3 ms·

Well it wasn't exactly unprecedented. Far from it. Every Chief Executive election, from the very first, has had some smell of corruption about it - threats of f

Well it wasn't exactly unprecedented. Far from it. Every Chief Executive election, from the very first, has had some smell of corruption about it - threats of finding trouble makers, or Beijing interference etc. Not forgetting Beijing immediately threw out the system and produced their own electoral college, and IIRC required votes to be public before casting - how perfect for applying pressure. Carefully built an electoral college to be pro Beijing but that appears independent on the surface. They are show elections. Lam, like all Chief Execs before her, was Beijing's choice, but now HK is not as outsize an economy compared to China, Beijing feels able to breach the spirit and letter of the agreement they signed with far more impunity. So they're pushing more, harder, from relatively gentle interference in the 90s and early 00s. It's not an isolated one-off. Whether a technical breach by putting Chinese border and customs for the bridge in HK, or kidnapping and getting show confessions on TV of HK booksellers and publishers. They've got into the habit of interfering more and more, and being fairly crass about it. I'm not nearly as well informed as I was back around handover, but my few HK friends still there are now thinking (not sure how seriously yet) about emigration yet again, just as they had after Tiananmen, and after handover. What Beijing does seem to have done is wake up the younger generation who were generally more accepting of the system they grew up with until 14's umbrella protests.

_cs2017_ 7y ago
When managing a special territory like Hong Kong, I think Beijing's goal is to promote its interests as much as possible, at the lowest possible cost in terms of instability. What is the reason we observe seemingly the opposite policy: irritating people in silly ways, for little if any gain, and at a large cost in public discontent?
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  You would think so, wouldn't you? The only thing I can think is because HK has become so much less significant compared to the size of the Chinese economy, whilst Xi has been consolidating power ever since becoming president, removing term limits and so on. Rather like Putin in Russia. I suspect they are both prioritising differently than predecessors, or even themselves at the start of their presidency. At some point China seems to have switched from preserving the golden goose to trying to amalgamate and homogenise, so they've been steadily getting pro-Beijing Han Chinese to move to HK, and making larger changes. China's economy is fine even if HK struggles. The extradition is an odd one, as at the end of the 50 years of two systems I assume it won't be necessary, so simpler to just wait. I can't imagine it wasn't instigated by Beijing, with Lam tasked to deliver. Maybe it's a first move to compliance at all costs, more like in Tibet and Xinjiang. I sincerely hope not. Still, second guessing the why of their motives is way beyond my pay grade. :) At the end of the 50s when China threatened to invade if the British followed through with planned democracy, they also made very plain they'd like to keep HK just as it was. That is, a non-democratic colony that gave them a key route to trade with the West. Even though it had 10 years filling with skilled anti-communist refugees who fled the civil war and aftermath and kick-started HK in the first place. That clearly doesn't matter any more.
  - _cs2017_ 7y ago
    I find it hard to believe that HK doesn't matter. Even leaving aside the city's economic importance, uncontrolled civil unrest carries the risk of an overthrow of the city government, leading to a rejection of the Chinese sovereignty. (Not to mention, it may also ignite pro-democracy activism in the rest of China.) Losing HK is unacceptable to Beijing, so if the HK unrest goes too far, it will have be quelled. Doing so without bloodshed may be impossible. Such an outcome would cause a dramatic escalation in the anti-Beijing sentiment in the Western world. Trump may not care much about what Beijing does in HK but the rest of the US political forces, on both sides of the aisle, do; the resulting sanctions would make Trump's trade war look like a friendly prank. Many other countries would join the US, dealing such a serious blow to the Chinese economy that it may cause domestic problems. In fact, things could get even worse. The outraged US politicians might send troops to Taiwan (which is likely to experience a major anti-Beijing shift, leading to fears of a Beijing military action). De-escalating such a confrontation could get very tricky indeed. Obviously, I hope none of this happens. My point is that, from the perspective of the Beijing leadership, mistakes in HK are very dangerous. So I highly doubt that they don't care.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      > risk of an overthrow of the city government That's got to be a very slim chance. There's already Chinese troops in Hong Kong, and have been since handover. The change in tone was clear and noted in the handover ceremony itself. It's not going to be uncontrolled unrest. They already sent in riot police, tear gas and rubber bullets against not-rioting protesters. A real attempt to overthrow or coup would be quelled long before it was successful. So far more likely more riot police or a Tiananmen type event than a coup. To global outrage perhaps, but the West just kept on giving more trade and manufacturing after all the others. > it may also ignite pro-democracy activism in the rest of China That seems unlikely too, given how hard news of HK, some history and other activism is censored and firewalled in mainland China. I have no idea how much is "known" but not spoken of, nor how generally or what unofficial networks there are. Waking up sentiment in Taiwan would be the last thing they sought though, so it's a pretty clear misstep regardless of mainland. Logic and common sense isn't always prominent in international relations, as seen everywhere from Brexit to US and China. Decades of the West not caring two hoots, or even barely officially mentioning, what oversteps they are making in HK, Tibet or Xinjiang may have given president-for-life Xi the impression he can mostly do as he likes. South Africa got years of international sanctions, trade and sport embargoes, post-Tiananmen China got a few years of minor sanctions, then ever more Western manufacturing. The US barely kept sanctions up for two years. I'm not surprised Xi could end up thinking he gets near carte blanche. I'm more surprised you think we might sanction hard this time, when so much more depends on Chinese manufacturing, even if the president did prove willing. Yet as you say it could escalate far into unknown and globally damaging consequences if sentiment and confidence tips too far. So some people there are starting to talk of leaving again... We'll see.

_cs2017_ 7y ago

When managing a special territory like Hong Kong, I think Beijing's goal is to promote its interests as much as possible, at the lowest possible cost in terms of instability. What is the reason we observe seemingly the opposite policy: irritating people in silly ways, for little if any gain, and at a large cost in public discontent?

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
You would think so, wouldn't you? The only thing I can think is because HK has become so much less significant compared to the size of the Chinese economy, whilst Xi has been consolidating power ever since becoming president, removing term limits and so on. Rather like Putin in Russia. I suspect they are both prioritising differently than predecessors, or even themselves at the start of their presidency. At some point China seems to have switched from preserving the golden goose to trying to amalgamate and homogenise, so they've been steadily getting pro-Beijing Han Chinese to move to HK, and making larger changes. China's economy is fine even if HK struggles. The extradition is an odd one, as at the end of the 50 years of two systems I assume it won't be necessary, so simpler to just wait. I can't imagine it wasn't instigated by Beijing, with Lam tasked to deliver. Maybe it's a first move to compliance at all costs, more like in Tibet and Xinjiang. I sincerely hope not. Still, second guessing the why of their motives is way beyond my pay grade. :) At the end of the 50s when China threatened to invade if the British followed through with planned democracy, they also made very plain they'd like to keep HK just as it was. That is, a non-democratic colony that gave them a key route to trade with the West. Even though it had 10 years filling with skilled anti-communist refugees who fled the civil war and aftermath and kick-started HK in the first place. That clearly doesn't matter any more.
- _cs2017_ 7y ago
  I find it hard to believe that HK doesn't matter. Even leaving aside the city's economic importance, uncontrolled civil unrest carries the risk of an overthrow of the city government, leading to a rejection of the Chinese sovereignty. (Not to mention, it may also ignite pro-democracy activism in the rest of China.) Losing HK is unacceptable to Beijing, so if the HK unrest goes too far, it will have be quelled. Doing so without bloodshed may be impossible. Such an outcome would cause a dramatic escalation in the anti-Beijing sentiment in the Western world. Trump may not care much about what Beijing does in HK but the rest of the US political forces, on both sides of the aisle, do; the resulting sanctions would make Trump's trade war look like a friendly prank. Many other countries would join the US, dealing such a serious blow to the Chinese economy that it may cause domestic problems. In fact, things could get even worse. The outraged US politicians might send troops to Taiwan (which is likely to experience a major anti-Beijing shift, leading to fears of a Beijing military action). De-escalating such a confrontation could get very tricky indeed. Obviously, I hope none of this happens. My point is that, from the perspective of the Beijing leadership, mistakes in HK are very dangerous. So I highly doubt that they don't care.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    > risk of an overthrow of the city government That's got to be a very slim chance. There's already Chinese troops in Hong Kong, and have been since handover. The change in tone was clear and noted in the handover ceremony itself. It's not going to be uncontrolled unrest. They already sent in riot police, tear gas and rubber bullets against not-rioting protesters. A real attempt to overthrow or coup would be quelled long before it was successful. So far more likely more riot police or a Tiananmen type event than a coup. To global outrage perhaps, but the West just kept on giving more trade and manufacturing after all the others. > it may also ignite pro-democracy activism in the rest of China That seems unlikely too, given how hard news of HK, some history and other activism is censored and firewalled in mainland China. I have no idea how much is "known" but not spoken of, nor how generally or what unofficial networks there are. Waking up sentiment in Taiwan would be the last thing they sought though, so it's a pretty clear misstep regardless of mainland. Logic and common sense isn't always prominent in international relations, as seen everywhere from Brexit to US and China. Decades of the West not caring two hoots, or even barely officially mentioning, what oversteps they are making in HK, Tibet or Xinjiang may have given president-for-life Xi the impression he can mostly do as he likes. South Africa got years of international sanctions, trade and sport embargoes, post-Tiananmen China got a few years of minor sanctions, then ever more Western manufacturing. The US barely kept sanctions up for two years. I'm not surprised Xi could end up thinking he gets near carte blanche. I'm more surprised you think we might sanction hard this time, when so much more depends on Chinese manufacturing, even if the president did prove willing. Yet as you say it could escalate far into unknown and globally damaging consequences if sentiment and confidence tips too far. So some people there are starting to talk of leaving again... We'll see.