6 ms·

Sigh. Hopefully we won't get a repeat of the Tiananmen square massacre. I've not seen any nations speak out about the HK protests. Unlike, say, when many expres

Sigh. Hopefully we won't get a repeat of the Tiananmen square massacre. I've not seen any nations speak out about the HK protests. Unlike, say, when many expressed support for the Arab Spring.

icebraining 7y ago
Unlike the governments of the countries in the Arab Spring, China knows the west won't try anything (overtly), so a statement would only look foolish and help their claims that the protests are orchestrated, rather than serving as a warning.
- dukoid 7y ago
  I suspect the real reason is fear of retaliation from China... Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Norway_relations#2010:_Nobel_Peace_Prize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Norway_relations...
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Sure, both are consequences of the same overall point: the west doesn't have the same power over China that it had over the AS countries.
    - mcny 7y ago
      > Sure, both are consequences of the same overall point: the west doesn't have the same power over China that it had over the AS countries. China PR (the de facto mainland government) already blames the US for Hong Kong protests. Things will get worse if we do something overt. https://archive.fo/VHiXL https://archive.fo/VHiXL
A2017U1 7y ago
How much money did private enterprise make from the Arab Spring? Hundred billion or so? To pretend like it was a moral issue is insane. Most people don't care in the slightest in democratic countries. Virtually every country involved in sending troops couldn't point to it on a map nor talk about the region with any sort of knowledge. We walked in and replaced Hussein with ISIS. It will go down as 21st century Vietnam. China has nukes. Absolutely nothing will happen regardless, just like 30 years ago. Perhaps some more outrage on twitter I guess?
- gurkendoktor 7y ago
  > China has nukes. Absolutely nothing will happen China has shown (again) in their treatment of Hong Kong that they don't care about past agreements. The least that anyone can do, even in the presence of nukes, is to get their business out of China, and that is already happening to some degree. And of course be welcoming to people who choose to emigrate from Hong Kong.
  - A2017U1 7y ago
    This strikes to the heart of what my comment mentioned though: the vast majority of people don't care, Western consumer people especially. Not supporting it, simply saying it. Make them care and things might change, truly. Don't bother with CEO's or governments, we all know who they serve.
    - loyukfai 7y ago
      How you can make people from one part of the world care for people from another part of the world? If anythin, most HKers aren't very interested in what's happening around the world either, AFAIK.
  - krageon 7y ago
    China was always going to annex Hong Kong eventually, this is something almost everyone with any interest in this particular situation has known for many years. Spinning that particular situation in a reason to boycott a country (and replace it with what? India isn't exactly a paragon of virtue and neither is the US, and let us never speak of the stain that is Russia) is a strange mental place to go to.
    - StreamBright 7y ago
      > China was always going to annex Hong Kong eventually, You cannot annex your own territory.
      - 7y ago
gadders 7y ago
The UK got in a bit of a row with China about it: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/03/foreign-office-calls-in-china-ambassador-over-hong-kong-protests https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/03/foreign-offi...
- sschueller 7y ago
  I find this quite interesting: "In the Joint Declaration, the PRC Government stated that it had decided to resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong (including Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, and the New Territories) with effect from 1 July 1997, and the UK Government declared that it would hand over Hong Kong to the PRC with effect from 1 July 1997. The PRC Government also declared its basic policies regarding Hong Kong in the document. In accordance with the "one country, two systems" principle agreed between the UK and the PRC, the socialist system of PRC would not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), and Hong Kong's previous capitalist system and its way of life would remain unchanged for a period of 50 years until 2047." [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration
  - tialaramex 7y ago
    It suited both sides for the transition to be gradual. For the UK there was concern that if the PLA arrived in force in Hong Kong overnight to make it part of China in practice as well as in law many, perhaps millions, would try to defy them and demand sanctuary from the British. The international community, looking on, would certainly prefer the story "This is Britain's responsibility" over "We all need to take some of these people". So then either the UK has to find somewhere to put a LOT of people or it is seen to have failed badly as the Chinese put down the resistance. For China it was recognition that their notional sovereignty over all of "China" must be temporarily shadowed by the consideration that Hong Kong is not just some nice waterfront property (which they could have seized at any time by military force) it's a people, a culture, lots of successful businesses. If you roll in with tanks overnight that probably goes away and you might not get it back. But gradual is the thing. "Unchanged for a period of 50 years" is merely the ambition on paper. Nobody in Hong Kong thought they'd wake up in 2046 still under the same democracy they'd had under the British. Things get chipped away, they shade over, decisions are made that might once have been different, this year's protests are about some of the less subtle changes. Gradual change suited both parties. Not the people of Hong Kong themselves of course, but they weren't signatories.
cm2187 7y ago
The Arab spring is probably a bad example. The west got a bit over-enthusiastic about the Arab Spring which turns out to be more of an Islamist Spring. I don't think many people think it was a good idea to destabilize Libya and Syria in hindsight.
- loyukfai 7y ago
  Indeed I have the perception that the western reports were biased towards Western democracatic values.
- chosenbreed37 7y ago
  It was a terrible idea. I think Libya was better with the dictator they got rid off with the aid of the airstrikes. Same thing with Syria. The warring parties should have been left to sort it out among themselves. Naive interventions tend to have lots of unintended (harmful) consequences.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
avip 7y ago
Support of Arab spring reflected ignorance and naivety, not something we need more of.
52-6F-62 7y ago
Trudeau has spoken a little on the subject: "We are calling for peace, for order, for dialogue … we certainly call on China to be very careful and very respectful in how it deals with people who have legitimate concerns in Hong Kong," Trudeau told a televised news conference in Toronto. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-concerned-hong-kong-1.5244574 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-concerned-hong-kong...
- jammygit 7y ago
  Trudeau has mismanaged a few things, but I’m glad to hear him speaking up here.

Sigh. Hopefully we won't get a repeat of the Tiananmen square massacre. I've not seen any nations speak out about the HK protests. Unlike, say, when many expressed support for the Arab Spring.

icebraining 7y ago

Unlike the governments of the countries in the Arab Spring, China knows the west won't try anything (overtly), so a statement would only look foolish and help their claims that the protests are orchestrated, rather than serving as a warning.

dukoid 7y ago
I suspect the real reason is fear of retaliation from China... Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Norway_relations#2010:_Nobel_Peace_Prize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Norway_relations...
- icebraining 7y ago
  Sure, both are consequences of the same overall point: the west doesn't have the same power over China that it had over the AS countries.
  - mcny 7y ago
    > Sure, both are consequences of the same overall point: the west doesn't have the same power over China that it had over the AS countries. China PR (the de facto mainland government) already blames the US for Hong Kong protests. Things will get worse if we do something overt. https://archive.fo/VHiXL https://archive.fo/VHiXL

A2017U1 7y ago

How much money did private enterprise make from the Arab Spring? Hundred billion or so? To pretend like it was a moral issue is insane. Most people don't care in the slightest in democratic countries. Virtually every country involved in sending troops couldn't point to it on a map nor talk about the region with any sort of knowledge. We walked in and replaced Hussein with ISIS. It will go down as 21st century Vietnam. China has nukes. Absolutely nothing will happen regardless, just like 30 years ago. Perhaps some more outrage on twitter I guess?

gurkendoktor 7y ago
> China has nukes. Absolutely nothing will happen China has shown (again) in their treatment of Hong Kong that they don't care about past agreements. The least that anyone can do, even in the presence of nukes, is to get their business out of China, and that is already happening to some degree. And of course be welcoming to people who choose to emigrate from Hong Kong.
- A2017U1 7y ago
  This strikes to the heart of what my comment mentioned though: the vast majority of people don't care, Western consumer people especially. Not supporting it, simply saying it. Make them care and things might change, truly. Don't bother with CEO's or governments, we all know who they serve.
  - loyukfai 7y ago
    How you can make people from one part of the world care for people from another part of the world? If anythin, most HKers aren't very interested in what's happening around the world either, AFAIK.
- krageon 7y ago
  China was always going to annex Hong Kong eventually, this is something almost everyone with any interest in this particular situation has known for many years. Spinning that particular situation in a reason to boycott a country (and replace it with what? India isn't exactly a paragon of virtue and neither is the US, and let us never speak of the stain that is Russia) is a strange mental place to go to.
  - StreamBright 7y ago
    > China was always going to annex Hong Kong eventually, You cannot annex your own territory.
    - 7y ago

gadders 7y ago

The UK got in a bit of a row with China about it: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/03/foreign-office-calls-in-china-ambassador-over-hong-kong-protests https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/03/foreign-offi...

sschueller 7y ago
I find this quite interesting: "In the Joint Declaration, the PRC Government stated that it had decided to resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong (including Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, and the New Territories) with effect from 1 July 1997, and the UK Government declared that it would hand over Hong Kong to the PRC with effect from 1 July 1997. The PRC Government also declared its basic policies regarding Hong Kong in the document. In accordance with the "one country, two systems" principle agreed between the UK and the PRC, the socialist system of PRC would not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), and Hong Kong's previous capitalist system and its way of life would remain unchanged for a period of 50 years until 2047." [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration
- tialaramex 7y ago
  It suited both sides for the transition to be gradual. For the UK there was concern that if the PLA arrived in force in Hong Kong overnight to make it part of China in practice as well as in law many, perhaps millions, would try to defy them and demand sanctuary from the British. The international community, looking on, would certainly prefer the story "This is Britain's responsibility" over "We all need to take some of these people". So then either the UK has to find somewhere to put a LOT of people or it is seen to have failed badly as the Chinese put down the resistance. For China it was recognition that their notional sovereignty over all of "China" must be temporarily shadowed by the consideration that Hong Kong is not just some nice waterfront property (which they could have seized at any time by military force) it's a people, a culture, lots of successful businesses. If you roll in with tanks overnight that probably goes away and you might not get it back. But gradual is the thing. "Unchanged for a period of 50 years" is merely the ambition on paper. Nobody in Hong Kong thought they'd wake up in 2046 still under the same democracy they'd had under the British. Things get chipped away, they shade over, decisions are made that might once have been different, this year's protests are about some of the less subtle changes. Gradual change suited both parties. Not the people of Hong Kong themselves of course, but they weren't signatories.

cm2187 7y ago

The Arab spring is probably a bad example. The west got a bit over-enthusiastic about the Arab Spring which turns out to be more of an Islamist Spring. I don't think many people think it was a good idea to destabilize Libya and Syria in hindsight.

loyukfai 7y ago
Indeed I have the perception that the western reports were biased towards Western democracatic values.
chosenbreed37 7y ago
It was a terrible idea. I think Libya was better with the dictator they got rid off with the aid of the airstrikes. Same thing with Syria. The warring parties should have been left to sort it out among themselves. Naive interventions tend to have lots of unintended (harmful) consequences.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

avip 7y ago

Support of Arab spring reflected ignorance and naivety, not something we need more of.

52-6F-62 7y ago

Trudeau has spoken a little on the subject: "We are calling for peace, for order, for dialogue … we certainly call on China to be very careful and very respectful in how it deals with people who have legitimate concerns in Hong Kong," Trudeau told a televised news conference in Toronto. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-concerned-hong-kong-1.5244574 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-concerned-hong-kong...

jammygit 7y ago
Trudeau has mismanaged a few things, but I’m glad to hear him speaking up here.