First, the government is suspending the law amendment, not retracting it. The law amendment could be revived in a month or two--that is, after enough leaders have been arrested and the protest cools down, just like how they cold-handled the Umbrella protest in 2014, or many other protests in China--for all we know now.
Second, the government is arresting people under the charge of "riot" [1]--despite HN'ers labeling such protest as non-violent, the charge of riot means a maximum term of 10 years--and they arrest people even by violating patients' privacy and eroding trust from patients to doctors [2]. If charged, some protesters have to pay a high price, joining others who have been paying the price due to Umbrella protest.
I would not say they have made it until the law is at least retracted.
[1]: https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/06/13/hong-kong-protesters-c...
[2]: https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/c0l9vl/hk_hospita...
People stateside have been very impressed with action in HK, taking notes on topics from communications to practicalities like quick extinguishing of gas grenades. Here it's often difficult to achieve sufficient density due to geographic dispersion as well as different political conditions.
Being part of China goes both ways. :-)
http://www.gov.cn/english/2007-06/14/content_649468.htm
China needs the West and it is politically unsavvy for China to renege on the rights granted before 2047. However, the British Foreign Office announced that Chinese officials now treat the Joint Declaration as "void".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration
I used to think that and it is logical
But the basic law does not have an expiration date, only HK’s geographical status does
So it theoretically can still exist under a separate legal system , the point is that there are possibilities
This isn't the central government of China. The government in question is the government of the Hong Kong SAR.
I sincerely hope that a non-violent protest gets these people the change they want, but I take real issue in framing violent protests as unnecessary when your historically oppressive government refuses to listen to the will of its people.
IMO we better consider this on a case-by-case basis. If non-violent protests can and will work in more places in future, why not?
I'm French and politicians have become very very good at this.
Also any change that comes through "gun" rarely turns into ballot friendly. Once armed the erst while "freedom" fighters will start fighting for their clan/class/tribe/interests.
The IRA in Ireland used plenty of guns and it helped them win real political power in a ballot friendly way.
I'd also mention that there were many times in the past when Beijing genuinely considered that option.
During yellow umbrella protests last year for examples, 3 regiments in Guandong province were not simply put into high readiness, but actually mobilised, i.e. troops issued ammo, and vehicles fuelled and armed.
I will not be surprised if a bigger operation is underway right now, and we simply don't know it. VPNs have been jammed 24/7 for more than a week, more intensively than even during 4.6 anniversary. New bootstrapping IP ranges are blocked within minutes on major VPNs. I've never ever seen it being so extreme ever.
I think the protestors are fighting the good fight, but I'm not holding my breath that anything will actually come about because 2 million people stood in the street.
Non-violence is a position but must have limits, otherwise you are demanding that people become punchbags of the state and preemptively invalidating all resistance against oppression, thereby amplifying the oppressor's narrative. A government in sufficient trouble will kill nonviolent people anyway and while it will lose moral legitimacy it is often willing to accept that as the price of strategic advantage, because the reality is that state actors can get away with killing people under many circumstances.
What we sometimes see (as here) is a triangle between government, capital, and people. Capital threatens to depart if government is overly aggressive and likes to pat itself on the back for its regulatory capability, but at the same time capital uses government to keep people subservient to those who control the wealth; one might say it's similar to fleecing sheep and aiming to slaughter as few and as humanely as possible. Large capital interests farm people within the legal and executive infrastructure of states for all practical purposes.
Above protests being violent or non-violent, what concerns Beijing more is them keeping going for that long.
What Beijing truly fears the most is them made look powerless. Pretty much the sole point of propaganda in China is to instill the idea of the state being allpowerful, and omnipotent.
That should be mentioned more often.
Not sure what’s going on with this account’s posting history. That said, this allegation is false.
Taiwan supports the protesters [1]. Taiwan and Hong Kong, both lawful jurisdictions, are free to enter into extradition agreements with each other. This extradition bill was a ham-fisted attempt by Beijing to subjugate Hong Kong. Ironically, in failing, it has shown Xi’s limited power [2].
[1] https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/taiwan-expresses...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/16/world/asia/hong-kong-xi-j...
What makes HK so special that they must have an extradition treaty with China?
* French yellow vests are ignored week after week. This is all over the place.
* HK already has extradiction with the USA.
* USA debacle demanding a journalist extradition to prosecute.
* Protesters posters are in english.
* Mainstream narrative, small HK will be successful independent. UK brexit will be terrible because it will be a insignificant country.
These arguments are weak enough to strain credulity. Almost all of them can be answered by saying "the context is very different"
1. Yellow Vests - no overlap in what is being protested. Dissatisfaction with policy vs dissatisfaction with fundamental political rights = very different context.
2. Extradition with rule of law abiding country that isn't explicitly trying to silence your dissidents = very different context.
3. Assange situation is complex and one-off, and the charges are more complicated than just reporting on stuff. It is also being openly discussed, scrutinized and will be prosecuted openly in a legal system. What routinely happens with dissidents and party critics extradited to China is very different.
4. HK was under British rule for a long time and there is a large English-speaking base.
5. Narrative about HK has to do with categorically different political / economic freedoms than the mainland. There's subtlety beyond a comparison like "what will be the bigger GDP"
The persecution of Assange is not one-off, because it sets a precedent for future prosecution of journalists in the United States, and it establishes that journalists are in danger in any country that has an extradition agreement with the United States.
Given all the concern about the Hong Kong extradition law being used to target critics of the Chinese government, I would expect the same people who oppose the HK law to also vigorously defend Julian Assange against extradition to the United States for political crimes.
USA is law abiding? It is the country with more prisoners global and per capita. Doesn’t look good. And Guantanamo? Patriot act? Also not when bombing other countries. They have shown more than once USA powerful are above the law.
Perhaps they should not accept extradition to China and also rescind to USA.
>* Protesters posters are in english.
There are just far too many Chinese Poster you don't get to see.
The only reason they made the news is because protests were violent.
USA has due process, the right to council and many other fundamental human rights.
Most of the posters are in Chinese.
Brexit will be worse for the UK economically, leaving China would be good for HK democratically. And, also, the UK has an enshrined right to leave thanks to article 50, HK does not have that right at all.
USA is the country with more incarcerated people globally and per capita. (possibly unfairly?)
The posters are possibly most in Chinese. Maybe it was the selection from western sources. Although there is a very big amount in English.
Surely you jest. USA practices extraordinary rendition, torture, and assassination of their own citizens without trial.
Obviously the western media used photos of protestors displaying the English side because it's easier and more convenient to explain
As for Taiwan, Taiwanese people already identify themselves with being Taiwanese. Nearly 80% of people polled identify themselves in fact, in recent polls. Now we just need the older generations to slowly fade away (ones that still watch China influenced news channels). The fact that president Tsai (who is close to our US allies) won her party election recently and has a 10% lead over her opposite party opponents (who are now distancing themselves from China) give us great hope. Our independence is going to continue.
As for the naysayers that say China can simply invade, I beg to differ. China was always going to have problems attacking a well fortified island. But an old, broke China with no allies in the region attacking Taiwan with US backing it is impossible. And as time goes on, Taiwan will eventually declare independence and have the world support for it. That’s the future I am looking forward to
Some coordinated efforts in the free world to raise Taiwan would help, but at least Taiwan is gaining a little bit from the recent trade tariffs [2].
[1]: https://www.eurasiareview.com/08122018-the-contours-of-xis-c...
[2]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-03/vietnam-t...
PLA training is 90% political indoctrination, 10% combat training.
They have garrisons in Hong Kong (edited).
Unless the Chinese communist party self-destructs, there's no foreseeable end of communist rule in China.
The social credit system and online censors prevent people from criticizing and opposing the government.
Source please
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/25/taiwan-can-win-a-war-wi...
> Both Westerners and Taiwanese should be more optimistic about the defense of Taiwan than is now normal.
> Yes, the Taiwanese Army projects that it can only hold off its enemy for two weeks after the landing—but the PLA also believes that if it cannot defeat the Taiwanese forces in under two weeks, it will lose the war!
It probably would. We just don’t have an issue that imminently and clearly threatens the wellbeing of 2/7ths of the population, and for which a simple solution (e.g. withdrawing a bill) presents itself.
When American cities get pissed off and form a consensus, they certainly turn out.
Look at how New York responded after 9/11. Now put yourself in the shoes of the people of Hong Kong. When a group of people come to believe they are facing an existential threat, they respond in extraordinary ways.
I'm Swedish, born and raised in Gothenburg. After the Umbrella protests in 2014 five people connected to the Causeway Bay Books store in Hong Kong disappeared. One of them is a naturalized Swedish citizen, his daughter was raised in my home town. He is now imprisoned and can't communicate with his daughter, or with the Swedish authorities. Angela Gui, his daughter, is continuing on the struggle for his release to the extent she can, being only 21 when her father disappeared.
All these arguments about "leave China be" or "this isn't the West's problem" just don't make any sense to me. This is a small world, whether we like it or not, and letting authoritarian stuff like this extradition treaty to a dictatorship slide is condoning it and before you know it your citizenship, constitutional rights and passport which you thought would keep you safe doesn't work anymore and you get snatched from a street for something you've said. Your family can only cry themselves to sleep over it from the feeling of powerlessness.
We don't have to go into hypotheticals about what will happen if China gets more power to persecute people of Hong Kong. In Sweden, we already know what they've done with the limited power they hold now.
Your view is particularly relevant to the current protest on anti-extraditions law: the focus is on what if more people will be transferred to China when CCP does not like what you have done outside of China.
Without the extraditions law, CCP has to go into great length to abduct others into China--for the case of the five missing book publishers (including a Swedish national) [1] who did not violate any law in Hong Kong or elsewhere (ignoring some made-up non-sense of drink-drive accidents), likely CCP used secret agents reaching as far as Thailand, because there were no travel documents necessary to have the five people crossing the border through legal channels.
But once the extraditions law is passed, China can use Hong Kong to bring people into China, regardless of their nationality, and foreigners merely transiting in Hong Kong could be arrested and then extradited into China.
The results weren't pretty. The Swedish national, Gui Minhai, in this case were forced to made a "confession" on CCTV for his "crime", in addition to losing his freedom [1].
China has shown repeatedly that they could retaliate by charging foreigners. What follows the Huawei incident is a recent example.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearan...
A while ago a plane arrived in Fiji half-filled with Chinese police officers. They arrested 77 supposedly Chinese nationals, put them on the plane, and took them back to China. This was all extra-judicial. None of the 77 were arrested, charged, or convicted by the Fijian justice system. It's unknown who the 77 are, but the Chinese claim they were involved in an online fraud ring.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-08/chinese-suspects-depo...
An average HKer: I don't trust China's Justice system, which is heavily influenced by their government. I could be sent to China for made-up crime.
An average Chinese: Its a shame that HK as a part of China has Extradition treaties with all other countries but not Macau/Taiwan/Mainland (historical law by british). Imagine the same case for Hawaii and US Mainland.
As with other legislation, the devil is in the detail.
> An average Chinese: Its a shame that HK as a part of China has Extradition treaties with all other countries but not Macau/Taiwan/Mainland (historical law by british).
Such simplification--Hong Kong has Extradition treaties with all other countries but not China--is not useful in understanding laws.
I would cite below a point made by Leung Kai Chi (in Chinese [1], Question 6 there), translation mine (+ Google Translate):
> 6. But some Western democracies will also sign a transfer agreement with the Chinese government? > > Yes, but the situation in Hong Kong is different. First, when other countries and the Chinese government sign a transfer agreement, they generally stipulate that they will not be transferring to their nationals. However, under the Hong Kong Ordinance, both residents who are born and raised in Hong Kong, or those who only transfer at the Hong Kong airport, can be detained and handed over. Second, democratic countries have election supervision. If the government misuses the handover procedure, it will be punished by the voters. The chief executive of Hong Kong is appointed by the central government. Even if the transfer procedure is misused, it is difficult to open up the responsibility. Thirdly, precisely because the Chief Executive of Hong Kong is appointed by the Central Government, the handover arrangements in Hong Kong cannot be compared with other places. Leaders of other countries can independently assess whether a suspect should be handed over to mainland China. The Chief Executive of Hong Kong is responsible to the Central Government in accordance with the Basic Law and cannot make independent decisions. Under the framework of this system, all administrative examinations under the responsibility of the Chief Executive are tantamount to a false statement.
[1]: https://medium.com/@leungkaichihk/%E5%8F%8D%E9%80%81%E4%B8%A...
The whole article (in Chinese) is worth a read.
It’s just a matter of time.
Well, yes. The handover is explicit in 2047. This whole mess was an avoidable miscalculation prioritising Xi’s short-term political interests over China’s long-term strategic wellbeing.
Keep in mind this new extradition law also applied to foreign, non-HK/CN citizens visiting Hong Kong legally. Companies operating in HK _really_ did not want this bill, either,
The 1 was tribute to the one died in protest of the bill [0]. R.I.P
And I don't think the photos aren't what 2M people in the City really looks like. Here are few better ones.
And thank you everyone who supported us, even if you are not in HK, it is still much appreciated.
[0] https://time.com/5607742/hong-kong-protester-dies-anti-extra...
This result- where the government backed down, was not expected by anyone. Ever since the Beijing-picked government stared down the Umbrella Protests in 2014, it's been a death by a thousand cuts to Hong Kong's autonomy.
After talking to a friend who works for one of the pro-Beijing parties, it turns out the biggest fear for the Chinese authorities wasn't related to HK at all, but Taiwan. China has spent so much resources to promote friendly candidates for office in Taiwan and this HK debacle has instead emboldened the incumbent president of Taiwan, who is not at all friendly towards Beijing. In fact, she won her party primary and is now well positioned for the elections next year. As it turns out, as important as HK is, Taiwan is more important to Beijing and anything that provides fodder for Taiwan's independence leaning party is not allowed.
Saying the way HN readers can understand, the fear of Beijing is nor "people hearing" as much as "people talking"
Just every political commotion starts with people coming and talking with each other, forming groups, and confirming their views and positions, and not simply passively receiving information.
Central Propaganda Department works a lot to prevent negative sentiments from becoming rallying points for political opposition exactly for the reason above.
Hong Kong shouldn’t have been a problem. Most Hong Kongers, until recently, identified as Chinese moreso than Hong Konger. The transition in 2047 would have been uneventful.
Now, Hong Kong pissed off. Taiwan has seen the writing on the wall. China’s multi-decade integration strategy must be rethought because Xi didn’t think he could survive Hong Kongers criticising his leadership (including its corruption).
Hong Kong people learned from mainland China first. I do hope that one day mainland China could learn back, when the time calls for it.
Okay, as for the bit on cleaning trashes [1], we don't learn it from China, we learn it from Japan (for example [2]). Well, we all have something to learn from each other.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/c18ybh/protester_...
[2]: https://nextshark.com/japanese-world-cup-fans-clean-stadium-...
Mainlanders are also perfectly capable of doing it, although we are not doing as good as we can.
https://www.chinasmack.com/chinese-football-fans-pick-up-tra...
Downvote me all you want, I still support your democratic movements. But if you truly want mainlander to hear your voice, talking about how good Japan is is counterproductive.
If you want to make friends with the victims, it is not a good idea to talk about how morally superior the criminals are. Please explain why are you down-voting this. I changed my mind seeing your previous posts, and I may change again if you can point out my mistake.
Is it though? Or... Something closer to communism with a democracy wrapper over it.
The part I find most confusing is that Hong Kong believed China's word on separate laws separate courts. That was going to be the case until it wasn't convenient, which I suppose is now.
China didn't keep their word you say!? Whaa!?
Plenty of Hong Kongers left before 1997 for this exact reason.
It wasn't a question about whether Hong Kong believed China's assurances - that decision was made in London, not Hong Kong.
No joke, if you watch only TVB news, you will think the HK government is doing a great job and these protesters are arrogant, dis-obedient trouble-makers.
The gap in understanding can be really really big.
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3014695...
Also, HK can be a valve for the Chinese economy if the trade war continues to deteriorate.
The majority of the Chinese people have no idea what's happening in HK anyway, so it's not like HK will lead to troubles in other Chinese cities by itself, at least not in the short-term. So it is IMO wise for the Chinese government to leave HK alone for the time being.
