8 ms·

I really hope Hong Kong gains independence from China. They do not want to be part of that regime. Hong Kong currently participates in some United Nations commi

I really hope Hong Kong gains independence from China. They do not want to be part of that regime. Hong Kong currently participates in some United Nations committees, but is not recognized as a country. Have there been any political leaders in Hong Kong who have publicly opposed returning to China or who have requested recognition by other UN member States?

lordnacho 7y ago
This sounds like a complete no-go. Would the rest of the world accept HK as an independent state? Look how they're accepting Taiwan. Now add that China has actual agreements on the status of HK and Macau.
- sandworm101 7y ago
  >> During talks with Thatcher, China planned to invade and seize Hong Kong if the negotiations set off unrest in the colony. Thatcher later said that Deng told her bluntly that China could easily take Hong Kong by force, stating that "I could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon", to which she replied that "there is nothing I could do to stop you, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handover_of_Hong_Kong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handover_of_Hong_Kong The eyes of the world indeed do "know what China is like". They do not care. Should HK move towards independence, tanks will roll south and the world will do nothing.
  - inlined 7y ago
    It amazes me when suddenly something matters or it doesn’t. There were outcries over Crimea until there suddenly weren’t. There were no outcries over Syria until there suddenly were.
    - mooneater 7y ago
      Like the whole idea of a social tipping point? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(sociology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(sociology)
    - filoleg 7y ago
      I feel like the situation at hand is very different. Crimea, unlike Hong Kong, isn't an alpha+ city that is one of the most important financial hubs in the world. While capturing Crimea by RF was extremely reprehensible, there was not much at stake there for any side not directly involved in the conflict. All there was in Crimea situation is just a geopolitical projection of power. With Hong Kong, the stakes are way higher, and I don't think that straight up capture of Hong Kong (Crimea-style) will go over nearly as well. P.S. Also, not that it makes the situation any less reprehensible, keep in mind that heavy majority of Crimea population at the time of capture was ethnically Russian and was supportive of RF actions. Hong Kong residents, on the other hand, seem to be way less supportive of PRC.
      - jedberg 7y ago
        The unfortunate truth is that Hong Kong isn't nearly as important to global banking as it once was. China has a done a really great job handicapping them, for this very reason. So that it would be easier to absorb them.
        filoleg 7y ago
        That's the real leverage. Hong Kong's true potential is still there to be uncovered, and people remember how flourishing it was back then. Imagine how it could all blow up to even higher highs if the PRC rule was completely gone from Hong Kong. I feel like if that gate opens in the near future (i know, wishful thinking), HK will have its new golden age, as companies and individuals will not need to worry about PRC influence on HK anymore.
        bllguo 7y ago
        HK used to flourish because it was the access point between China and the West. If they completely severed ties with China there is no value proposition anymore... what "higher highs" are you anticipating, exactly?
        filoleg 7y ago
    - IAmEveryone 7y ago
      Economic sanctions against Russia have not changed, nor have other consequences of their action in Crimea, such as their exclusion from G7 (formerly G8, formerly G7+1). Sure, the topic has disappeared from the news. But that does not mean everything is back to normal. It just indicates the situation is frozen. More generally, territorial expansion by force has been extremely rare in recent history, compared to previous times. That would indicate that the practice generally being frowned upon, and the available actions in response, are somewhat effective. As to Syria, I remember hearing about it on the first day of protests. That's not to say it went well in any meaning of the word–there really aren't any good options once a government has decided to brutalise its own people. But it did get attention.
- klodolph 7y ago
  Taiwan is poster child for the difference between "de facto" and "de jure". I don't think you could sum up the situation with Taiwan quite so simply.
vkou 7y ago
Right, and Scotland wants to be independent from the UK, Catalonia from Spain, the Left Coast from the rest of the United States, and so on and so on. Every country has secessionist movements, and no country wants to encourage that sort of thing abroad, lest it bite it in the ass domestically.
- frozenport 7y ago
  US doesn't have any succesionist movement, that brings a thirds of the country outside.
- xiii1408 7y ago
  In each of those cases there's absolutely a process (albeit a long and arduous process) for secession. It's a process truly democratic countries need to have. Don't forget that Scotland very nearly did leave the UK, with the government's consent, in 2014 (but the referendum didn't pass). The Catalonia case is a bit murkier, since the Catalan government did not actually reach an agreement with the Spanish government before they went ahead with the referendum. Also because of irregularities seen by international observers during the referendum, the Catalonia referendum result was generally not recognized.
  - mrguyorama 7y ago
    I don't think the USA has a legal process for secession.
    - xiii1408 7y ago
      Yeah, there's at least a supreme court precedent, set by Texas v. White. It outlawed unilateral succession, but ruled that "revolution or consent of the states" can lead to secession.
      - vkou 7y ago
        The whole point of secession, whether in the US, or Catalonia, or in China[1], is that you have reached a point where you are not able to come to a bilateral compromise on issues that affect you. If you need bilateral support to exercise your right to self-determination, you don't actually, in practice, have any right to self-determination. It's like saying that you have the freedom to leave your abusive job, but only as long as your boss lets you quit. That's not freedom, that's slavery. [1] And yes, I am aware that the case in Scotland was a bit different. Props to the UK for being, as an outside observer, reasonable about the whole affair.
T-A 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngspiration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngspiration
khc 7y ago
I was born in Hong Kong but don't live there anymore, although I still visit regularly. That's a very simplistic view. Many people who oppose the Chinese government do not support complete independence. If there's a referendum on this I expect it to fail on a large margin.
rolltiide 7y ago
Do you think there is any scenario where it can be a bargaining chip that results in its independence? 1997 China is very different than 2019 China with regard to the successes in Shanghai's free trade zone and Guangzhou. The Communist Party is very very far from the teachings of Karl Marx and there is no outcome of a communist utopia that dissolves the central planners, after the means of production are completely egalitarian (a communist state is supposed to be a means to an end, all communist states have failed during this supposedly transitionary stage, China is stable in its central control of power, but doesn't seem to be aiming for a transaction to this fictional untested standard of governance). I don't get the impression that the people buy it, with so many known ways to effect private ownership and capital formation. The effect being that Hong Kong itself isn't that relevant and is more of a blight to undermine the Communist Party's power. How many resources does the party need to deploy to maintain this information leakage? There would be considerably less international heat on the Communist Party if they let go of their Special Administrative Regions. Other provinces don't derive their adherence to the party based on what happens to the SARs.
- duguxu 7y ago
  Uniting China has been the core political ideology for all major China dynasties across history, the same for CPC too. Let alone overthrowing the colonialism and getting independence is widely regarded as one of the greatest achievement and gives the legality of its governance.The resource deployed is chicken feed compared to the political crisis losing SARs.
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    Gaining more power is probably the only common thread among powerful men of all ideologies. "Uniting China" is just another way of saying "extend my control over more people." We shouldn't be surprised that expansionary rhetoric was common among all the major dynasties in what we today call China. This is not, however, a license to do so.

lordnacho 7y ago

This sounds like a complete no-go. Would the rest of the world accept HK as an independent state? Look how they're accepting Taiwan. Now add that China has actual agreements on the status of HK and Macau.

sandworm101 7y ago
>> During talks with Thatcher, China planned to invade and seize Hong Kong if the negotiations set off unrest in the colony. Thatcher later said that Deng told her bluntly that China could easily take Hong Kong by force, stating that "I could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon", to which she replied that "there is nothing I could do to stop you, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handover_of_Hong_Kong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handover_of_Hong_Kong The eyes of the world indeed do "know what China is like". They do not care. Should HK move towards independence, tanks will roll south and the world will do nothing.
- inlined 7y ago
  It amazes me when suddenly something matters or it doesn’t. There were outcries over Crimea until there suddenly weren’t. There were no outcries over Syria until there suddenly were.
  - mooneater 7y ago
    Like the whole idea of a social tipping point? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(sociology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(sociology)
  - filoleg 7y ago
    I feel like the situation at hand is very different. Crimea, unlike Hong Kong, isn't an alpha+ city that is one of the most important financial hubs in the world. While capturing Crimea by RF was extremely reprehensible, there was not much at stake there for any side not directly involved in the conflict. All there was in Crimea situation is just a geopolitical projection of power. With Hong Kong, the stakes are way higher, and I don't think that straight up capture of Hong Kong (Crimea-style) will go over nearly as well. P.S. Also, not that it makes the situation any less reprehensible, keep in mind that heavy majority of Crimea population at the time of capture was ethnically Russian and was supportive of RF actions. Hong Kong residents, on the other hand, seem to be way less supportive of PRC.
    - jedberg 7y ago
      The unfortunate truth is that Hong Kong isn't nearly as important to global banking as it once was. China has a done a really great job handicapping them, for this very reason. So that it would be easier to absorb them.
      - filoleg 7y ago
        That's the real leverage. Hong Kong's true potential is still there to be uncovered, and people remember how flourishing it was back then. Imagine how it could all blow up to even higher highs if the PRC rule was completely gone from Hong Kong. I feel like if that gate opens in the near future (i know, wishful thinking), HK will have its new golden age, as companies and individuals will not need to worry about PRC influence on HK anymore.
        bllguo 7y ago
        HK used to flourish because it was the access point between China and the West. If they completely severed ties with China there is no value proposition anymore... what "higher highs" are you anticipating, exactly?
        filoleg 7y ago
  - IAmEveryone 7y ago
    Economic sanctions against Russia have not changed, nor have other consequences of their action in Crimea, such as their exclusion from G7 (formerly G8, formerly G7+1). Sure, the topic has disappeared from the news. But that does not mean everything is back to normal. It just indicates the situation is frozen. More generally, territorial expansion by force has been extremely rare in recent history, compared to previous times. That would indicate that the practice generally being frowned upon, and the available actions in response, are somewhat effective. As to Syria, I remember hearing about it on the first day of protests. That's not to say it went well in any meaning of the word–there really aren't any good options once a government has decided to brutalise its own people. But it did get attention.
klodolph 7y ago
Taiwan is poster child for the difference between "de facto" and "de jure". I don't think you could sum up the situation with Taiwan quite so simply.

vkou 7y ago

Right, and Scotland wants to be independent from the UK, Catalonia from Spain, the Left Coast from the rest of the United States, and so on and so on. Every country has secessionist movements, and no country wants to encourage that sort of thing abroad, lest it bite it in the ass domestically.

frozenport 7y ago
US doesn't have any succesionist movement, that brings a thirds of the country outside.
xiii1408 7y ago
In each of those cases there's absolutely a process (albeit a long and arduous process) for secession. It's a process truly democratic countries need to have. Don't forget that Scotland very nearly did leave the UK, with the government's consent, in 2014 (but the referendum didn't pass). The Catalonia case is a bit murkier, since the Catalan government did not actually reach an agreement with the Spanish government before they went ahead with the referendum. Also because of irregularities seen by international observers during the referendum, the Catalonia referendum result was generally not recognized.
- mrguyorama 7y ago
  I don't think the USA has a legal process for secession.
  - xiii1408 7y ago
    Yeah, there's at least a supreme court precedent, set by Texas v. White. It outlawed unilateral succession, but ruled that "revolution or consent of the states" can lead to secession.
    - vkou 7y ago
      The whole point of secession, whether in the US, or Catalonia, or in China[1], is that you have reached a point where you are not able to come to a bilateral compromise on issues that affect you. If you need bilateral support to exercise your right to self-determination, you don't actually, in practice, have any right to self-determination. It's like saying that you have the freedom to leave your abusive job, but only as long as your boss lets you quit. That's not freedom, that's slavery. [1] And yes, I am aware that the case in Scotland was a bit different. Props to the UK for being, as an outside observer, reasonable about the whole affair.

T-A 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngspiration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngspiration

khc 7y ago

I was born in Hong Kong but don't live there anymore, although I still visit regularly. That's a very simplistic view. Many people who oppose the Chinese government do not support complete independence. If there's a referendum on this I expect it to fail on a large margin.

rolltiide 7y ago

Do you think there is any scenario where it can be a bargaining chip that results in its independence? 1997 China is very different than 2019 China with regard to the successes in Shanghai's free trade zone and Guangzhou. The Communist Party is very very far from the teachings of Karl Marx and there is no outcome of a communist utopia that dissolves the central planners, after the means of production are completely egalitarian (a communist state is supposed to be a means to an end, all communist states have failed during this supposedly transitionary stage, China is stable in its central control of power, but doesn't seem to be aiming for a transaction to this fictional untested standard of governance). I don't get the impression that the people buy it, with so many known ways to effect private ownership and capital formation. The effect being that Hong Kong itself isn't that relevant and is more of a blight to undermine the Communist Party's power. How many resources does the party need to deploy to maintain this information leakage? There would be considerably less international heat on the Communist Party if they let go of their Special Administrative Regions. Other provinces don't derive their adherence to the party based on what happens to the SARs.

duguxu 7y ago
Uniting China has been the core political ideology for all major China dynasties across history, the same for CPC too. Let alone overthrowing the colonialism and getting independence is widely regarded as one of the greatest achievement and gives the legality of its governance.The resource deployed is chicken feed compared to the political crisis losing SARs.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  Gaining more power is probably the only common thread among powerful men of all ideologies. "Uniting China" is just another way of saying "extend my control over more people." We shouldn't be surprised that expansionary rhetoric was common among all the major dynasties in what we today call China. This is not, however, a license to do so.