4 ms·

What happened to one country, two systems?

by azinman2 10mo ago

embedding-shape 10mo ago
Recommended reading on that: One Country, Two Systems in Crisis: Hong Kong's Transformation - Wong, Yiu-chung (2004) In summary, since 1997 it has for all intents and purposes been abandoned.
HSO 10mo ago
[flagged]
roncesvalles 10mo ago
That was always meant to be transitional. Also, as China marches forward, Hong Kong loses its leverage over Beijing. Now it's just one of a dozen HK-like cities for China. It went from "little prince" to "problem child".
- Terr_ 10mo ago
  Certainly a factor: IIRC Hong Kong's GDP versus the mainland has gone from 20-30% to 2-3% in the ~28 years since the handover, as the mainland has modernized. While that still puts in the ballpark of "top 5 cities", it's not quite the same (relative) prize as before.
0x3f 10mo ago
Might makes right, as always was.
dist-epoch 10mo ago
A sovereign can change it's mind. It's the whole point of being sovereign. Not saying I like what they did (I don't).
- azinman2 10mo ago
  Except they had an agreement for 50 years to keep it that way. So basically what you mean is anyone can change their mind, which means agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. Then why would anyone agree to anything?
  - 0x3f 10mo ago
    I don't really like what China did with Hong Kong, but some things you surely agree transcend 'contracts' or normative behavior. I can't, for example, agree to be murdered in exchange for money. I might also lie to protect my children from the local murderer, or in any other case where I'd consider the outcomes 'extereme'.
  - dist-epoch 10mo ago
    Sovereigns can withdraw from agreements. It's the whole point. The only thing you can do about it is shaming them, sanctioning them, going to war if you really care, ...
    - rileymat2 10mo ago
      And importantly, not agree to future agreements. Outside of war, that's the ultimate punishment.
    - B1FF_PSUVM 10mo ago
      "Pray I do not alter it further." (some obscure movie quote, probably Mark Twain or Lincoln)
  - tyre 10mo ago
    Because the British didn’t have much of a choice. It would have been better for Hong Kongers if they’d kept it, but alas here we are.
  - ekunazanu 10mo ago
    > Agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. Pretty much. They are only as effective as the body trying to enforce it. The entire point of being a sovereign nation is nobody can force you to do anything. Now it is in a nation's self interest to not violate agreements and get along nicely, but sometimes the calculus changes and the punishment may not outweigh the benefits.
- derektank 10mo ago
  This was a joint agreement between two sovereigns. You’re correct to say that it’s within the power of a sovereign to reneg on their word, but it’s a violation of international law and the UK would have every right as a sovereign itself to seek redress through whatever means it deems appropriate.
silenced_trope 10mo ago
they came up with that phrase to put the british at ease
dionian 10mo ago
We all knew it was a lie from day one.
maxglute 10mo ago
PRC finally enforced it. HK had high degree of autonomy (not full autonomy), and high degreed their way to not implement national security law for 20 years leading to compadrors like Lai to exist (incidentally also the largest CIA base in Asia was in HK). Imagine a region in your country with zero national security ordinance for 20 years during geopolitical competition while nativist/traitors (I'm sorry democracy activists) shake hands with Mike Pompeo lol. TLDR traitors fucked around and found out and now we finally have sustainable 1C2S.
- maxloh 10mo ago
  What you are stating is exactly the viewpoint of the CCP (or any other authoritarian governments). Everyone who advocates for basic human rights, as written in the UN's basic human rights charter, is considered a traitor, a threat to national "security", or a terrorist. They want absolutely obedient people who don't know about their own rights.
  - maxglute 10mo ago
    No, literally no soverign country would allow a region to operate without national security umbrella for decades, PRC was retardly patient, magnanoumous so to let HK fuck around for so long. The fact is nativist HKers tried to carve a NSL state of exception and they correctly got their shit kicked in once PRC ran out of patience. Human rights > national security is frankly absurdly unserious position to take. It's historically more normal to throw HK into the torment nexus than to have it exist without NSL coverage, that's level of security vacuum is functionally fail state behavior. UN particapation is indeed varying level of compardour behavior, but also frequently not since you know even independant raprateurs go through filtering process frequently supported to host country to represent their geopolitical interests. What is obviously traitorous, is shaking hands with ex head of CIA, we lie we cheat we steal Pompeo, during ongoing Sino-US geopolitical cold war, while advocating for sanctions on your own people. That's not obedience, that's treason. Like even fucking obedient people know having the right to commit treason, which Lai did, is retarded. A position an unforutnate amount of retarded HKers took to heart and frankly need to be reeducated out of.
aprentic 10mo ago
I'm pretty sure China considers that as "signing under duress" and therefor invalid. The relevant points on the timeline, from China's perspective, are: China: Stop selling opium in our country. UK: How about no? China: We're kicking out your drug dealers. UK: How about an Opium War? China: Oh crap, you have way more guns. We surrender. UK: OK We're taking HK for 100 years. China: I guess we don't have any say in the matter.... A few years later... China: We get HK back now, right? UK: Yeah but we've altered the terms. Take it or leave it. China: OK. I guess. A few years later... China: Now we have more guns so here are the new terms. Take it or leave. UK: But our deal!!
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]

What happened to one country, two systems?

Recommended reading on that: One Country, Two Systems in Crisis: Hong Kong's Transformation - Wong, Yiu-chung (2004) In summary, since 1997 it has for all intents and purposes been abandoned.

HSO 10mo ago

[flagged]

roncesvalles 10mo ago

That was always meant to be transitional. Also, as China marches forward, Hong Kong loses its leverage over Beijing. Now it's just one of a dozen HK-like cities for China. It went from "little prince" to "problem child".

Terr_ 10mo ago
Certainly a factor: IIRC Hong Kong's GDP versus the mainland has gone from 20-30% to 2-3% in the ~28 years since the handover, as the mainland has modernized. While that still puts in the ballpark of "top 5 cities", it's not quite the same (relative) prize as before.

0x3f 10mo ago

Might makes right, as always was.

dist-epoch 10mo ago

A sovereign can change it's mind. It's the whole point of being sovereign. Not saying I like what they did (I don't).

azinman2 10mo ago
Except they had an agreement for 50 years to keep it that way. So basically what you mean is anyone can change their mind, which means agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. Then why would anyone agree to anything?
- 0x3f 10mo ago
  I don't really like what China did with Hong Kong, but some things you surely agree transcend 'contracts' or normative behavior. I can't, for example, agree to be murdered in exchange for money. I might also lie to protect my children from the local murderer, or in any other case where I'd consider the outcomes 'extereme'.
- dist-epoch 10mo ago
  Sovereigns can withdraw from agreements. It's the whole point. The only thing you can do about it is shaming them, sanctioning them, going to war if you really care, ...
  - rileymat2 10mo ago
    And importantly, not agree to future agreements. Outside of war, that's the ultimate punishment.
  - B1FF_PSUVM 10mo ago
    "Pray I do not alter it further." (some obscure movie quote, probably Mark Twain or Lincoln)
- tyre 10mo ago
  Because the British didn’t have much of a choice. It would have been better for Hong Kongers if they’d kept it, but alas here we are.
- ekunazanu 10mo ago
  > Agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. Pretty much. They are only as effective as the body trying to enforce it. The entire point of being a sovereign nation is nobody can force you to do anything. Now it is in a nation's self interest to not violate agreements and get along nicely, but sometimes the calculus changes and the punishment may not outweigh the benefits.
derektank 10mo ago
This was a joint agreement between two sovereigns. You’re correct to say that it’s within the power of a sovereign to reneg on their word, but it’s a violation of international law and the UK would have every right as a sovereign itself to seek redress through whatever means it deems appropriate.

silenced_trope 10mo ago

they came up with that phrase to put the british at ease

dionian 10mo ago

We all knew it was a lie from day one.

maxglute 10mo ago

PRC finally enforced it. HK had high degree of autonomy (not full autonomy), and high degreed their way to not implement national security law for 20 years leading to compadrors like Lai to exist (incidentally also the largest CIA base in Asia was in HK). Imagine a region in your country with zero national security ordinance for 20 years during geopolitical competition while nativist/traitors (I'm sorry democracy activists) shake hands with Mike Pompeo lol. TLDR traitors fucked around and found out and now we finally have sustainable 1C2S.

maxloh 10mo ago
What you are stating is exactly the viewpoint of the CCP (or any other authoritarian governments). Everyone who advocates for basic human rights, as written in the UN's basic human rights charter, is considered a traitor, a threat to national "security", or a terrorist. They want absolutely obedient people who don't know about their own rights.
- maxglute 10mo ago
  No, literally no soverign country would allow a region to operate without national security umbrella for decades, PRC was retardly patient, magnanoumous so to let HK fuck around for so long. The fact is nativist HKers tried to carve a NSL state of exception and they correctly got their shit kicked in once PRC ran out of patience. Human rights > national security is frankly absurdly unserious position to take. It's historically more normal to throw HK into the torment nexus than to have it exist without NSL coverage, that's level of security vacuum is functionally fail state behavior. UN particapation is indeed varying level of compardour behavior, but also frequently not since you know even independant raprateurs go through filtering process frequently supported to host country to represent their geopolitical interests. What is obviously traitorous, is shaking hands with ex head of CIA, we lie we cheat we steal Pompeo, during ongoing Sino-US geopolitical cold war, while advocating for sanctions on your own people. That's not obedience, that's treason. Like even fucking obedient people know having the right to commit treason, which Lai did, is retarded. A position an unforutnate amount of retarded HKers took to heart and frankly need to be reeducated out of.

aprentic 10mo ago

I'm pretty sure China considers that as "signing under duress" and therefor invalid. The relevant points on the timeline, from China's perspective, are: China: Stop selling opium in our country. UK: How about no? China: We're kicking out your drug dealers. UK: How about an Opium War? China: Oh crap, you have way more guns. We surrender. UK: OK We're taking HK for 100 years. China: I guess we don't have any say in the matter.... A few years later... China: We get HK back now, right? UK: Yeah but we've altered the terms. Take it or leave it. China: OK. I guess. A few years later... China: Now we have more guns so here are the new terms. Take it or leave. UK: But our deal!!

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]