[fat-chunk]

We can all disapprove of what the current CCP is doing, but you cannot compare Hong Kong's situation to Taiwan, Tibet or Xinjiang, in fact you're muddling a bunch of completely different situations.

Hong Kong has historically always been a part of "China", you could say it was "invaded" by the British and then the Japanese during WW2.

I obviously disapprove of the suppression of the HK populace with force, but this is no different to how the CCP operate in the rest of China. If anything the British mandated China had to apply different rules to a portion of their own territory, in classic imperialist fashion.

[ekianjo]

> Hong Kong has historically always been a part of "China", you could say it was "invaded" by the British and then the Japanese during WW2.

Who cares about History? What matters is now and what people want now. If not, you could use that excuse "but X was always part of Y" to justify just about everything.

[fat-chunk]

Well geopolitics is simply not that simple. What if the Chinese government kept telling the USA that california should hold an independence referendum? Might sound like a stupid example, but Americans would be up in arms at such a proposition. What if China told the USA to end the trade blockade on Cuba so that they fairly take part in the global economy and climb out of poverty? Again, the USA would never consider such a proposition.

The reality is we don't know how many HK residents want to be independent. Ideally they could hold an independence referendum, but the Chinese government don't want that, and due to the geopolitical tensions in the world right now they're not going to take advice from Western nations.

You could make the same argument to the UK about Wales and Scotland, or Spain with Catalunia and the Basque Country. Neither government is going to let a referendum happen for quite a while.

[Chris2048]

> What if the Chinese government kept telling the USA that california should hold an independence referendum?

If there was good reason to think Californians wanted this, I'd be all for it. Also, there most pressing issue is American investment in California, which isn't so much of an issue in HK.

> What if China told the USA to end the trade blockade on Cuba

Not sure what this has to do with HK, where trade and international relations are generally better than the mainland..

> we don't know how many HK residents want to be independent

and we never will because PRC don't want to know, don't want anyone to know, and make it clear that it will punish democratic support, let alone independence.

> You could make the same argument to the UK about Wales and Scotland, or Spain with Catalunia and the Basque Country

And indeed, I would. But the Spanish government isn't ripping up agreements like PRC, plus its a willing member of the EU.

[roenxi]

Well, that was probably what China was saying when they ditched the agreement they had with Britain.

China has grown large and powerful. If history matters, Hong Kong is probably part of China. If history doesn't matter, Hong Kong is part of China.

I think the real question here is what was possible for Hong Kong vs. what actually happened. Riots were maybe not the best strategy, in hindsight.

[ekianjo]

> I think the real question here is what was possible for Hong Kong vs. what actually happened. Riots were maybe not the best strategy, in hindsight.

Has any strategy ever worked with the CCP?

[dustinmoris]

> Who cares about History? What matters is now

History does matter. You cannot just invade a country, steal territory and then later say "it doesn't matter if this was once your territory, what matter is NOW and now I own it so get off my lawn".

That's just not how it works. In terms of history Hong Kong belongs to China and only in super recent history it was "taken" by the British always with the arrangement that it still belongs to China and would get handed back to China. So now that China does what is rightfully their right people act surprised, because the West hoped that if a little bit of time passes that China will stop caring but they were wrong. China took care of what was rightfully theirs and kept a tight grip over it because it saw what the West wanted to do and honestly fair play to them.

[vmception]

When I read the constitution of Hong Kong (Basic Law) and the supporting laws in mainland China, I come to the same conclusion as you.

To me, this obviously overrides the text or "spirit" of any handover treaty, specifically the Sino-British Joint Declaration, as the Basic Law is a constitution.

Leaning on that treaty as a Hong Kong citizen or non-British outside observer requires either complete ignorance, or complete desperation to ever reference it. Which I understand for the people of Hong Kong who have no options and don't want the change of life, but it doesn't embolden me to see it as exceptional as it follows their form of due process, by the book.

So, I agree with you. Disagreeing with you requires me to have a completely separate higher standard than how governments we actually respect operate and what they would tolerate.

I'm not comfortable with any of the procedures, but I really do see how we get a very distorted view of what China is, its goals, and how it operates. And there is a level of constitutional consistency towards territorial unity, which is very predictable. If you are willing to accept that (and how almost every action can be construed to undermine territorial unity) then China is very easy to operate and live in comfortably. Not so dissimilar to an institution or amusement park where you never look behind the scenes and just do the PG-rated activities made available to you, and if you stick with that you're fine. Obviously not what we are used to and strive for in "the west", but not really the nightmare its portrayed as either. Its sad to me that even trying to explain things to you all in a pragmatic way could get me detained in China (because its not completely exalting the territorial unity of China and raises questions about it), but I really think its useful to understand and that its impossible to explain another way.

[hedgedoops2]

Here's how. Hong Kong is part of China, yeah, but it was (under one country two systems) an autonomous part, with its own constitution, law and judiciary, which was democractic. What makes a state? Territory, legal and executive autonomy, defense. HK did not have defense, but it had everything else. It was a de facto state, and unfortunately HAD to be, because it was to be democratic in China. Hence, it was de-facto invaded when the "security law" was imposed (in violation of HK autonomy). The analogy is not perfect, and for sure this does not make it worse or better (it's bad because it's a violation of democratic rights and against the expressed wishes of at least half the population that demonstrated against the extradition law, NOT because of souvereignity issues). But there is an analogy with invading a foreign country that is pretty strong.

[murbard2]

> Hong Kong has historically always been a part of "China", you could say it was "invaded" by the British

Making them miss the whole cultural revolution and great leap forward, how tragic.