kong on a 100 year lease and the UK held up this deal. Unless you expect the UK to avoid the deal, which while I wish they could, they aren't in a position to say no to china
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    They gave the people to another government because of a treaty signed before anyone currently alive was born. Yes, I do expect the UK to "renege" in the sense that I expect everyone else to support self-government for Hong Kong. Maybe not to fight for it with them, but at least not to support the abusers with petty arguments of legality, etc. > which while I wish they could, they aren't in a position to say no to china Right. The same way Taiwan is a separate country, and a great one, but we pretend it's Chinese and essentially property of China because we don't want to get in a fight. But might doesn't make right. We shouldn't give it the veneer of decency and legality. It's slavery through and through. If North Korea or Iran acted that way we'd call it like it is.