7 ms·

Sad that the international community doesn’t do more to intervene in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and Tibet. As a reminder, China has violated the treaty around Hong Ko

• derelicta 9mo ago
  [flagged]
• Galanwe 9mo ago
  The UK was happy to ignore the violation of the handover agreements and offer BNO passports to steal all the young brains of HK, unfortunately.
  • ori_b 9mo ago
    Steal? You mean at gunpoint? Or did these people want to leave of their own free will, and take a chance they were given?
• jyscao 9mo ago
  Because “international law” is a farce, recent U.S. actions against Venezuela is but the latest example of that fact. The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
  • deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  • Yizahi 9mo ago
    The dissonance between this comment and the one above is striking really :) . One user asks for non-China countries to intervene in China or the occupied territories, and another user is outraged that the same has actually happened in Venezuela, despite that the only person to suffer had been one of the top-10 worst alive humans in the world (per millions humans harmed directly). Pray tell me, how exactly do you see international law intervening in Chinese crimes, so that it won't look like ops in Venezuela (at minimum)? Issuing a strongly worded letter and Xi would comply?
    • SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
      You're misunderstanding the analogy. The US's operation in Venezuela was itself a violation of international law, which the international community widely condemned and many countries wish they could have stopped. But there's no button they can push to make the US return Maduro, just as there's no button anyone can push to make China free Jimmy Lai. The only options are a variety of escalatory steps which implicate the relationship between one's own country and China as a whole.
      • nradov 9mo ago
        Which ratified treaty did the US's operation in Venezuela violate?
        • somenameforme 9mo ago
          The UN Charter is a rather unambiguous one.
        • SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
          The US agreed in Article 2 of the UN Charter, which they ratified on July 1945, that they would refrain from the use of force against the political independence of any state. The reason you rarely see people cite the exact provision is that it's pointless to cite, because the US foreign policy establishment does not care and will not be swayed by persuasive arguments about their treaty obligations.
        • junaru 9mo ago
          > operation Putin has one too.
        • dragonwriter 9mo ago
          > Which ratified treaty did the US's operation in Venezuela violate? Even if it hadn't violated a ratified treaty (it did violate several, starting with the UN Charter and OAS Charter), it would still violate international law; the US has recognized (among other places, in the London Charter of 1945 establishing the International Military Tribunal) that the crime of aggressive war exists independently of the crime of waging war in violation of international treaties.
  • pjjpo 9mo ago
    I think the main issue people have with this comment is the word "recent" and to a lesser degree "U.S.". All countries have done anything to further their goals regardless of any common point of agreement, some times framing within that framework, sometimes not. This is not a recent or US-only phenomenon, it's the definition of geopolitics. I'm all for an alien invasion uniting us but not sure when that will happen.
• ecshafer 9mo ago
  How many people should've died for Hong Kong? Should we have invaded China? Should we have drafted millions of men from across the west and put boots on the ground?
  • 2OEH8eoCRo0 9mo ago
    There are more options than nothing or war.
    • grunder_advice 9mo ago
      It's not like relations between China and the West aren't already as hostile as the West can tolerate.
      • Galanwe 9mo ago
        Where are you from? The US shifted from "China is an economic power we should worry about" to "China is a military power we should worry about", but to me it seems to be a recent mind shift serving the current administration narrative. As a European, I don't think there is much hostility against China here. Sure, people don't like the overall humanitarian situation with Uyghurs; and there are the usual issues with lobbying, intelligence, and currency manipulation, but overall the general public sentiment is rather neutral I would say.
        • dingnuts 9mo ago
          It is amazing in fact how willingly Europe seems to be running into the arms of the actual fascist dictator, Xi, at the first sign of turmoil in the US. The US is written off as a lost cause and you cozy up with a government that is everything you dislike about the current US administration but on steroids. All because the US wants the EU to pay for its own war. youll get cheaper EVs though I guess
          • bovinejoni 9mo ago
            That’s quite an interesting take. You don’t think Europe doing more trade with China (I assume this is what cozying up means?), is a result of a wildly unpredictable trade policy and threats to invade Europe? Instead because the US with their global military presence are sick of footing the bill for it? You’ll get cheaper oil though I guess?
• pphysch 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  • komali2 9mo ago
    This earth has plenty of room for more than one country doing bad stuff.
    • pphysch 9mo ago
      Yes, and we should exercise skepticism when criminals accuse others, to deflect and manipulate.
  • SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
    The source article is from a British outlet, what does the US government have to do with it?
    • pphysch 9mo ago
      Most of the mentioned narratives are largely products of Radio Free Asia and the broader Western government propaganda complex. There's not much daylight between London and Washington when it comes to China.
  • mindslight 9mo ago
    This revolves around a core idea of what used to be called conservatism - the belief that Western values and institutions have some inherent value worth promoting. Both at home in the terms of Constitutionally-limited government, the rule of law, etc. And internationally through diplomacy to do what we can to spread those values - in this case a few strongly worded letters would have been a step up. And on both topics, it is the same group of anti-American traitors openly trashing our values, both domestically and internationally, while abusing the cloak of "conservatism" to obscure what they actually stand for. So no, there is really no conflict when criticizing both. (you are of course free to prioritize other values like non-intervention and come to a different answer for yourself on this topic. the point is there is no conflict for the two positions you contrast. and this used to be a pretty popular stance, actually)
• hn_throwaway_99 9mo ago
  Welcome to the real world. The UK is obviously in no position to challenge China. And with the US invading and threatening to take over other sovereign nations solely because "it's in our national interest", we're certainly not one to talk.
• sampton 9mo ago
  Sad that international community doesn't do more to intervene in US. Seriously, please help.
  • munk-a 9mo ago
    If any external force tried to "fix" the US it would result in stubborn revanchism and a deeper slide into corruption. To grossly generalize - the American culture of self-reliance means that any imposition of order, even if positive, would be rejected by most of the population (which is somewhat fair, since external impositions do compromise sovereignty). If a good outcome is to happen - it needs to be driven and supported domestically.
    • hnfong 9mo ago
      Congratulations on figuring out why foreign intervention does not work in general!
  • diamondfist25 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    • hackyhacky 9mo ago
      What has "taking out" Maduro accomplished, other than allowing American oil companies to profit? Venezuela is ruled by the same party, the situation for the Venezuelan people has not changed. > The woke mob has never been so confused I'm confused what you mean by "woke" here. Is opposing violation of international law "woke"?
    • wiseowise 9mo ago
      How come Trump doesn’t help Ukraine?
    • FatherOfCurses 9mo ago
      Only if you take a sixth-grader's view of geopolitics. People can say that the Western world should do more to promote democracy in China (or not financially enable China to suppress its people) while at the same time saying that invading a country and kidnapping its leader is not the way to solve a similar problem.
• nine_zeros 9mo ago
  [dead]
• diamondfist25 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  • hackyhacky 9mo ago
    You use these words like "woke" "TDS" "MDS" "mind virus", not because you want to contribute to the conversation, but because you want to justify your inattention to the conversation. These words are thought-terminating cliches. Relevant link for HN today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...
  • FatherOfCurses 9mo ago
    Yeah the first thing I think of when I hear the word "woke" is the CCP.
    • Exoristos 9mo ago
      One does not (normally) use weapons of war against one's own population.
      • hackyhacky 9mo ago
        > One does not (normally) use weapons of war against one's own population. What does that have to do with "wokeness"?
• zelphirkalt 9mo ago
  Are you saying the rest of the world should have stood up for what ultimately is colonialism? And colonialism of the British out of all the people? And also in a territory, that is directly on or neighboring the Chinese landmass? The Chinese people have a long history of others trying to conquer them or colonize them. They are probably pretty allergic to such notions, and will reject them. Realistically speaking, no one would have had the resources to force HK staying the same enclave it has been. This all sounds rather unrealistic. We can agree on the treatment of HK being far from ideal, and I would go as far as saying, that even economically for China itself, it was not good to handle the matter as they did. That is where their ideology shows. HK was an economical hub. In recent times though many businesses left and more are unwilling to invest. This is the economical downside, that could simply have been avoided by not doing what they did. The question should be asked "Why not just leave it as it is, since it is working well, economically?" But they had to mess with it. Another downside is international reputation damage of course. China has achieved many great things in the past decades and now has cities more modern and convenient than most of what you find in Europe. Their one problem remains ideology. That they sometimes feel the need to do things, that are not economically sound, for the sake of ideology. However, I can't agree with anyone arguing, that HK should not be part of China, like some people do in the comments here. It's a separate matter from policies implemented. Of course I wish for HKers to keep their freedoms. Who doesn't. Of course I wish China would not implement policies, that endanger the freedom of its people. But territorial? Nope, HK always was bound to become a part of China. What I can say more from visiting HK twice is, that they still got Internet (uncensored), in contrast to other parts of China. Every week I am speaking with someone from HK, using Signal, which is not practical for anyone from (most?) other parts of China. When traveling in China, I used a HK eSIM, to have reliable and uncensored Internet. I hope that these aspects still remain intact for a long time, or that the rest of China will open up. At some point they should have the confidence in their own economy to compete on global scale.
  • StopDisinfo910 9mo ago
    Last time, I checked Hong-Kong didn't become a free city but part of another country. So they have traded a master for another one. I am genuinely lost in your argument. You start against colonialism then justify Hong-Kong being reintegrated to China because they would have taken it by force anyway which is pretty much the same thing as colonialism. You then pivot to arguing HK was always going to be part of China for a reason I find unclear. Hong-Kong was never part of the PRC before the handover so I don't really see the appeal to continuity. Have you considered that people are not arguing for colonialism but actually against any form of coercitive control?
• jimmydoe 9mo ago
  Given what US companies did to ICC, it’s not hard to imagine, if UN intervine, their officials’ Chinese EV will be taking over remotely and driven off the bridge. UK “taking back” HK is also very imaginative , like white people dreaming of recolonizing Asia in 21st century? Good luck.
• dzonga 9mo ago
  > UK and the rest of the world should have demanded its return Demand its return based on what principles ? How did the UK gain control of Hong Kong Would the UK be able to go to war with China over HK ? in the words of Dave Chappell - hello UN, if you got problems, bring ya army! oh you ain't no army
• duxup 9mo ago
  I always wonder what exactly the “more” is that other countries have to do that would prevent any of this?
• insane_dreamer 9mo ago
  Unfortunately nothing could be done, once HK was China territory. Enforcing the domestic policies of an SAR inside of China was completely unfeasibly for the UK and they knew it when they signed it. Zhao Ziyang (CCP chairman at the time), who signed the treaty, was a reformist and if he had remained in power and China continued down that path, things might have ended very differently for HK. Unfortunately the hardliners won out after the Tiananmen Square protests and he was removed from power.
• zeroq 9mo ago
  World did nothing (meaningful) for Gaza. It's hard to believe anyone will be willing to act against China which is much more powerful than Israel. It was easy to turn the blind eye on Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc. because for most people in western hemisphere it's a different culture and it's somewhere else. It was heart breaking when Russia invaded Ukraine and western media were doing lengthy coverage on every single civilian casualty when thousands of people were silently dying in Gaza without a single mention. And the initial reaction to the invasion was that the Ukraine should simply surrender. It's like calling police about home invasion only to hear "oh, just give them what they want and stop calling us already". And now US is doing exactly the same. The attack on Venezuela was a carbon copy of what Putin did, only difference was that the US succeeded. And now Greenland. It's time to stop pretending there are good and evil forces out there. There's no difference.