7 ms·

I'm afraid they've lost: there are patently zero countries with the political will to defend Hong Kong.

ryanlol 7y ago
Luckily we now live in a world where this could change rather quickly. Information moves much faster than it did decades ago.
Causality1 7y ago
Smart approach would be offering blanket asylum status to Honk Kong residents. The US could certainly use seven million educated, hardworking people.
- headsoup 7y ago
  Yeah but they also like democracy and I don't think that's in the current US administration's interests...
- remarkEon 7y ago
  This would absolutely risk an actual shooting war, so no it is not a "smart approach". I get it that people are mad that democracy is under attack in Hong Kong, but this drift into considering extreme reactions is getting ridiculous.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    Hong Kong is not now and has never been a democracy. The PRC government informer the British they’d invade if they instituted democracy and they haven’t gotten any friendlier to the idea since.
    - remarkEon 7y ago
      I'm aware. I said that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, because "defending democracy" is a favorite method of building up a case for military intervention.
- idlewords 7y ago
  BRING THE DIM SUM
- r00fus 7y ago
  I would be surprised if US under Trump administration would even consider doing that.
- alasdair_ 7y ago
  The US is currently in the middle of a crackdown on asylum seekers in general.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  About 3.4m Hong Kong people have British National (Overseas) status and can immigrate to the U.K. tomorrow should they wish to do so. I imagine a substantial number of those not entitled to BNO are children of those who are and would be able to migrate with their family if their entire family leaves. All the Chinese who moved to Hong Kong after the handover are screwed however. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_(Overseas) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_(Overseas) > Applicants were required to be British Dependent Territories citizens by a connection with Hong Kong.[30] While about 3.4 million people acquired the status,[41] 2.5 million non-BDTC residents (virtually all Chinese nationals) were ineligible.[42] Those ineligible who wished to register as BN(O)s were required to have been naturalised as Hong Kong-connected BDTCs by 31 March 1996. Acquiring Hong Kong BDTC status other than by birth was no longer possible after that date.[37]
  - vmlinuz 7y ago
    > About 3.4m Hong Kong people have British National (Overseas) status and can immigrate to the U.K. tomorrow should they wish to do so. No, they can't. BN(O) was created pretty much exactly for the purpose of allowing British Hong Kong citizens to retain their British passports without any sort of right of residency in the UK. The UK didn't want millions of foreign refugees with a claim to residency to appear on their doorstep any more than any other country would (have?)... https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-national-overseas https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-nati... "you: are subject to immigration controls and do not have the automatic right to live or work in the UK"
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      You’re right.
peteretep 7y ago
There are precisely no countries able to intervene militarily here.
- Bud 7y ago
  False. The US is able. Just not willing.
  - peteretep 7y ago
    Go on, how would the US intervene militarily here? This isn't Island Fortress Taiwan, where there's already a base and a sizeable strait between it and the mainland.
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      > how would the US intervene militarily here? Park a carrier strike group offshore, guarantee safe passage and refugee status to any Hong Kong resident wanting it, and provide transport to a host country. It would take tremendous political will and resources. But this would be the non-violent, humanitarian and decisive way to intervene.
      - sametmax 7y ago
        China would respond with putting a navy embargo on their territorial waters, blocking it. Now what ?
        pas 7y ago
        Airlift the people out. After all HK has the right to conduct its own foreign policy.
        sametmax 7y ago
        The Chinese army will just block the few places where you can land with infantry. At which point do you think the first bullet of the war fires ?
kyconny 7y ago
The UK is very unlikely to just sit and watch China be troublesome.
- idlewords 7y ago
  They are probably already drafting the strongly-worded letter
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  The UK has spent 22 years sitting and watching China be troublesome in HK, uttering barely a word. Chris Patten (the last governor, former chairman of the Tory party and despised by Beijing) has repeatedly criticised government and Tory party for it. UK has precious little leverage left except trade sanctions, which is a far weaker lever as we leave the EU. Nonetheless HKers have taken out ads targeting UK gov requesting sanctions be imposed: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/24/hong-kong-activists-target-uk-government-with-ad-campaign https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/24/hong-kong-acti...
  - steve19 7y ago
    To be fair I think they had no power, only influence, inside the EU. Now they have no influence but only a small amount of power and no real leverage. Given China's silk road deals with Italy, I don't think any EU action will be forthcoming UK or no UK.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Very true, on both counts. Though laughably UK was once respected for what it brought to international relations. Had UK been a more willing EU member they may once have been able to galvanise some EU action. The problem for anyone contemplating China sanctions is we got too dependent on them, making sanctions too expensive.
- steve19 7y ago
  Unlike France the UK has long since checked out of being a colonial power. And even if they wanted to do so, the great naval power that was Britian seems unable to stop Iranians from hijacking their ships.
jeswin 7y ago
Western Europe is the weak link in sustaining democratic movements worldwide. Its economic clout is enormous, but will refuse to use it in any meaningful way because it will incur short-term hardship and possibly loss of support at home. While being a good example of many modern values, Europe has no will to confront when things go wrong. If the last two big conflicts were due to European actions, the next one will be due their inaction at the appropriate time. I am not American.
- steve19 7y ago
  That they ignored Ukraine means they will ignore just about anything, even if it happens on their borders. A loose union like the EU is unlikely to ever even threaten war, which is more or less the point of it I guess.
  - pas 7y ago
    What do you mean they ignored Crimea/Donbass? The EU did what it is best at, money stuff. Sanctions against Moscow and cheap debt/aid to Kiev. What else should/could it do?
- remarkEon 7y ago
  >...but will refuse to use it in any meaningful way because it will incur short-term hardship and possibly loss of support at home It's fascinating to see people advocate that European leaders should ignore the democratically expressed wishes of their own people in order to support "democracy" on the other side of the planet.
- pas 7y ago
  The problem is that we see how hard it is to see such a liberation/democratization campaign through. (Iraq, Afghanistan) And in the end what is democracy? Will of the people. Great, what if the people are trigger happy xenophobics? (Just look at how nationalist populism is on the rise in democratic countries.)
  - hker 7y ago
bufferoverflow 7y ago
I agree. Their only solution right now is to give out rifles and ammo to every citizen, if they want to remain free from the tyranny.
- sametmax 7y ago
  China, population 1.3 billions. Honk Kong, population 7 millions. Give them all the weapons you want, they will get crushed.
  - bufferoverflow 7y ago
    Yes, but they would have to murder millions to take over. The rest of the world will likely not agree with that.
    - sametmax 7y ago
      We have let it happen in Africa many times, buy people with mostly machetes. Here we are talking about what is now the biggest, baddest bully in the room. 1.3 billion people, our entire economy in hostage and the nuclear bomb. Chine doesn't have to worry about the opinion of the rest of world.
      - bufferoverflow 7y ago
        Millions of people killed with machetes? Never happened.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - MagnumOpus 7y ago
      They could just turn off water and electricity and blockade naval food imports. Any independence movement would capitulate within a week (or starve within two). Which is the reason why HK was gifted to the PRC in the first place - it cannot be defended against a siege.

Luckily we now live in a world where this could change rather quickly. Information moves much faster than it did decades ago.

Causality1 7y ago

Smart approach would be offering blanket asylum status to Honk Kong residents. The US could certainly use seven million educated, hardworking people.

headsoup 7y ago
Yeah but they also like democracy and I don't think that's in the current US administration's interests...
remarkEon 7y ago
This would absolutely risk an actual shooting war, so no it is not a "smart approach". I get it that people are mad that democracy is under attack in Hong Kong, but this drift into considering extreme reactions is getting ridiculous.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  Hong Kong is not now and has never been a democracy. The PRC government informer the British they’d invade if they instituted democracy and they haven’t gotten any friendlier to the idea since.
  - remarkEon 7y ago
    I'm aware. I said that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, because "defending democracy" is a favorite method of building up a case for military intervention.
idlewords 7y ago
BRING THE DIM SUM
r00fus 7y ago
I would be surprised if US under Trump administration would even consider doing that.
alasdair_ 7y ago
The US is currently in the middle of a crackdown on asylum seekers in general.
barry-cotter 7y ago
About 3.4m Hong Kong people have British National (Overseas) status and can immigrate to the U.K. tomorrow should they wish to do so. I imagine a substantial number of those not entitled to BNO are children of those who are and would be able to migrate with their family if their entire family leaves. All the Chinese who moved to Hong Kong after the handover are screwed however. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_(Overseas) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_(Overseas) > Applicants were required to be British Dependent Territories citizens by a connection with Hong Kong.[30] While about 3.4 million people acquired the status,[41] 2.5 million non-BDTC residents (virtually all Chinese nationals) were ineligible.[42] Those ineligible who wished to register as BN(O)s were required to have been naturalised as Hong Kong-connected BDTCs by 31 March 1996. Acquiring Hong Kong BDTC status other than by birth was no longer possible after that date.[37]
- vmlinuz 7y ago
  > About 3.4m Hong Kong people have British National (Overseas) status and can immigrate to the U.K. tomorrow should they wish to do so. No, they can't. BN(O) was created pretty much exactly for the purpose of allowing British Hong Kong citizens to retain their British passports without any sort of right of residency in the UK. The UK didn't want millions of foreign refugees with a claim to residency to appear on their doorstep any more than any other country would (have?)... https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-national-overseas https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-nati... "you: are subject to immigration controls and do not have the automatic right to live or work in the UK"
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    You’re right.

peteretep 7y ago

There are precisely no countries able to intervene militarily here.

Bud 7y ago
False. The US is able. Just not willing.
- peteretep 7y ago
  Go on, how would the US intervene militarily here? This isn't Island Fortress Taiwan, where there's already a base and a sizeable strait between it and the mainland.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > how would the US intervene militarily here? Park a carrier strike group offshore, guarantee safe passage and refugee status to any Hong Kong resident wanting it, and provide transport to a host country. It would take tremendous political will and resources. But this would be the non-violent, humanitarian and decisive way to intervene.
    - sametmax 7y ago
      China would respond with putting a navy embargo on their territorial waters, blocking it. Now what ?
      - pas 7y ago
        Airlift the people out. After all HK has the right to conduct its own foreign policy.
        sametmax 7y ago
        The Chinese army will just block the few places where you can land with infantry. At which point do you think the first bullet of the war fires ?

kyconny 7y ago

The UK is very unlikely to just sit and watch China be troublesome.

idlewords 7y ago
They are probably already drafting the strongly-worded letter
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
The UK has spent 22 years sitting and watching China be troublesome in HK, uttering barely a word. Chris Patten (the last governor, former chairman of the Tory party and despised by Beijing) has repeatedly criticised government and Tory party for it. UK has precious little leverage left except trade sanctions, which is a far weaker lever as we leave the EU. Nonetheless HKers have taken out ads targeting UK gov requesting sanctions be imposed: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/24/hong-kong-activists-target-uk-government-with-ad-campaign https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/24/hong-kong-acti...
- steve19 7y ago
  To be fair I think they had no power, only influence, inside the EU. Now they have no influence but only a small amount of power and no real leverage. Given China's silk road deals with Italy, I don't think any EU action will be forthcoming UK or no UK.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Very true, on both counts. Though laughably UK was once respected for what it brought to international relations. Had UK been a more willing EU member they may once have been able to galvanise some EU action. The problem for anyone contemplating China sanctions is we got too dependent on them, making sanctions too expensive.
steve19 7y ago
Unlike France the UK has long since checked out of being a colonial power. And even if they wanted to do so, the great naval power that was Britian seems unable to stop Iranians from hijacking their ships.

jeswin 7y ago

Western Europe is the weak link in sustaining democratic movements worldwide. Its economic clout is enormous, but will refuse to use it in any meaningful way because it will incur short-term hardship and possibly loss of support at home. While being a good example of many modern values, Europe has no will to confront when things go wrong. If the last two big conflicts were due to European actions, the next one will be due their inaction at the appropriate time. I am not American.

steve19 7y ago
That they ignored Ukraine means they will ignore just about anything, even if it happens on their borders. A loose union like the EU is unlikely to ever even threaten war, which is more or less the point of it I guess.
- pas 7y ago
  What do you mean they ignored Crimea/Donbass? The EU did what it is best at, money stuff. Sanctions against Moscow and cheap debt/aid to Kiev. What else should/could it do?
remarkEon 7y ago
>...but will refuse to use it in any meaningful way because it will incur short-term hardship and possibly loss of support at home It's fascinating to see people advocate that European leaders should ignore the democratically expressed wishes of their own people in order to support "democracy" on the other side of the planet.
pas 7y ago
The problem is that we see how hard it is to see such a liberation/democratization campaign through. (Iraq, Afghanistan) And in the end what is democracy? Will of the people. Great, what if the people are trigger happy xenophobics? (Just look at how nationalist populism is on the rise in democratic countries.)
- hker 7y ago

bufferoverflow 7y ago

I agree. Their only solution right now is to give out rifles and ammo to every citizen, if they want to remain free from the tyranny.

sametmax 7y ago
China, population 1.3 billions. Honk Kong, population 7 millions. Give them all the weapons you want, they will get crushed.
- bufferoverflow 7y ago
  Yes, but they would have to murder millions to take over. The rest of the world will likely not agree with that.
  - sametmax 7y ago
    We have let it happen in Africa many times, buy people with mostly machetes. Here we are talking about what is now the biggest, baddest bully in the room. 1.3 billion people, our entire economy in hostage and the nuclear bomb. Chine doesn't have to worry about the opinion of the rest of world.
    - bufferoverflow 7y ago
      Millions of people killed with machetes? Never happened.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - MagnumOpus 7y ago
    They could just turn off water and electricity and blockade naval food imports. Any independence movement would capitulate within a week (or starve within two). Which is the reason why HK was gifted to the PRC in the first place - it cannot be defended against a siege.