[jwilbs]

A few weeks ago, I never would have expected China to profess/commit violence openly, just because of the comparatively open press in Hong Kong + ubiquity of cell phones.

After the triad attacks, and now this, I’m worried how far China will go to suppress any unrest.

FWIW, any Americans looking to (try to) help may write their Congress representatives to support the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.

[k_sze]

> FWIW, any Americans looking to (try to) help may write their Congress representatives to support the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.

Please don't. We don't need more concrete excuses for the central government to claim that there is foreign meddling. If the people of the country cannot awaken to fight together in solidarity against the authoritarian government, then it's just too bad. So be it. I still live in Hong Kong and it's a scary thought, but it's also the only correct way.

In fact, nobody can expect the US or any foreign government to want to "save" Hong Kong in good faith. We don't need your saving.

[hker]

> > FWIW, any Americans looking to (try to) help may write their Congress representatives to support the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.

> Please don't. We don't need more concrete excuses for the central government to claim that there is foreign meddling. If the people of the country cannot awaken to fight together in solidarity against the authoritarian government, then it's just too bad. So be it. I still live in Hong Kong and it's a scary thought, but it's also the only correct way.

> In fact, nobody can expect the US or any foreign government to want to "save" Hong Kong in good faith. We don't need your saving.

Thanks for voicing out your view, but I beg to differ.

I am a Hong Konger and I support the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act 2019, and I welcome Americans to write to their Congress representatives to support the Act—in fact I persuaded my friends to do so.

The central government has been claiming foreign meddling even when there is none: they claim that the protesters went to the street because of direct monetary support by the United States, which—frankly—is insulting to the million protesters. They made similar claims during the 2014 Umbrella protest already, without any evidence of foreign meddling even until now.

Let’s be honest: the Hong Kong protesters would have lost much earlier without foreign support (mostly media attention). The Hong Kong protesters are pretty pragmatic: they don’t expect foreigners (including the US) to “save” Hong Kong in good faith, the protesters only hope that it would be mutually beneficial to align their interests with that of foreign governments, and the protesters would do their part.

Let me use Singapore as an analogy (and to be clear, this example does not imply independence movement or whatsoever): Lee Kuan Yew succeeded with the foreign relations of Singapore largely because he aligned the interests of Singapore with those of foreign powers, such as of Taiwan and of the United States, so that Singapore got their support (including military one). It does not mean foreign meddling or that foreign government want to “save” Singapore in good faith. It means alignment of interests.

[calyth2018]

> The central government has been claiming foreign meddling even when there is none: they claim that the protesters went to the street because of direct monetary support by the United States, which—frankly—is insulting to the million protesters. They made similar claims during the 2014 Umbrella protest already, without any evidence of foreign meddling even until now.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/education-29723763/oslo-freedom-...

It's interesting how BBC added that clarification. At the height of Occupy Central, people were mocking a pro-establishment outlet (東網) for saying that Occupy Central was planned years ahead, in contact with people from the Oslo Freedom Forum. The outlet quoted that BBC Newsnight had initially reported on it.

I didn't bother correcting the people who were mocking that report, but 30 seconds on Google got me the video that clearly stated that the protest were planned years in advance with outside help.

I'm not going to make judgements on whether this constitutes as foreign meddling, but it isn't exactly free from foreign involvement either.

Similarly, plenty had brushed off the accusation thrown at Martin Lee, or Jimmy Lai for foreign involvement. A bit of a quick search on Wikileaks yielded plenty of communication between Martin Lee and the US reps in HK. Lai had also met the same reps, with one of his American lieutenants - the same lieutenant had stated in an American media outlet (the name slips my mind now) that he had not been in contact with the US government for 15 years, but that statement falls apart when you look at the date of the leaked cable.

How much "involvement" is probably something that we won't easily find out, but it isn't to say that there's no evidence of it beyond media coverage.

[traderjane]

> Please don't. We don't need more concrete excuses for the central government to claim that there is foreign meddling.

Would that mean China takes a different stance in HK? Like this is an international PR chess game and China must follow the rules? Because surely that is not true.

HK is both valuable and dangerous to China, and the US can't seriously effect any narrative within the Chinese media. China, on the other hand, can create any narrative it wishes to.

[goblin89]

I keep wishing the West stopped reporting on “successful” protests. What good does that do? Make mainland China more and more insecure about its image?

[sametmax]

What good is a protest if it's not heard and relayed ?

[goblin89]

Relayed where?

The target audience of the protests are (1) local officials, and (2) fellow citizens who do not share the gravity of the situation.

CCP will, of course, know of the protests with no need for any relay.

The “HK students protested against pro-China regulation and quickly succeeded, rejoice!” articles in Western media, though, will also be read by CCP. What would you do if you felt yourself losing your hard-earned strong image in front of the whole world?

Local media attention helps, worldwide—not so much.

[pas]

Just cut your losses, donate HK to itself, like Singapore.

Of course, since Beijing is not really the backing down type, it'll be a little bit of a bloodshed and the unification will be completed ahead of schedule.

[Rainymood]

>I’m worried how far China will go to suppress any unrest.

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

The mere fact that I had a previous comment in which I directly refer to ... some point in the past and I deleted it because I am scared of the (global) repercussions of my comments on the internet is horrifying...

[onetimemanytime]

>>"A few weeks ago, I never would have expected China to profess/commit violence openly, just because of the comparatively open press in Hong Kong + ubiquity of cell phones.

Oh, no. Not violence, they're merely "maintaining order," something the state is obligated to do. A few criminals are using violent acts and making life miserable for the silent majority...etc etc.

[lisper]

> I never would have expected China to profess/commit violence openly

Seriously? I'm surprised they held off this long. Remember Tienanmen Square?

[kibwen]

> Remember Tienanmen Square?

Worry not, they're busily working on making sure you won't.

[jwilbs]

Conveniently, you ignored everything I wrote after the comma:

“just because of the comparatively open press in Hong Kong + ubiquity of cell phones”

Of course I remember Tienanmen. And I’m also aware of the Uyghur camps. It’s no surprise that a country as authoritarian as China will be violent. What’s surprising is that it’s being violent in an autonomous territory with many Western connections.

[lisper]

No, I didn't ignore it, I just didn't see how it was relevant (and still don't).

> What’s surprising is that it’s being violent in an autonomous territory with many Western connections.

I don't see what that has to do with an open press and ubiquity of cell phones.

Furthermore, Honk Kong is not "an autonomous territory". It's part of China, full stop. The fact that the people who live there are behaving as if it were an autonomous territory is no small part of the problem.

Also, which of Hong Kong's "many Western connections" do you think is going to intervene when China invades? Do you really think Donald Trump is going to stand up for democracy? Do you really think Boris Johnson is going to send troops to protect Hong Kong's free press?

[rolltiide]

> Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act

What is up with the delusional nature of Hong Kong proponents? I mean I get that there are no other options but come on we have to watch this slow motion trainwreck for 50 years straight? Just get it over with already!

The US is merely going to re-evaluate Hong Kong’s independence, not this thing on the other end of the spectrum.

Everything I ever hear about Hong Kong residents is oozing with delusion. “We’ll get UK passports!” Remember that meme?

Im going to be on the edge of my seat if she requests the military though

[devoply]

Yeah I think US should send troops, build a base, and annex Hong Kong.

[JumpCrisscross]

> US should send troops, build a base, and annex Hong Kong

No, but we should definitely subsidise defensive weapons sales to Taiwan and our other democratic allies in the region.

[remarkEon]

Yes, because this activity is totally invisible to China and they will not ever notice F-35s, AH-64s, and American-made Air Defense weapons just magically showing up around their borders.

[JumpCrisscross]

> this activity is totally invisible to China

Deterrence doesn’t work if done in secret. If China intervened in Hong Kong militarily, Taiwan and our allies need to be able to credibly threaten the mainland with retaliation.

[remarkEon]

Why? I don't mean to come of as hash, but that is eerily similar to how we ended up in Vietnam. What happens when Taiwan (or whoever you think these other allies are ... Japan and South Korea, presumably) gets run over by a numerically superior - by an order of magnitude - Chinese Army?

And how does one "credibly threaten the mainland with retaliation" without nuclear weapons? Honest question.

[JumpCrisscross]

> that is eerily similar to how we ended up in Vietnam

Vietnam involved American ground troops. Upgrading a country’s standing army is different.

(Tactical note. China has a huge army. It’s navy is humbler. Troop transport capacities are manageable with the right guns and logistical lines. Add to that the international waters separating Taiwan and China, and an invasion can be rendered untenable.)

that is eerily similar to how we ended up in Vietnam> how does one "credibly threaten the mainland with retaliation" without nuclear weapons?

Non-nuclear ballistic missiles. Cruise missiles. Mines. Stealth bombers.

[PKop]

I imagine you won't be signing up to fight in this war you envision others fighting? Maybe you should be sent, or perhaps your son?

[blaser-waffle]

Why not send your daughter? It's 2019 after all.

Equality means they can be fed to the meatgrinder too.

[remarkEon]

I know this is sarcastic, but it’s a telling marker of how unserious the US has gotten in terms of preparing for a full scale war that we’re even entertaining that idea.

[devoply]

With the sort of salaries US pays troops you could easily have a million mercs lined up from all sorts of different countries by Thursday next week.

[sametmax]

Where would the million mercs come from ?

Is there even a million of mercenaries available around the entire world ?

How would you make them even work together ?

A million people is huge.

[PKop]

To do what exactly?

[devoply]

Liberate Hong Kong.

[throwaway8879]

I recommend you study the human history of politics and warfare, to fully understand why your comment is supremely naive.

[PKop]

How would sending ground troops into Hong Kong, or China accomplish anything but getting a lot of people killed?

[sametmax]

You mean like the US liberated Iraq ?

EDIT: damn it, Irak (french) is spelled with a q in English.

[Marsymars]

I expect the PRC would treat that similarly as the US attempting to annex Shanghai, or any other major city in China.

[devoply]

Let them, let's see what they will do. I wonder who would win such a conventional war. Though I guess afterwards there would be no Hong Kong left protecting.

[PKop]

What does winning look like?

Certainly both would lose many lives. Why would any American want to die for this crisis? Why would you imagine China would give up or be unable to defend territory so near their mainland?

[roenxi]

> I wonder who would win such a conventional war.

In a defensive war, probably China. They've got more tanks, more people, more manufacturing capabilities, lots of artillery and no doubt they've spent years preparing themselves militarily for such an event.

[praptak]

Who says it stays conventional?

[meowface]

Setting up the pre-conditions for World War III sounds like a fantastic idea.

[ivalm]

China has enough nukes for this to be a moot point. The outcome would be the same as if China decided to annex Hawaii -- an all out war with nuclear and other WMD.

[avip]

WW III - the missing CC mitigation plan in project drawdown.

[dasil003]

Why not Russia? They’re closer and they love annexing stuff.

[remarkEon]

>FWIW, any Americans looking to (try to) help may write their Congress representatives to support the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.

We just spent the last 3+ years, complaining about foreign meddling in our democracy and now we're right back to advocating that we do it ourselves to someone else.

Amazing.