4 ms·

This is going to be very unpopular. History repeats itself. Just 30 years ago the Soviet Union was dissolved. If you study this dissolution process, you see th

This is going to be very unpopular. History repeats itself. Just 30 years ago the Soviet Union was dissolved. If you study this dissolution process, you see that demonstrations and the ambition to sovereignty was nothing new in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, but in comparison to the 50s, 60s and 70s, Gorbachev did not use military force to prevent countries from splitting off. If China lets HK go independent, there is a chance of a chain reaction: Guangdong, Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia.. just to name a few. This would mean to total collapse of the PRC. But in comparison to the USSR, China's economy is highly intertwined with the global economy. I would even go that far and say that a successful HK independence movement could have the chance to lead to a total collapse of the global economy on a scale that makes this Corona recession look like a Kindergarden. Don't get me wrong. I LOVE HK, I lived and worked there. I have also lived and worked in Mainland China. It is sad to see that HK will likely become just a random Chinese city and lose its uniqueness. I just wished that there would be a mutual process of this unification and China would move slower towards it, while HK would accept that the China of 2047 will look different from China today.

jeswin 6y ago
>If China lets HK go independent.. But HKers aren't even asking for full independence. They want to retain the democracy and freedom they've had so far. And the parallels with Soviet Union's collapse is debatable. At that point Soviet Union was on the brink of economic disaster, while China is at the height of their military and economic power.
- powerapple 6y ago
  I have to point out that under British rule, there was no democracy. If they want things exactly like they have before, the central government would send a governor to HK instead of having their own governor. China wanted HK to be special and successful, to use it as a showcase for the 'one country two systems' model. Now China just want to not lose HK. Huge change in thinking.
  - ashconnor 6y ago
    You can blame Sir Alexander Grantham and successive incompetent Governors such as Chris Patten who failed to implement democratic reforms well ahead of the handover.
    - Paradigma11 6y ago
      Well, they did not really have much choice. China had made their position quite clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong_Kong#1950s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong... "1960s China's leaders explicitly wanted to "preserve the colonial status of Hong Kong".[21] Liao Chengzhi, a senior Chinese official in charge of Hong Kong affairs, said in 1960 that China "shall not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories liberated" should the status quo (i.e. colonial administration) be changed. The warning killed any democratic development for the next three decades"
      - ashconnor 6y ago
        Democratic reform was cancelled before the communists took power. Read the paragraph before the one you just posted. > In 1946, shortly after the war, critical voices were raised against colonialism. Governor Sir Mark Young proposed a 48-member Municipal Council with significant competence to govern, one-third elected by non-Chinese, one third by Chinese institutions and one-third by Chinese individuals, known as the "Young Plan", believing that, "to counter the Chinese government's determination to recover Hong Kong, it was necessary to give local inhabitants a greater stake in the territory by widening the political franchise to include them."[9] The reform failed because of much resistance from expatriate companies, a new conservative and mistrustful governor, and London's fears of Hong Kong becoming a political battleground between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China (CPC).
        Paradigma11 6y ago
        "The reform failed because of much resistance from expatriate companies, a new conservative and mistrustful governor, and London's fears of Hong Kong becoming a political battleground between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China (CPC)." That seems a sensible position for 1946. But things changed till 1960 and the UK were far more pliable to allow democratic self governance then.
jariel 6y ago
I don't see this comparison. PRC has total control over mainland China. There is 0 risk of fragmentation. HK is a separate entity in every sense, so is Taiwan. USSR collapsed because its economic and political system crumbled from the inside, enabling Poland et. al. to get out from under their thumb, which is what they always wanted to do. If China had economic turmoil, mainland would stay intact in one way or another.
- jcytong 6y ago
  The CCP might look stronger than it actually is. Due to the restricted flow of information, a lot of the conflicts are not well publicized. If the CCP were to collapse, it'd be from the inside. Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan always wanted independence. It's difficult enough to unify a small group so just imagine with 1.4 billion people.
  - account42 6y ago
    > from the inside. [...] Taiwan always wanted independence. Taiwan is independent.
  - jariel 6y ago
    So yes, I see what you are saying. Control in China is tenuous on some level - if the CCP fails, it might be total chaos. Tibet however, doesn't have any power. They are aboriginals crushed under the weight of Han Imperialism. I mean, if China was in economic turmoil for a decade, and Han leadership was weak, or had the self awareness to allow for some autonomy, and there was 'world pressure on them' - possibly Tibet could make a break. But it's not like Poland under USSR. Just like every ruler of China in history, whoever gets 'some control' will want 'all of it' and mainland would probably be easy to unite, due to historical facts. So barring serious collapse and revolution, it looks like HK is just PRC and that's that, and Taiwan will probably remain independent so long as US and EU exist in any material form. But who can predict the future.
  - eSephiroth 6y ago
    Your guys don't know about 1.4b Chinese. If they are as well knowledge and informed as your guys, it's hard to unify. But if they only have one information source, one chat tool, one history book, they will be one brain-cell dummy. USSR don't have wisdom to simplify information，history and even Internet. Unified is what Chinese love to have. That's why things happen in HK. You are over estimated Chinese people. China is not USSR. People don't have gun. Government won't give up their power. Tear down China great firewall is only thing your guys can help keep freedom existing, not just for Chinese or HKer, but also for your future. Fear might over come freedom someday unexpected.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kenha 6y ago
First of all, there are those who asked for independence but that is definitely not the majority. Secondly, if we are looking at history, why would we look at USSR instead of the history of China? There is never a regime change until a civil war broke out, and there is always blood involved.
Nasrudith 6y ago
The economic collapse seems like a misattributiation of the USSR's collapse's cause. The collapse was because the economy turned out to be a lie fundamentally. Now China has certainly been cooking the hell out of the books but given the other sides of transactions with the outside world we have an idea of the of the real as quite large.
- thelightthat 6y ago
  Do you have any sources/articles about the true size of China's economy?
Stevvo 6y ago
There is no chance of Guangdong trying to split off in a Chain reaction; it's as Chinese as Beijing.

jeswin 6y ago

>If China lets HK go independent.. But HKers aren't even asking for full independence. They want to retain the democracy and freedom they've had so far. And the parallels with Soviet Union's collapse is debatable. At that point Soviet Union was on the brink of economic disaster, while China is at the height of their military and economic power.

powerapple 6y ago
I have to point out that under British rule, there was no democracy. If they want things exactly like they have before, the central government would send a governor to HK instead of having their own governor. China wanted HK to be special and successful, to use it as a showcase for the 'one country two systems' model. Now China just want to not lose HK. Huge change in thinking.
- ashconnor 6y ago
  You can blame Sir Alexander Grantham and successive incompetent Governors such as Chris Patten who failed to implement democratic reforms well ahead of the handover.
  - Paradigma11 6y ago
    Well, they did not really have much choice. China had made their position quite clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong_Kong#1950s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong... "1960s China's leaders explicitly wanted to "preserve the colonial status of Hong Kong".[21] Liao Chengzhi, a senior Chinese official in charge of Hong Kong affairs, said in 1960 that China "shall not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories liberated" should the status quo (i.e. colonial administration) be changed. The warning killed any democratic development for the next three decades"
    - ashconnor 6y ago
      Democratic reform was cancelled before the communists took power. Read the paragraph before the one you just posted. > In 1946, shortly after the war, critical voices were raised against colonialism. Governor Sir Mark Young proposed a 48-member Municipal Council with significant competence to govern, one-third elected by non-Chinese, one third by Chinese institutions and one-third by Chinese individuals, known as the "Young Plan", believing that, "to counter the Chinese government's determination to recover Hong Kong, it was necessary to give local inhabitants a greater stake in the territory by widening the political franchise to include them."[9] The reform failed because of much resistance from expatriate companies, a new conservative and mistrustful governor, and London's fears of Hong Kong becoming a political battleground between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China (CPC).
      - Paradigma11 6y ago
        "The reform failed because of much resistance from expatriate companies, a new conservative and mistrustful governor, and London's fears of Hong Kong becoming a political battleground between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China (CPC)." That seems a sensible position for 1946. But things changed till 1960 and the UK were far more pliable to allow democratic self governance then.

jariel 6y ago

I don't see this comparison. PRC has total control over mainland China. There is 0 risk of fragmentation. HK is a separate entity in every sense, so is Taiwan. USSR collapsed because its economic and political system crumbled from the inside, enabling Poland et. al. to get out from under their thumb, which is what they always wanted to do. If China had economic turmoil, mainland would stay intact in one way or another.

jcytong 6y ago
The CCP might look stronger than it actually is. Due to the restricted flow of information, a lot of the conflicts are not well publicized. If the CCP were to collapse, it'd be from the inside. Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan always wanted independence. It's difficult enough to unify a small group so just imagine with 1.4 billion people.
- account42 6y ago
  > from the inside. [...] Taiwan always wanted independence. Taiwan is independent.
- jariel 6y ago
  So yes, I see what you are saying. Control in China is tenuous on some level - if the CCP fails, it might be total chaos. Tibet however, doesn't have any power. They are aboriginals crushed under the weight of Han Imperialism. I mean, if China was in economic turmoil for a decade, and Han leadership was weak, or had the self awareness to allow for some autonomy, and there was 'world pressure on them' - possibly Tibet could make a break. But it's not like Poland under USSR. Just like every ruler of China in history, whoever gets 'some control' will want 'all of it' and mainland would probably be easy to unite, due to historical facts. So barring serious collapse and revolution, it looks like HK is just PRC and that's that, and Taiwan will probably remain independent so long as US and EU exist in any material form. But who can predict the future.
- eSephiroth 6y ago
  Your guys don't know about 1.4b Chinese. If they are as well knowledge and informed as your guys, it's hard to unify. But if they only have one information source, one chat tool, one history book, they will be one brain-cell dummy. USSR don't have wisdom to simplify information，history and even Internet. Unified is what Chinese love to have. That's why things happen in HK. You are over estimated Chinese people. China is not USSR. People don't have gun. Government won't give up their power. Tear down China great firewall is only thing your guys can help keep freedom existing, not just for Chinese or HKer, but also for your future. Fear might over come freedom someday unexpected.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

kenha 6y ago

First of all, there are those who asked for independence but that is definitely not the majority. Secondly, if we are looking at history, why would we look at USSR instead of the history of China? There is never a regime change until a civil war broke out, and there is always blood involved.

Nasrudith 6y ago

The economic collapse seems like a misattributiation of the USSR's collapse's cause. The collapse was because the economy turned out to be a lie fundamentally. Now China has certainly been cooking the hell out of the books but given the other sides of transactions with the outside world we have an idea of the of the real as quite large.

thelightthat 6y ago
Do you have any sources/articles about the true size of China's economy?

Stevvo 6y ago

There is no chance of Guangdong trying to split off in a Chain reaction; it's as Chinese as Beijing.