12 ms·

We knew this going in. We decided to trade human rights and to empower an authoritarian government for cheap pants and blood-electronics. I’ve prayed just now,

We knew this going in. We decided to trade human rights and to empower an authoritarian government for cheap pants and blood-electronics. I’ve prayed just now, but I did so with a new iPad Pro 12.9” in my lap. I have no idea how to help.

mistermann 9y ago
I don't think many people realize it even now. This is nothing compared to what's coming I bet.
stevenwoo 9y ago
Are you referring to Nixon/Kissinger opening up a bit with China or Clinton (mostly?) opening up trade with China or the whole process? IIRC the UK only had a 99 year lease on Hong Kong due to the western powers winning the Opium Wars and it had to go back to mainland China (unless the UK wanted to go to war again I suppose) so I was always kind of fatalistic about the fate of Hong Kong under China - it was always going to resemble the mainland governance at some point.
- khuey 9y ago
  Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were ceded by the Qing Dynasty in perpetuity. The New Territories were leased (Boundary Street being the dividing line). Even with the New Territories though HK is dependent on the mainland for things like fresh water, so some accommodation with the PRC was going to have to be reached regardless.
  - richardknop 9y ago
    Yes but those territories were not ceded voluntarily. It was because they lost the war so as in any war, the defeated nation had to give something up. It would be different if HK was given to British as part of some deal reached by diplomacy which was not enforced as a consequence of lost war. Then you could perhaps argue that UK could keep it for perpetuity.
    - angry_octet 9y ago
      This is a modern re-interpretation of inter-state conflict. In the past it was widely accepted that states could resolve disputes via war. By that standard, the UK could indeed keep HK indefinitely. A post-WWI agreement, called the Kellog-Briand Pact, sets the state for multilaterism, and outlaws war for conquest. This later develops into non-recognition of illegal conquests, war crimes, etc. So, in contrast to HK, Tibet will never be part of China. But at the moment China is too rich, and Tibet to inconsequential, for anyone to make a big deal over it. There was a great discussion of this on a recent Lawfare podcast: https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-oona-hathaway-and-scott-shapiro-internationalists https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-oona-hathaway-an...
      - alexasmyths 9y ago
        " But at the moment China is too rich, and Tibet to inconsequential, " This is it. When I was in Cali 1997-2003 - 'Tibet' was all the rage. Hollywood, popular opinion, documentaries etc. etc.. Then about the mid-2000s', 'Tibet' was snuffed out as a 'popular concern'. There were quite a number of big business people/CEO's whispering about Tibet as a 'cause' - but they shut up pretty quick. China has very effectively divided and conquered Western leaders who speak with 1000' voices (i.e. politicians, CEO's, academics) and even played nations against one another. They have very effectively dangled the 'we have 1 Billion consumers carrot' in front of everyone and have them all kow-towing (pun intended) to get a juicy slice, but it never quite happens. It's amazing how much indirect influence a coordinated attempt to attack an issue can have. I remember the Dalai Lama used to even be a big name in the press, we hardly hear about him any more. Many, long tentacles ...
        stevenwoo 9y ago
        I feel it's unjust what happened to Tibet since 1950 but practically speaking, what can anybody outside do?
      - richardknop 9y ago
        > This is a modern re-interpretation of inter-state conflict. In the past it was widely accepted that states could resolve disputes via war. By that standard, the UK could indeed keep HK indefinitely. By that standard PRC could send their military and take over Hong Kong and then keep it indefinitely. In a direct conflict UK would lose and they probably knew that which is why they left voluntarily. > A post-WWI agreement, called the Kellog-Briand Pact, sets the state for multilaterism, and outlaws war for conquest. This later develops into non-recognition of illegal conquests, war crimes, etc. This pact seems to be historically insignificant. US has been using war as an instrument of national policy quite frequently. Same for Russia and before that Soviet Union. And other countries. So why not China? > So, in contrast to HK, Tibet will never be part of China. But at the moment China is too rich, and Tibet to inconsequential, for anyone to make a big deal over it. Tibet is definitely a part of China though. For example, on Google Maps I don't see Tibet marked as a separate nation. It's part of China according to biggest online maps provider.
alexasmyths 9y ago
I think the common understanding before 2000 was that as China developed, it would open up and 'have no choice' but to gradually move towards liberalization and democracy. That was actually the plan.
- kbart 9y ago
  Same with Russia. Both cases just prove that connivance for authoritarian regimes only strengthens them.
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    True, but they are very different scenarios. Up until mid 2000's it seemed as though Russia was coming along. Putin did a major pivot, or rather, 'major expansion of his authority' during the Obama years. Future historians will maybe give us the answers ...
    - thriftwy 9y ago
      China was going to come around any time now, too. Everybody expected that economic growth = growth of democracy = growth of free speech.
      - soundwave106 9y ago
        It's a question that really hasn't been answered yet, to be honest. If you look at the top 50 countries by GDP per capita, most of them still do have a relatively high degree of freedom (in speech, press, etc.) compared to the world average. (The exceptions tend to be authoritarian regimes with oil, but with "peak oil demand" being a possibility in the long term, the long term future of this position is uncertain, in my opinion). Nothing has changed in this regard. China has risen far economically and is still rising today. But by the GDP per capita statistic they still rank roughly on par with the world average (in the 70s rank). Russia's probably the strongest authoritarian economy that is not hugely dependent on oil (although it's still a decent chunk of it), but as far as GDP per capita goes they've been treading water lately. Correlation is not causation, of course, so it's hard to tell whether this is a feature or a coincidence. I suppose we'll find out in the near future. I think it's still an open question whether China's policies increasingly interfere with the increasingly important knowledge economy, and end up hindering their growth. (Based on how China tiptoes around censorship of tech areas like Github, I suspect they are well aware of this possibility.)
ashleycole 9y ago
I'd say there's one non-violent way to fight back that could significantly hurt China. Host an open source repo on GitHub that highlights China's suppressed history, and use QQ/WeChat/Weibo/etc to spread it to Chinese locals. Do the same for Reddit, and every other western service that isn't blocked in China. (It would likely also help to leave 1-2 star app/play store reviews of WeChat and mention the fact that all private messages/pictures are accessible to the government, and they use the service to limit free speech.) Imagine how much western companies would suffer if GitHub disappeared overnight. It would quickly become known to the Chinese that a freaking repo containing nothing besides accurate Chinese history was responsible. If you already obtained a decent reach within Chinese social media apps, then you should consider this: China can easily "shadow-block" certain phrases like tiananmen, hong kong + protest in same message, etc. and you can be certain most of these imagines you find online will also be "shadow-blocked". However, all it takes to beat their current system is to modify a single pixel.
- nick32m 9y ago
  I think they could block that Github repository/repositories but not the entire Github. Also I don't want them to DDOS Github and affect other uses. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9275041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9275041
  - singularity2001 9y ago
    they would have to block all the Forks as well
  - ashleycole 9y ago
    They cannot block a specific repo (although GitHub could make it inaccessible to Chinese users, but I don't think they'd want to censor their platform), which is why China resorted to DDOS. I think it really speaks volumes as to how important GitHub currently is to them.
  - marcosdumay 9y ago
    HTTPS makes it impossible to block only part of the site. At least if they don't push their certs onto the population.
icebraining 9y ago
Was there an actual choice to be had, though? I know we in the West enjoy the self-flagellation, but it's not like countries we don't trade with are necessarily beacons of respect for human rights and democratic accountability.
projektfu 9y ago
Join Amnesty (UK) or Amnesty International (elsewhere). We put civil pressure on governments that imprison their citizens on issues of conscience.
mercurysmessage 9y ago
If it wasn't going to be China, it was going to be, and has already been somewhere else. Look at the labels on the clothes you wear, many aren't made in China.
paradite 9y ago
As a Chinese citizen, I would appreciate if you stop thinking about "helping" us. Even if you are genuine, it would come across as condescending. Majority of people in China are happy with their lives, we certainly do not see the need for help from other countries in the way you wanted to. Instead, I would suggest you focus on the problems and issues faced in your own country. In Chinese, there is a saying that "Please take care of your own backyard, before thinking of cleaning up other people's backyard." Every country has its own problems, US, Spain, UK and China. Do you see people from UK offering to help solve gun problems in US? Do you see people from US offering to help self-determination problem in Spain? Don't assume you have the moral high ground and Chinese people need your help. Try to talk to Chinese people and understand their perspective first.
- nailer 9y ago
  I have a very close friend from mainland China and we talk frankly about politics. There's a video that went viral on Weibo a couple of months ago. - A mainland Chinese girl is destroying HK independence posters at a HK university. - A Honkinese girl admonishes her for destroying the posters, as they are free speech. - The mainland Chinese girl says that free speech means that since the Honkinese girl can put up posters the mainland Chinese girl can destroy them - The HK girl says that the mainland Chinese girl can put up her own posters if she wishes. In mainland China, the view is: that the Chinese girl speaks better English than the HK girl and makes an excellent point about how she's allowed to tear down the posters if the other girl can put them up because that's what free speech means. This isn't ironic, it's what people think and that's why the video was popular: because the mainland girl spoke great English, made what seems like a good point, and defended Chinese integrity. Close friend mentions that re: democracy, the people don't have any will at all: they don't really engage with politics. It's someone else's job to lead. You'd want to engage with running the country as much as being a firefighter or running the sewers.
  - paradite 9y ago
    Well, yes, I agree that Chinese people are somewhat lacking in critical thinking since so much policies are straight from the government and people just follow. It is very different from HK and US. In fact I think that's the main reason why the government's policies are so successful. If more and more people are travelling abroad and absorbing this idea of free speech, the society would eventually transform and embrace the idea. However, critical thinking has to be there first, with majority of the people capable of making informed decisions, not like the reaction to the video you mentioned.
baybal2 9y ago
>I have no idea how to help. Fund training of activists Work on finding safe routes to deliver arms and munitions. In 10 years, all of that will be handy.

mistermann 9y ago

I don't think many people realize it even now. This is nothing compared to what's coming I bet.

stevenwoo 9y ago

Are you referring to Nixon/Kissinger opening up a bit with China or Clinton (mostly?) opening up trade with China or the whole process? IIRC the UK only had a 99 year lease on Hong Kong due to the western powers winning the Opium Wars and it had to go back to mainland China (unless the UK wanted to go to war again I suppose) so I was always kind of fatalistic about the fate of Hong Kong under China - it was always going to resemble the mainland governance at some point.

khuey 9y ago
Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were ceded by the Qing Dynasty in perpetuity. The New Territories were leased (Boundary Street being the dividing line). Even with the New Territories though HK is dependent on the mainland for things like fresh water, so some accommodation with the PRC was going to have to be reached regardless.
- richardknop 9y ago
  Yes but those territories were not ceded voluntarily. It was because they lost the war so as in any war, the defeated nation had to give something up. It would be different if HK was given to British as part of some deal reached by diplomacy which was not enforced as a consequence of lost war. Then you could perhaps argue that UK could keep it for perpetuity.
  - angry_octet 9y ago
    This is a modern re-interpretation of inter-state conflict. In the past it was widely accepted that states could resolve disputes via war. By that standard, the UK could indeed keep HK indefinitely. A post-WWI agreement, called the Kellog-Briand Pact, sets the state for multilaterism, and outlaws war for conquest. This later develops into non-recognition of illegal conquests, war crimes, etc. So, in contrast to HK, Tibet will never be part of China. But at the moment China is too rich, and Tibet to inconsequential, for anyone to make a big deal over it. There was a great discussion of this on a recent Lawfare podcast: https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-oona-hathaway-and-scott-shapiro-internationalists https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-oona-hathaway-an...
    - alexasmyths 9y ago
      " But at the moment China is too rich, and Tibet to inconsequential, " This is it. When I was in Cali 1997-2003 - 'Tibet' was all the rage. Hollywood, popular opinion, documentaries etc. etc.. Then about the mid-2000s', 'Tibet' was snuffed out as a 'popular concern'. There were quite a number of big business people/CEO's whispering about Tibet as a 'cause' - but they shut up pretty quick. China has very effectively divided and conquered Western leaders who speak with 1000' voices (i.e. politicians, CEO's, academics) and even played nations against one another. They have very effectively dangled the 'we have 1 Billion consumers carrot' in front of everyone and have them all kow-towing (pun intended) to get a juicy slice, but it never quite happens. It's amazing how much indirect influence a coordinated attempt to attack an issue can have. I remember the Dalai Lama used to even be a big name in the press, we hardly hear about him any more. Many, long tentacles ...
      - stevenwoo 9y ago
        I feel it's unjust what happened to Tibet since 1950 but practically speaking, what can anybody outside do?
    - richardknop 9y ago
      > This is a modern re-interpretation of inter-state conflict. In the past it was widely accepted that states could resolve disputes via war. By that standard, the UK could indeed keep HK indefinitely. By that standard PRC could send their military and take over Hong Kong and then keep it indefinitely. In a direct conflict UK would lose and they probably knew that which is why they left voluntarily. > A post-WWI agreement, called the Kellog-Briand Pact, sets the state for multilaterism, and outlaws war for conquest. This later develops into non-recognition of illegal conquests, war crimes, etc. This pact seems to be historically insignificant. US has been using war as an instrument of national policy quite frequently. Same for Russia and before that Soviet Union. And other countries. So why not China? > So, in contrast to HK, Tibet will never be part of China. But at the moment China is too rich, and Tibet to inconsequential, for anyone to make a big deal over it. Tibet is definitely a part of China though. For example, on Google Maps I don't see Tibet marked as a separate nation. It's part of China according to biggest online maps provider.

alexasmyths 9y ago

I think the common understanding before 2000 was that as China developed, it would open up and 'have no choice' but to gradually move towards liberalization and democracy. That was actually the plan.

kbart 9y ago
Same with Russia. Both cases just prove that connivance for authoritarian regimes only strengthens them.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  True, but they are very different scenarios. Up until mid 2000's it seemed as though Russia was coming along. Putin did a major pivot, or rather, 'major expansion of his authority' during the Obama years. Future historians will maybe give us the answers ...
  - thriftwy 9y ago
    China was going to come around any time now, too. Everybody expected that economic growth = growth of democracy = growth of free speech.
    - soundwave106 9y ago
      It's a question that really hasn't been answered yet, to be honest. If you look at the top 50 countries by GDP per capita, most of them still do have a relatively high degree of freedom (in speech, press, etc.) compared to the world average. (The exceptions tend to be authoritarian regimes with oil, but with "peak oil demand" being a possibility in the long term, the long term future of this position is uncertain, in my opinion). Nothing has changed in this regard. China has risen far economically and is still rising today. But by the GDP per capita statistic they still rank roughly on par with the world average (in the 70s rank). Russia's probably the strongest authoritarian economy that is not hugely dependent on oil (although it's still a decent chunk of it), but as far as GDP per capita goes they've been treading water lately. Correlation is not causation, of course, so it's hard to tell whether this is a feature or a coincidence. I suppose we'll find out in the near future. I think it's still an open question whether China's policies increasingly interfere with the increasingly important knowledge economy, and end up hindering their growth. (Based on how China tiptoes around censorship of tech areas like Github, I suspect they are well aware of this possibility.)

ashleycole 9y ago

I'd say there's one non-violent way to fight back that could significantly hurt China. Host an open source repo on GitHub that highlights China's suppressed history, and use QQ/WeChat/Weibo/etc to spread it to Chinese locals. Do the same for Reddit, and every other western service that isn't blocked in China. (It would likely also help to leave 1-2 star app/play store reviews of WeChat and mention the fact that all private messages/pictures are accessible to the government, and they use the service to limit free speech.) Imagine how much western companies would suffer if GitHub disappeared overnight. It would quickly become known to the Chinese that a freaking repo containing nothing besides accurate Chinese history was responsible. If you already obtained a decent reach within Chinese social media apps, then you should consider this: China can easily "shadow-block" certain phrases like tiananmen, hong kong + protest in same message, etc. and you can be certain most of these imagines you find online will also be "shadow-blocked". However, all it takes to beat their current system is to modify a single pixel.

nick32m 9y ago
I think they could block that Github repository/repositories but not the entire Github. Also I don't want them to DDOS Github and affect other uses. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9275041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9275041
- singularity2001 9y ago
  they would have to block all the Forks as well
- ashleycole 9y ago
  They cannot block a specific repo (although GitHub could make it inaccessible to Chinese users, but I don't think they'd want to censor their platform), which is why China resorted to DDOS. I think it really speaks volumes as to how important GitHub currently is to them.
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  HTTPS makes it impossible to block only part of the site. At least if they don't push their certs onto the population.

icebraining 9y ago

Was there an actual choice to be had, though? I know we in the West enjoy the self-flagellation, but it's not like countries we don't trade with are necessarily beacons of respect for human rights and democratic accountability.

projektfu 9y ago

Join Amnesty (UK) or Amnesty International (elsewhere). We put civil pressure on governments that imprison their citizens on issues of conscience.

mercurysmessage 9y ago

If it wasn't going to be China, it was going to be, and has already been somewhere else. Look at the labels on the clothes you wear, many aren't made in China.

paradite 9y ago

As a Chinese citizen, I would appreciate if you stop thinking about "helping" us. Even if you are genuine, it would come across as condescending. Majority of people in China are happy with their lives, we certainly do not see the need for help from other countries in the way you wanted to. Instead, I would suggest you focus on the problems and issues faced in your own country. In Chinese, there is a saying that "Please take care of your own backyard, before thinking of cleaning up other people's backyard." Every country has its own problems, US, Spain, UK and China. Do you see people from UK offering to help solve gun problems in US? Do you see people from US offering to help self-determination problem in Spain? Don't assume you have the moral high ground and Chinese people need your help. Try to talk to Chinese people and understand their perspective first.

nailer 9y ago
I have a very close friend from mainland China and we talk frankly about politics. There's a video that went viral on Weibo a couple of months ago. - A mainland Chinese girl is destroying HK independence posters at a HK university. - A Honkinese girl admonishes her for destroying the posters, as they are free speech. - The mainland Chinese girl says that free speech means that since the Honkinese girl can put up posters the mainland Chinese girl can destroy them - The HK girl says that the mainland Chinese girl can put up her own posters if she wishes. In mainland China, the view is: that the Chinese girl speaks better English than the HK girl and makes an excellent point about how she's allowed to tear down the posters if the other girl can put them up because that's what free speech means. This isn't ironic, it's what people think and that's why the video was popular: because the mainland girl spoke great English, made what seems like a good point, and defended Chinese integrity. Close friend mentions that re: democracy, the people don't have any will at all: they don't really engage with politics. It's someone else's job to lead. You'd want to engage with running the country as much as being a firefighter or running the sewers.
- paradite 9y ago
  Well, yes, I agree that Chinese people are somewhat lacking in critical thinking since so much policies are straight from the government and people just follow. It is very different from HK and US. In fact I think that's the main reason why the government's policies are so successful. If more and more people are travelling abroad and absorbing this idea of free speech, the society would eventually transform and embrace the idea. However, critical thinking has to be there first, with majority of the people capable of making informed decisions, not like the reaction to the video you mentioned.

baybal2 9y ago

>I have no idea how to help. Fund training of activists Work on finding safe routes to deliver arms and munitions. In 10 years, all of that will be handy.