4 ms·

Can’t mainland China just let Hong Kong burn itself? There seems to be little incentive for China to either provide reforms (which would embolden the protestors

by ummonk 7y ago

Can’t mainland China just let Hong Kong burn itself? There seems to be little incentive for China to either provide reforms (which would embolden the protestors) or do an authoritarian crackdown (the everyone burns scenario). It would seem they can just wait it out and let the protests paralyze Hong Kong until even local sentiments turn against them.

HenryBemis 7y ago
There is no sense into trying to find a rational action/reaction from China. It is one of those states that meet resistance with blood. Always have. Most likely always will. They play the looooooong game (like Russia and Turkey). It is like a chess game to them. Popularity is just a chess piece and they can win it back in 20 years, with some other Olympic Games or similar. They gain some land forever (Cyprus, HK, you-name-it), while the democracy wolves howl in the dark/background, in vain. And if/when they ever need to win back popularity points they will take a few steps to sneak their way out of this. Edit: a couple of typos/grammatic errors.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > It is one of those states that meet resistance with blood. Always have. Isn't that pretty much "any country on earth that is strong enough to do that"? Civil society may protest all it wants, Iraq was still invaded. Another round of protests, but Libya was still bombed back into the dark ages.
  - habitue 7y ago
    America has made a lot of mistakes with its foreign policy, but it's disingenuous to act like the US has ever done anything like tiananmen square to it's own people in the modern era. There is absolutely a difference between how the United States responds to dissent, and how repressive regimes do
    - kk_cz 7y ago
      give orange man few more years
    - luckylion 7y ago
      Sure, not on that scale, but then again, "the system" hasn't been challenged at that scale. Kent State in 1970 comes to mind - and that was a protest against a war on the other side of the globe.
    - NikkiA 7y ago
      That depends on how you define 'modern era' I guess... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing
      - habitue 7y ago
        > Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired, and two veterans were wounded and later died. > A second, smaller Bonus March in 1933 at the start of the Roosevelt administration was defused [...] with an offer of jobs [...] Those who chose not to work for the CCC by the May 22 deadline were given transportation home. In 1936, Congress [...] paid the veterans their bonus nine years early. I'm going to go ahead and say this is reaching comparing it to Tiananmen square where thousands of peaceful protesters were killed by the army. Additionally, the government ordered the protesters killed, vs. some police in a heated situation firing. > The MOVE members fired at them and a gunfight with semi-automatic and automatic firearms Again, not saying the police did the right thing here, but MOVE was armed with illegal fully automatic weapons and was firing them at the police. This is very different from a peaceful protest being squashed by the army and then covered up by the government. I feel like this is so obvious, it's strange it needs to be said? America makes mistakes all the time. But the core values are to admit those mistakes, and work to fix them, not cover it up.
    - wishinghand 7y ago
      > it's disingenuous to act like the US has ever done anything like tiananmen square to it's own people in the modern era How are you defining modern? Because the late modern period starts in the mid-18th century, which means Manifest Destiny has still yet to happen. The USA might not have a Tiananmen Square incident where they crush thousands all at once, but they definitely have crushed populations over time, in greater numbers.
ackbar03 7y ago
I agree this is the better solution. A lot of the western commentators on this issue tend to take a ivory tower perspective. I think China could very well just ignore them and let them burn. It doesn't necessarily make xi look weak. A lot of the Chinese people attitudes are it is what it is. If china's strategy is to just ignore everything and let Hong Kong people burn themselves out, which I personally think is the right strategy, the Chinese majority will understand and probably wouldn't care. And I think people are over estimating the importance of Hong Kong. There have already been experiments to turn Shanghai into a free economic zone. All they have to do is flip the switch and Shanghai or shenzhen will gradually replace Hong kongs role
- arcticbull 7y ago
  If Hong Kong is truly unimportant as you say, why not then let them go? I think HK is incredibly important to the ego of the PRC. They’re fearful of what this would mean, that it would cause China to lose the battle over Taiwan, over Xinjiang and over Tibet. It may not be a dealbreaker economically but it could be a tipping point for national unity. Many parts of China are looking to break away, for obvious reasons. The success of the ruling party may well depend on their ability to exert their will and control over the non-Core territories (and to an extent at least perceptually Taiwan) and keep the whole of what they’ve been selling as China as one. It’s not what it is that makes them important in this context it’s what it represents to the PRC.
irjustin 7y ago
Can anyone downvoting the parent shed light into why this comment deserved it? It's a valid tactical play (one that was used in 2014 during the umbrella revolution) and bringing it up definitely adds to the discussion. I'm not sure why it deserves downvotes. It's not in support of an authoritarian government and it's not like they're going to come here and find "brand new ideas" on what to do. As the article states, the Chinese government has huge incentives to not crack down with military action potentially incurring financial suicide. Why is China poising with its finger on the military tigger and why the downvotes? edit: umbrella revolution was 2014, not 15.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  When the topic is conflict relating to "rivals" of USA, don't expect HN downvotes to make sense.
guerrilla 7y ago
Indeed, maybe the military is there just for the occassion that the protesters do actually start destroying the city but otherwise they intend to wait it out until they get fatigued.
sho 7y ago
> they can just wait it out and let the protests paralyze Hong Kong until even local sentiments turn against them 1.7 million protestors means the protest is the local sentiment. The vast majority of native HKers are fully behind the protests. As would you be if your lifetime home was being forcefully taken over by China.

by ummonk 7y ago

HenryBemis 7y ago

There is no sense into trying to find a rational action/reaction from China. It is one of those states that meet resistance with blood. Always have. Most likely always will. They play the looooooong game (like Russia and Turkey). It is like a chess game to them. Popularity is just a chess piece and they can win it back in 20 years, with some other Olympic Games or similar. They gain some land forever (Cyprus, HK, you-name-it), while the democracy wolves howl in the dark/background, in vain. And if/when they ever need to win back popularity points they will take a few steps to sneak their way out of this. Edit: a couple of typos/grammatic errors.

luckylion 7y ago
> It is one of those states that meet resistance with blood. Always have. Isn't that pretty much "any country on earth that is strong enough to do that"? Civil society may protest all it wants, Iraq was still invaded. Another round of protests, but Libya was still bombed back into the dark ages.
- habitue 7y ago
  America has made a lot of mistakes with its foreign policy, but it's disingenuous to act like the US has ever done anything like tiananmen square to it's own people in the modern era. There is absolutely a difference between how the United States responds to dissent, and how repressive regimes do
  - kk_cz 7y ago
    give orange man few more years
  - luckylion 7y ago
    Sure, not on that scale, but then again, "the system" hasn't been challenged at that scale. Kent State in 1970 comes to mind - and that was a protest against a war on the other side of the globe.
  - NikkiA 7y ago
    That depends on how you define 'modern era' I guess... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing
    - habitue 7y ago
      > Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired, and two veterans were wounded and later died. > A second, smaller Bonus March in 1933 at the start of the Roosevelt administration was defused [...] with an offer of jobs [...] Those who chose not to work for the CCC by the May 22 deadline were given transportation home. In 1936, Congress [...] paid the veterans their bonus nine years early. I'm going to go ahead and say this is reaching comparing it to Tiananmen square where thousands of peaceful protesters were killed by the army. Additionally, the government ordered the protesters killed, vs. some police in a heated situation firing. > The MOVE members fired at them and a gunfight with semi-automatic and automatic firearms Again, not saying the police did the right thing here, but MOVE was armed with illegal fully automatic weapons and was firing them at the police. This is very different from a peaceful protest being squashed by the army and then covered up by the government. I feel like this is so obvious, it's strange it needs to be said? America makes mistakes all the time. But the core values are to admit those mistakes, and work to fix them, not cover it up.
  - wishinghand 7y ago
    > it's disingenuous to act like the US has ever done anything like tiananmen square to it's own people in the modern era How are you defining modern? Because the late modern period starts in the mid-18th century, which means Manifest Destiny has still yet to happen. The USA might not have a Tiananmen Square incident where they crush thousands all at once, but they definitely have crushed populations over time, in greater numbers.

ackbar03 7y ago

I agree this is the better solution. A lot of the western commentators on this issue tend to take a ivory tower perspective. I think China could very well just ignore them and let them burn. It doesn't necessarily make xi look weak. A lot of the Chinese people attitudes are it is what it is. If china's strategy is to just ignore everything and let Hong Kong people burn themselves out, which I personally think is the right strategy, the Chinese majority will understand and probably wouldn't care. And I think people are over estimating the importance of Hong Kong. There have already been experiments to turn Shanghai into a free economic zone. All they have to do is flip the switch and Shanghai or shenzhen will gradually replace Hong kongs role

arcticbull 7y ago
If Hong Kong is truly unimportant as you say, why not then let them go? I think HK is incredibly important to the ego of the PRC. They’re fearful of what this would mean, that it would cause China to lose the battle over Taiwan, over Xinjiang and over Tibet. It may not be a dealbreaker economically but it could be a tipping point for national unity. Many parts of China are looking to break away, for obvious reasons. The success of the ruling party may well depend on their ability to exert their will and control over the non-Core territories (and to an extent at least perceptually Taiwan) and keep the whole of what they’ve been selling as China as one. It’s not what it is that makes them important in this context it’s what it represents to the PRC.

irjustin 7y ago

Can anyone downvoting the parent shed light into why this comment deserved it? It's a valid tactical play (one that was used in 2014 during the umbrella revolution) and bringing it up definitely adds to the discussion. I'm not sure why it deserves downvotes. It's not in support of an authoritarian government and it's not like they're going to come here and find "brand new ideas" on what to do. As the article states, the Chinese government has huge incentives to not crack down with military action potentially incurring financial suicide. Why is China poising with its finger on the military tigger and why the downvotes? edit: umbrella revolution was 2014, not 15.

jessaustin 7y ago
When the topic is conflict relating to "rivals" of USA, don't expect HN downvotes to make sense.

guerrilla 7y ago

Indeed, maybe the military is there just for the occassion that the protesters do actually start destroying the city but otherwise they intend to wait it out until they get fatigued.

sho 7y ago

> they can just wait it out and let the protests paralyze Hong Kong until even local sentiments turn against them 1.7 million protestors means the protest is the local sentiment. The vast majority of native HKers are fully behind the protests. As would you be if your lifetime home was being forcefully taken over by China.