I dont really buy this. HK is apart of China, why should GB be able to dictate Chinese law based on a colony they took from China hundreds of years ago?
Politically? Physically? Culturally? Morally? Currently Hong Kong is ruled by China. Many in Hong Kong might prefer something different. If the government in Beijing allowed them to, they might choose complete independence.
> why should GB be able to dictate Chinese law based on a colony they took from China hundreds of years ago?
Why should a government in Beijing be allowed to dictate policy for people in Hong Kong based on the fact that Hong Kong was under control of a different government in mainland China hundreds of years ago before the British (unlawfully) took it from them?
Should the people of Hong Kong have a say in this? The people in Hong Kong have been asking for the right of self-determination. Is there some reason that the people of Hong Kong should not get this right?
As a Hongkonger, I see some similarities of culture between Hong Kong and China, but the differences are materially stronger, even more so than when you compare some countries in Europe.
I can give one distinct example. Our people's definition of patriotism in general is to make things happen so we can be proud of ourselves, that's why 2 million (or 25% of the population) walked out. Instead of "voicing support" so "we" look good despite terrible decisions or actions by the government. Many Chinese are intelligent and good people, they just can't get over this particular bit because of years of education and cross influence while the counter voices are silenced. (Apologies for the generalization, I do make friend with Chinese, this just represent the sample size of all the Chinese people I've interacted with.)
Personally I think nationalism is just an necessary evil because tribes are stronger. I'd rather identify with people having same believe, interests and thought spectrum. So the thought of "this place or these group of people must belong to us" is just beyond me, particularly if the process involves destroying all the value of this place.
I think everyone would be happier if Hong Kong is independent, and we work out a deal that benefits both sides. Too bad we're human, we love power, so CCP reached an illogical conclusion. Hongkongers are now talking about leaving with the main focus the preservation of our cultural identity. Much easier these days with tech.
Serious question. How common is it for a group of people to have this level of self determination? Eg if people in California decided not to be part of the US, can they?
Well, if the people of California all wanted to leave, they could elect a legislature and a Congressional delegation that is pro-secession. This is farther than China will allow Hong Kong.
After this, the California Congressional delegation could introduce a California secession bill. This bill would be debated in Congress.
If they were really serious, the Californians could support a constitutional amendment specifically allowing secession sort of like Article 50 of the EU.
But there are other example of people having this right. The people of Scotland narrowly voted to remain in the UK (but could have left). The people of Northern Ireland have the option to leave the UK. The UK chose to leave the EU. Puerto Rico could probably leave the US (who currently rules them) if they wanted to.
If the people of California decided to secede, they'd have the entirety of the US military giving them 24 hours to reconsider or else. If somehow California fought back and held out for a few years, maybe the US would give up and let them go, but probably not without intentionally destroying every single valuable asset that state has.
As much as people like to paint China as a villain here, a very solid proportion would support similar actions in the US.
> If the people of California decided to secede, they'd have the entirety of the US military giving them 24 hours to reconsider or else
Maybe. Maybe not. I personally think the US military would give them a couple of weeks just like they did last time when certain southern states tried to break away. However whether or not the federal government waits a few weeks isn't the main question.
If the people of California held a vote on whether they should be allowed to secede, zero US military personnel would interfere in any way. After holding such a vote, if the California delegation to Congress wanted to, they could force a vote on whether to allow California to secede.
While I would be very surprised if they were allowed to secede, I bet the people of California could win concessions from the other state governments. California elects nearly an eighth of the house of representatives. Combine their delegation with right-wing republicans who might be more than happy to eject California and the House might just vote to lose California. Through all of this, the military will do nothing. The Senate will be harder to convince, because every state has the same amount of representation.
Texas discussed secession recently, as did a few other States. While we did militarily crush the states who tried to leave in the 1860s, they attacked us first. Then we invaded them and brought them back.
> Politically? Physically? Culturally? Morally? Currently Hong Kong is ruled by China. Many in Hong Kong might prefer something different. If the government in Beijing allowed them to, they might choose complete independence.
This ignorance and arrogance actually makes strong action by the central (Chinese) government even more popular and supported by the Chinese public.
Western opinion has somehow been made to believe that HK was somehow not China. This is ridiculous.
HK is physically, historically, culturally, ethnically, morally a part of China that was seized by a foreign country in the 19th century (hence political separation). In fact, it was not the only piece of China to suffer that fate. That has always been an humiliation and an emotional issue in China (and I include Taiwan in that because this predates the split between PRC and ROC) and it was a very big event when it was "retroceded" back to China by the UK.
China and the Chinese people will not tolerate any interference whatever we might think of their political system (and even whatever they might think of their own political system).
It is pure propaganda in order to destabilise China to claim otherwise and it has certainly worked with a significant portion of the Western public opinion.
The hypocrisy is sometimes laid bare, like during the G7 when it was reported that President Macron said that Northern Ireland was not really part of the UK. This caused an uproar in the UK. Well, HK is arguably more Chinese than Northern Ireland is British.
Please stop with your grandstanding of what is and is not moral. China has a long imperialist history of taking over areas not culturally, ethnically, or morally a part of China. Tibet and Xinjiang are two obvious examples and the fact that it happened in the past doesn't make it better (especially when there is an active push by the PRC today to further assimilate the areas). The fact that they act like they have some right to annex Taiwan is just another example.
That doesn't mean that the UK was right in its actions, but let's not play games here. These were wars waged between two empires. China wasn't some sort of blameless victim. They are not some victim now.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying China wasn't an empire? Are you serious? The China that subjugated huge numbers of neighboring peoples? The China that was ruled by an emperor? The China that treated all neighboring countries as vassals? That China?
Or am I misunderstanding you?
edit: I guess I'll just interpret the downvotes as "yes I was understanding you correctly" and "no you don't really have a response other than hiding behind your twisted worldview where somehow China is a victim and not all the victims of China's actions over the millennia".
Politically? Physically? Culturally? Morally? Currently Hong Kong is ruled by China. Many in Hong Kong might prefer something different. If the government in Beijing allowed them to, they might choose complete independence.
> why should GB be able to dictate Chinese law based on a colony they took from China hundreds of years ago?
Why should a government in Beijing be allowed to dictate policy for people in Hong Kong based on the fact that Hong Kong was under control of a different government in mainland China hundreds of years ago before the British (unlawfully) took it from them?
Should the people of Hong Kong have a say in this? The people in Hong Kong have been asking for the right of self-determination. Is there some reason that the people of Hong Kong should not get this right?