3 ms·

> the international community just consider the agreement to be fully not in force, treat Hong Kong as being back under British control once again? The first p

> the international community just consider the agreement to be fully not in force, treat Hong Kong as being back under British control once again? The first part of this is nonsense. But I am particularly amused by this statement. The international community you are referring certainly has equal or less population than China mainland alone. On which ground it gives the superior name of “the international communicaty”. Note: I am not in any means say China is right or wrong. But first thing first. Everyone needs to understand who are the everyone. Don't pretend some group automatically represent the voice of the all or majority.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Well, this is true. In general when Western media says "the international community" they really means Western Europe and North America. The international community includes China, Russia, all of the African countries whose capital you probably don't know, and more, and they never agree, so you can never say "the international community" meaningfully. It's always a borderline supremacist equivocation. And in the case, probably the majority of the actual international community would agree with China. That doesn't mean that they're right, it's just how the world actually works.
throwawaysea 5y ago
Can you explain why the first part is “nonsense”? China decided that part of this past agreement is no longer in force. If so, then why should any of it be valid? It’s like a breach of contract from my perspective - it invalidates the whole.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Their point was that the "international community" is non-sense. As far as deciding that the whole agreement is no longer in force, I don't see how that's an issue with the Chinese take. Without the agreement, the facts on the ground is that HK is under Chinese control, and the UK has no recourse but to invade it again. It's not like British control of HK was based on anything else before the agreement.

sudosysgen 5y ago

Well, this is true. In general when Western media says "the international community" they really means Western Europe and North America. The international community includes China, Russia, all of the African countries whose capital you probably don't know, and more, and they never agree, so you can never say "the international community" meaningfully. It's always a borderline supremacist equivocation. And in the case, probably the majority of the actual international community would agree with China. That doesn't mean that they're right, it's just how the world actually works.

throwawaysea 5y ago

Can you explain why the first part is “nonsense”? China decided that part of this past agreement is no longer in force. If so, then why should any of it be valid? It’s like a breach of contract from my perspective - it invalidates the whole.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Their point was that the "international community" is non-sense. As far as deciding that the whole agreement is no longer in force, I don't see how that's an issue with the Chinese take. Without the agreement, the facts on the ground is that HK is under Chinese control, and the UK has no recourse but to invade it again. It's not like British control of HK was based on anything else before the agreement.