5 ms·

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 be

by 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
  > The problem is that we see how hard it is to see such a liberation/democratization campaign through. (Iraq, Afghanistan) I don’t think Iraq or Afghanistan is a fair comparison to Hong Kong regarding the progress or prospect of liberation/democratization. For one, Hong Kongers have been used to elections for almost 30 years now (since 1991), have practiced free press and rule of law, and mostly free of corruption, so I think Taiwan may be a closer comparison in terms of how liberation/democratization of Hong Kong would become. The recent frustration towards elections in Hong Kong (which is also one root cause of the on-going protests) is that the elections are far from representative or universal suffrage (half of the seats in the Legislative Council–the functional constituencies–have pretty limited representation, while the Chief Executive is elected by a pro-Beijing committee of 1200 out of a population of 7M+), and that some elected members of the Legislative Council who are pro-Hong Kong got outright disqualified. A liberation/democratization of Hong Kong means such issues are fixed, which is more like Taiwan than Iraq or Afghanistan. > Great, what if the people are trigger happy xenophobics? I would say that xenophobism would not be a problem in Hong Kong, because the pro-democratic (and even the localist) camp cherish cultural values and core values (e.g. democracy, freedom, and rule of law), and ignore differences in ethnicity or origin. For example, Edward Leung, currently in prison but was a key figure of the localist group Hong Kong Indigenous, was born in Wuhan, China. For another example, Nabela Qoser, a Pakistani news reporter who speaks fluent Cantonese and long regarded as a Hong Konger, is called a heroine by the pro-democratic and localist camp for asking pointed questions towards the Chief Executive (Carrie Lam) during the most recent press conference on 22 July. By contrast, the pro-Beijing establishment (and anti-democratic) camp is in general more xenophobic: quite a number of their supporters are against the presense of non-Chinese (in terms of ethnicity).
  - pas 7y ago
    The problem I see is that it's frighteningly easy to lure otherwise normal people toward totalitarianism. How come there are HKers that are pro-Beijing at all? I mean sure, they might on the short term gain more, but this kind of thinking poisons every political system. And I'm not saying I know a better one, but seeing these events unfold is very disheartening.

by jeswin 7y ago

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
> The problem is that we see how hard it is to see such a liberation/democratization campaign through. (Iraq, Afghanistan) I don’t think Iraq or Afghanistan is a fair comparison to Hong Kong regarding the progress or prospect of liberation/democratization. For one, Hong Kongers have been used to elections for almost 30 years now (since 1991), have practiced free press and rule of law, and mostly free of corruption, so I think Taiwan may be a closer comparison in terms of how liberation/democratization of Hong Kong would become. The recent frustration towards elections in Hong Kong (which is also one root cause of the on-going protests) is that the elections are far from representative or universal suffrage (half of the seats in the Legislative Council–the functional constituencies–have pretty limited representation, while the Chief Executive is elected by a pro-Beijing committee of 1200 out of a population of 7M+), and that some elected members of the Legislative Council who are pro-Hong Kong got outright disqualified. A liberation/democratization of Hong Kong means such issues are fixed, which is more like Taiwan than Iraq or Afghanistan. > Great, what if the people are trigger happy xenophobics? I would say that xenophobism would not be a problem in Hong Kong, because the pro-democratic (and even the localist) camp cherish cultural values and core values (e.g. democracy, freedom, and rule of law), and ignore differences in ethnicity or origin. For example, Edward Leung, currently in prison but was a key figure of the localist group Hong Kong Indigenous, was born in Wuhan, China. For another example, Nabela Qoser, a Pakistani news reporter who speaks fluent Cantonese and long regarded as a Hong Konger, is called a heroine by the pro-democratic and localist camp for asking pointed questions towards the Chief Executive (Carrie Lam) during the most recent press conference on 22 July. By contrast, the pro-Beijing establishment (and anti-democratic) camp is in general more xenophobic: quite a number of their supporters are against the presense of non-Chinese (in terms of ethnicity).
- pas 7y ago
  The problem I see is that it's frighteningly easy to lure otherwise normal people toward totalitarianism. How come there are HKers that are pro-Beijing at all? I mean sure, they might on the short term gain more, but this kind of thinking poisons every political system. And I'm not saying I know a better one, but seeing these events unfold is very disheartening.