Beijing says military could intervene in Hong Kong(latimes.com)
latimes.com
Beijing says military could intervene in Hong Kong
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-07-24/beijing-strikes-ominous-tone-saying-military-could-intervene-in-hong-kong
146 comments
Well done UK.
>In response, Ho posted a Facebook video making death threats against pro-democratic legislator Eddie Chu, who has spoken up against corruption in rural areas in the past and argued with Ho on a local TV channel on Tuesday.
>Ho said Chu had “two paths” before him: “One is a path of being alive, one is a path of not being alive. You must choose which path to take. Decide soon,” he said.
Jesus it's gotten bad.
If ever there was a way to galvanize the populace, it's to do away with the masquerade and just tell them "step in line or die."
>Ho said Chu had “two paths” before him: “One is a path of being alive, one is a path of not being alive. You must choose which path to take. Decide soon,” he said.
Jesus it's gotten bad.
If ever there was a way to galvanize the populace, it's to do away with the masquerade and just tell them "step in line or die."
Native Chinese Hong Konger here.
I don't like Junius Ho myself, but I think the LA Times translation of that quote is incorrect.
生路 and 死路 in Chinese don't literally mean "path of being alive" and "path of being dead". They are figurative, more appropriately translated as "free/open path" and "dead end". So Ho isn't really making threats about Chu's life, but more like abstract "consequences", maybe legal, maybe career-wise, maybe popularity-wise. Frankly, I don't know what Ho can do. I don't think Ho has enough evidence that Chu's supporter(s) vandalized his parents' graves and that Chu knows the exact perpetrator(s). Otherwise Ho would have provided that evidence to the police and the police would have made arrests already.
I don't like Junius Ho myself, but I think the LA Times translation of that quote is incorrect.
生路 and 死路 in Chinese don't literally mean "path of being alive" and "path of being dead". They are figurative, more appropriately translated as "free/open path" and "dead end". So Ho isn't really making threats about Chu's life, but more like abstract "consequences", maybe legal, maybe career-wise, maybe popularity-wise. Frankly, I don't know what Ho can do. I don't think Ho has enough evidence that Chu's supporter(s) vandalized his parents' graves and that Chu knows the exact perpetrator(s). Otherwise Ho would have provided that evidence to the police and the police would have made arrests already.
That's when you get when your country is run by a dictator with supreme powers -- everyone is at the behest of his/her mood (and of those who follow their direct orders), including other countries with which they may enter more conflicts because they are personally offended by them. There's no body of representatives to keep that mood in check.
Anyone not expecting this? It's fairly clear that the newest bridge to the peninsula was directly intended to enable such intervention.
This is not a judgement against China, but a nation that plans massive infrastructure projects, has a history of single-party rule (and rule by dynastic monarchs) and also is responsible for the Uighur re-education camps, doesn't really sound like a country unwilling to wield it's military might.
While it's citizenry and residents are much more diverse and identify not as Chinese but seperate, HK has historically been part of China, and only really a separate state/entity for a couple of centuries.
This is not a judgement against China, but a nation that plans massive infrastructure projects, has a history of single-party rule (and rule by dynastic monarchs) and also is responsible for the Uighur re-education camps, doesn't really sound like a country unwilling to wield it's military might.
While it's citizenry and residents are much more diverse and identify not as Chinese but seperate, HK has historically been part of China, and only really a separate state/entity for a couple of centuries.
Mainland China has 19 miles of land border with Hong Kong, it hardly needs to ship its tanks through the Macau-Zhuhai bridge.
Also, the PLA already has about 6,000 troops stationed in HK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Hon...
Also, the PLA already has about 6,000 troops stationed in HK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Hon...
I don't know where this conspiracy theory came from but it's patently absurd. Hong Kong already shares a river border with Shenzhen on which there are at least 7 ~100m long bridges as well as 1 ~3km long bridge that can put Chinese tanks directly onto HK New Territories.
The HK-Zhuhai-Macau bridge is a 55km long bridge connecting a 8x smaller city in China to Lantau Island which then requires another separate two bridge crossing to reach the New Territories (and then another to reach HK Island).
The military strategic value of this bridge is less than nil. The bridge was built for its stated purpose which was to increase integration and economic growth of the Greater Bay Area. The indirect effect of this is to tie HK's economy more deeply into the Mainland's so that HK becomes assimilated but there this was plainly stated from the beginning of the project.
The HK-Zhuhai-Macau bridge is a 55km long bridge connecting a 8x smaller city in China to Lantau Island which then requires another separate two bridge crossing to reach the New Territories (and then another to reach HK Island).
The military strategic value of this bridge is less than nil. The bridge was built for its stated purpose which was to increase integration and economic growth of the Greater Bay Area. The indirect effect of this is to tie HK's economy more deeply into the Mainland's so that HK becomes assimilated but there this was plainly stated from the beginning of the project.
I find it odd that in all the articles and discussions I've seen about this, the Opium Wars are never talked about. Of course violence is never justification for more violence, but seeing as Hong Kong's very existence is based on the worst of human exploitation, it's hard to imagine that it's ever going to have a calm future.
I can't help but think that for us Europeans it touches the nerve where we know at some level that all our chickens will come home to roost like this one day?
I can't help but think that for us Europeans it touches the nerve where we know at some level that all our chickens will come home to roost like this one day?
[deleted]
Using the military on an backwater province is different from deploying troops to a dense city filled with millions of people. Not saying they might not still do it, just pointing out that a PLA invasion of HK would command significant attention and sympathy worldwide.
>Using the military on an backwater province is different from deploying troops to a dense city filled with millions of people. Not saying they might not still do it, just pointing out that a PLA invasion of HK would command significant attention and sympathy worldwide.
And, sadly, like in Tienanmen Square, little would change.
The "international community" may condemn the violence and human rights abuses but, well, the "international community" still does business in Saudi Arabia, so the chance of the condemnation changing anything seems minimal.
And, sadly, like in Tienanmen Square, little would change.
The "international community" may condemn the violence and human rights abuses but, well, the "international community" still does business in Saudi Arabia, so the chance of the condemnation changing anything seems minimal.
Tienanmen and how little the West leaned on China for that is the original sin that led us to the current situation. It's essentially the West' fault for not cutting ties and putting sanctions on China immediately after that. We're paying the price for our cheap electronics.
Agreed. Not because it would have helped much, but at least we wouldn't have gotten into this dependency mess.
Pretty apt "Where was Gondor" case.
HK-ers are alone. No one will help them.
HK-ers are alone. No one will help them.
> a PLA invasion of HK would command significant attention and sympathy worldwide
Which probably doesn't matter one iota, given Tibet, BUT: it's going to be hard to hide that invasion from mainland Chinese who live in big cities, and may just start asking some difficult questions. If you live in Shanghai -- or I guess more to the point in Shenzen -- you'll have to work quite hard to see why you might not be next
Which probably doesn't matter one iota, given Tibet, BUT: it's going to be hard to hide that invasion from mainland Chinese who live in big cities, and may just start asking some difficult questions. If you live in Shanghai -- or I guess more to the point in Shenzen -- you'll have to work quite hard to see why you might not be next
Mainland Chinese are well aware of what’s going on in Hong Kong. And whether you’re in Shanghai or Shenzhen there’s no question of you being next; this is already the reality you live in.
I'm not as close to the situation right now, but several mainland Chinese people that I talked to following the mid-June protests (up to 2m protesters) hadn't heard of any of it happening
> PLA invasion of HK
Did the 1st Marine Division invade LA in 1992?
Did the 1st Marine Division invade LA in 1992?
I do think there’s a difference in that the city of LA had armed bands fighting each other. In this case, it’s the government vs protesters. The protesters want some laws changed to ensure they aren’t extradited and disappeared. In LA there were thugs looting stores and the store owners shooting at them.
Hing Kong will go back peacefully if they have the Chinese government back down. Hing Kong is also essentially a client state to a large degree. So, invasion isn’t exactly a wrong way to describe it.
Hing Kong will go back peacefully if they have the Chinese government back down. Hing Kong is also essentially a client state to a large degree. So, invasion isn’t exactly a wrong way to describe it.
Does LA have its own multi-party legislature, legal system, monetary system, immigration policy, official languages, postal system, and educational system?
I'm afraid they've lost: there are patently zero countries with the political will to defend Hong Kong.
Western Europe is the weak link in sustaining democratic movements worldwide. Its economic clout is enormous, but will refuse to use it in any meaningful way because it will incur short-term hardship and possibly loss of support at home. While being a good example of many modern values, Europe has no will to confront when things go wrong.
If the last two big conflicts were due to European actions, the next one will be due their inaction at the appropriate time.
I am not American.
If the last two big conflicts were due to European actions, the next one will be due their inaction at the appropriate time.
I am not American.
The problem is that we see how hard it is to see such a liberation/democratization campaign through. (Iraq, Afghanistan)
And in the end what is democracy? Will of the people. Great, what if the people are trigger happy xenophobics? (Just look at how nationalist populism is on the rise in democratic countries.)
And in the end what is democracy? Will of the people. Great, what if the people are trigger happy xenophobics? (Just look at how nationalist populism is on the rise in democratic countries.)
That they ignored Ukraine means they will ignore just about anything, even if it happens on their borders.
A loose union like the EU is unlikely to ever even threaten war, which is more or less the point of it I guess.
A loose union like the EU is unlikely to ever even threaten war, which is more or less the point of it I guess.
What do you mean they ignored Crimea/Donbass?
The EU did what it is best at, money stuff. Sanctions against Moscow and cheap debt/aid to Kiev.
What else should/could it do?
The EU did what it is best at, money stuff. Sanctions against Moscow and cheap debt/aid to Kiev.
What else should/could it do?
>...but will refuse to use it in any meaningful way because it will incur short-term hardship and possibly loss of support at home
It's fascinating to see people advocate that European leaders should ignore the democratically expressed wishes of their own people in order to support "democracy" on the other side of the planet.
It's fascinating to see people advocate that European leaders should ignore the democratically expressed wishes of their own people in order to support "democracy" on the other side of the planet.
Smart approach would be offering blanket asylum status to Honk Kong residents. The US could certainly use seven million educated, hardworking people.
About 3.4m Hong Kong people have British National (Overseas) status and can immigrate to the U.K. tomorrow should they wish to do so. I imagine a substantial number of those not entitled to BNO are children of those who are and would be able to migrate with their family if their entire family leaves. All the Chinese who moved to Hong Kong after the handover are screwed however.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_(Overseas)
> Applicants were required to be British Dependent Territories citizens by a connection with Hong Kong.[30] While about 3.4 million people acquired the status,[41] 2.5 million non-BDTC residents (virtually all Chinese nationals) were ineligible.[42] Those ineligible who wished to register as BN(O)s were required to have been naturalised as Hong Kong-connected BDTCs by 31 March 1996. Acquiring Hong Kong BDTC status other than by birth was no longer possible after that date.[37]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_(Overseas)
> Applicants were required to be British Dependent Territories citizens by a connection with Hong Kong.[30] While about 3.4 million people acquired the status,[41] 2.5 million non-BDTC residents (virtually all Chinese nationals) were ineligible.[42] Those ineligible who wished to register as BN(O)s were required to have been naturalised as Hong Kong-connected BDTCs by 31 March 1996. Acquiring Hong Kong BDTC status other than by birth was no longer possible after that date.[37]
> About 3.4m Hong Kong people have British National (Overseas) status and can immigrate to the U.K. tomorrow should they wish to do so.
No, they can't. BN(O) was created pretty much exactly for the purpose of allowing British Hong Kong citizens to retain their British passports without any sort of right of residency in the UK. The UK didn't want millions of foreign refugees with a claim to residency to appear on their doorstep any more than any other country would (have?)...
https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-nati...
"you: are subject to immigration controls and do not have the automatic right to live or work in the UK"
No, they can't. BN(O) was created pretty much exactly for the purpose of allowing British Hong Kong citizens to retain their British passports without any sort of right of residency in the UK. The UK didn't want millions of foreign refugees with a claim to residency to appear on their doorstep any more than any other country would (have?)...
https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-nati...
"you: are subject to immigration controls and do not have the automatic right to live or work in the UK"
You’re right.
Yeah but they also like democracy and I don't think that's in the current US administration's interests...
The US is currently in the middle of a crackdown on asylum seekers in general.
BRING THE DIM SUM
I would be surprised if US under Trump administration would even consider doing that.
This would absolutely risk an actual shooting war, so no it is not a "smart approach".
I get it that people are mad that democracy is under attack in Hong Kong, but this drift into considering extreme reactions is getting ridiculous.
I get it that people are mad that democracy is under attack in Hong Kong, but this drift into considering extreme reactions is getting ridiculous.
Hong Kong is not now and has never been a democracy. The PRC government informer the British they’d invade if they instituted democracy and they haven’t gotten any friendlier to the idea since.
I'm aware. I said that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, because "defending democracy" is a favorite method of building up a case for military intervention.
There are precisely no countries able to intervene militarily here.
False. The US is able. Just not willing.
The US medias overhyped the country for so long now that I think you really believe you could make it a guaranteed win.
I don't think you can:
- China has the nuclear weapon, a space program, allies and no ethics or politics to slow them down.
- nobody won the cold war, and Russia was way less economically viable than China
- China has 1.3 billions people it is willing to sacrifice while the US has 4 time less, half of it being obese, plus they must censor the pics of coffins coming back from war because dying americans is not acceptable.
- China host all the factories, and provide a huge chunks of primary resources to the US.
- China is capable of being self-sufficient rapidly, as they have the land and the capabilities of going back to manual labor.
- China army has millenias of terrifying history. It may very well be still here in 10000 years. The US has 500 years of history, total.
- The US never entered a war that would affect their borders. Up till then, they brought the fire far from home, giving a false sense of indestructibility to their population. China is your neighbor.
- Attacking China means WWIII, it's not sure humanity can even survive it.
I don't think you can:
- China has the nuclear weapon, a space program, allies and no ethics or politics to slow them down.
- nobody won the cold war, and Russia was way less economically viable than China
- China has 1.3 billions people it is willing to sacrifice while the US has 4 time less, half of it being obese, plus they must censor the pics of coffins coming back from war because dying americans is not acceptable.
- China host all the factories, and provide a huge chunks of primary resources to the US.
- China is capable of being self-sufficient rapidly, as they have the land and the capabilities of going back to manual labor.
- China army has millenias of terrifying history. It may very well be still here in 10000 years. The US has 500 years of history, total.
- The US never entered a war that would affect their borders. Up till then, they brought the fire far from home, giving a false sense of indestructibility to their population. China is your neighbor.
- Attacking China means WWIII, it's not sure humanity can even survive it.
What would they be able to do? They couldn't even oust Assad in Syria, and many many fewer casualties in the middle east became untenable politically. Spell out the details of what you think is possible to accomplish here?
Not military, but the US could impose targeted sanctions to Chinese actors just like they have regarding Russian behavior.
It's not a guaranteed success but it would be sending a very strong signal. Better than nothing, perhaps
It's not a guaranteed success but it would be sending a very strong signal. Better than nothing, perhaps
They're in the middle of a trade war, which it seems both sides are looking to de-escalate. I don't think US wants to pressure on other matters, nor do I think it is in the interests of American citizens to do so.
China could just as easily see as act of war or at very least, threatening their sovereignty. Maybe they sell their treasuries or restrict rare earths, or simply cut off supplies amongst their $400 Billion goods surplus with the US. I really don't think they'll allow themselves to be pushed around on this, out of general principle.
China could just as easily see as act of war or at very least, threatening their sovereignty. Maybe they sell their treasuries or restrict rare earths, or simply cut off supplies amongst their $400 Billion goods surplus with the US. I really don't think they'll allow themselves to be pushed around on this, out of general principle.
[deleted]
It didn't even make the Russians blip.
What makes you think US is not already intervening?
People assume that an intervention would be ships and helicopters showing up with people dancing in the streets like in some sort of movie.
Regime change does not look like that.
It looks Venezuela, Libya, Iran ...
And starts with a long information campaign.
People assume that an intervention would be ships and helicopters showing up with people dancing in the streets like in some sort of movie.
Regime change does not look like that.
It looks Venezuela, Libya, Iran ...
And starts with a long information campaign.
> It looks Venezuela, Libya, Iran ...
Given these examples, Hong Kong would be much better off without such intervention.
Given these examples, Hong Kong would be much better off without such intervention.
Certainly in the short run ...
Short run, mid run, and long run. Iraq and Libya are broken states right now because the US intervened overtly. That covers short and mid run. Iran is making problems today and receiving international flak only because the US intervened covertly and fucked up. That covers the long term.
[deleted]
>Iraq and Libya are broken states right now because the US intervened overtly.
That's like saying Germany was a broken state after US intervened in WW2. I mean, it was literally broken up, but it didn't have an insane dictator committing mass scale human rights abuses anymore.
That's like saying Germany was a broken state after US intervened in WW2. I mean, it was literally broken up, but it didn't have an insane dictator committing mass scale human rights abuses anymore.
It isn't. WW2 was a world war, and Germany was hell-bent on world domination and genocide. The US and its allies being under direct threat is a different situation than preemptively destroying nations to further US political goals.
Facts are good. They help to anchor people to the unfortunate reality of how hard it is to help a country (or just anyone in general).
However, the simple fact that the US went in guns blazing and left before things got better (because otherwise it would have been too costly) doesn't invalidate all forms of intervention ever and forever.
However, the simple fact that the US went in guns blazing and left before things got better (because otherwise it would have been too costly) doesn't invalidate all forms of intervention ever and forever.
The US example doesn't invalidate all forms of intervention, but it does call into question any proposal of US intervention, which is the context here.
I read someone mentioning India, others the UK, etc. Not that any makes much sense.
It's no wonder such sensitive situations were mishandled. The theoretical magical chain of events that lead to sustained "freedom" was always there, on paper at least, but using the US examples we should conclude that its cost-benefit is waaay way lower than necessary to consider it a useful foreign policy tool.
Of course, an avid idealist might argue that this just means the US (or the world, or the West) just needs more experience to be able to better export "freedom"; and of course it is something we should never stop trying. And even today, even after the whole ISIL/ISIS campaign every place is better off now than it was before. (No Saddam, no Gaddafi, etc.)
It's no wonder such sensitive situations were mishandled. The theoretical magical chain of events that lead to sustained "freedom" was always there, on paper at least, but using the US examples we should conclude that its cost-benefit is waaay way lower than necessary to consider it a useful foreign policy tool.
Of course, an avid idealist might argue that this just means the US (or the world, or the West) just needs more experience to be able to better export "freedom"; and of course it is something we should never stop trying. And even today, even after the whole ISIL/ISIS campaign every place is better off now than it was before. (No Saddam, no Gaddafi, etc.)
Unless US wants WWIII.
The UK is very unlikely to just sit and watch China be troublesome.
The UK has spent 22 years sitting and watching China be troublesome in HK, uttering barely a word. Chris Patten (the last governor, former chairman of the Tory party and despised by Beijing) has repeatedly criticised government and Tory party for it.
UK has precious little leverage left except trade sanctions, which is a far weaker lever as we leave the EU. Nonetheless HKers have taken out ads targeting UK gov requesting sanctions be imposed:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/24/hong-kong-acti...
UK has precious little leverage left except trade sanctions, which is a far weaker lever as we leave the EU. Nonetheless HKers have taken out ads targeting UK gov requesting sanctions be imposed:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/24/hong-kong-acti...
To be fair I think they had no power, only influence, inside the EU. Now they have no influence but only a small amount of power and no real leverage.
Given China's silk road deals with Italy, I don't think any EU action will be forthcoming UK or no UK.
Given China's silk road deals with Italy, I don't think any EU action will be forthcoming UK or no UK.
Very true, on both counts. Though laughably UK was once respected for what it brought to international relations. Had UK been a more willing EU member they may once have been able to galvanise some EU action.
The problem for anyone contemplating China sanctions is we got too dependent on them, making sanctions too expensive.
The problem for anyone contemplating China sanctions is we got too dependent on them, making sanctions too expensive.
Unlike France the UK has long since checked out of being a colonial power. And even if they wanted to do so, the great naval power that was Britian seems unable to stop Iranians from hijacking their ships.
They are probably already drafting the strongly-worded letter
I agree. Their only solution right now is to give out rifles and ammo to every citizen, if they want to remain free from the tyranny.
China, population 1.3 billions.
Honk Kong, population 7 millions.
Give them all the weapons you want, they will get crushed.
Honk Kong, population 7 millions.
Give them all the weapons you want, they will get crushed.
Yes, but they would have to murder millions to take over. The rest of the world will likely not agree with that.
We have let it happen in Africa many times, buy people with mostly machetes.
Here we are talking about what is now the biggest, baddest bully in the room. 1.3 billion people, our entire economy in hostage and the nuclear bomb.
Chine doesn't have to worry about the opinion of the rest of world.
Here we are talking about what is now the biggest, baddest bully in the room. 1.3 billion people, our entire economy in hostage and the nuclear bomb.
Chine doesn't have to worry about the opinion of the rest of world.
They could just turn off water and electricity and blockade naval food imports. Any independence movement would capitulate within a week (or starve within two).
Which is the reason why HK was gifted to the PRC in the first place - it cannot be defended against a siege.
Which is the reason why HK was gifted to the PRC in the first place - it cannot be defended against a siege.
[deleted]
Luckily we now live in a world where this could change rather quickly. Information moves much faster than it did decades ago.
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.
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.
> I never would have expected China to profess/commit violence openly
Seriously? I'm surprised they held off this long. Remember Tienanmen Square?
Seriously? I'm surprised they held off this long. Remember Tienanmen Square?
> Remember Tienanmen Square?
Worry not, they're busily working on making sure you won't.
Worry not, they're busily working on making sure you won't.
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.
“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.
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?
> 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?
Yeah I think US should send troops, build a base, and annex Hong Kong.
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?
Why not send your daughter? It's 2019 after all.
Equality means they can be fed to the meatgrinder too.
Equality means they can be fed to the meatgrinder too.
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.
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.
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.
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.
To do what exactly?
Liberate Hong Kong.
I recommend you study the human history of politics and warfare, to fully understand why your comment is supremely naive.
How would sending ground troops into Hong Kong, or China accomplish anything but getting a lot of people killed?
You mean like the US liberated Iraq ?
EDIT: damn it, Irak (french) is spelled with a q in English.
EDIT: damn it, Irak (french) is spelled with a q in English.
Innocent question why spell Iraq with a k I've never seen that before and wondering if it has special meaning outside of just a way to spell it
It's spelled that way in a lot of European languages.
I expect the PRC would treat that similarly as the US attempting to annex Shanghai, or any other major city in China.
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.
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?
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?
> 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.
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.
Who says it stays conventional?
Setting up the pre-conditions for World War III sounds like a fantastic idea.
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.
WW III - the missing CC mitigation plan in project drawdown.
Why not Russia? They’re closer and they love annexing stuff.
[deleted]
>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...
"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...
> 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
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
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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?
What good is a protest if it's not heard and relayed ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
>>"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.
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.
Don't worry, nothing happened in 1989 that might give some indication of what the Chinese government is historically prepared to do to protesters.
HK belongs to China
> HK belongs to China
And the USA belongs to Britain.
And the USA belongs to Britain.
They have experience with Tianenmen and got away with murdering their own citizens before. https://www.pulitzer.org/article/army-clears-tiananmen-squar...
Coverage in the South China Morning Post is better.[1]
[1] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3019854/chi...
[1] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3019854/chi...
If you want to link to native media better link to Hong Kong Free Press.
SCMP is not at liberty to tell "the truth" (by western standards).
SCMP is not at liberty to tell "the truth" (by western standards).
URL?
As of my writing this, HKFP hasn't written about this exact story
For the site generally then.
You just cited a newspaper owned by one of the richest members of the Communist Party. Not exactly an unbiased news source.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46353767
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46353767
This is mostly rhetoric and political posturing. Chinese government has so far refrained from taking any action. Beijing is not an benevolent actor, but is smart enough to leave Hong Kong people alone and let Hong Kong people see for themselves what a HK version of Arab Spring/Orange Revolution can deliver. If the protests lead HK to a state of chaos and recession, Beijing will gain more leverage.
> Beijing is not an benevolent actor, but is smart enough to leave Hong Kong people alone
Nothing Xi has done in the past year with Hong Kong has been smart. It’s short termed decision making, optimised for his political survival over the country’s long-term interests.
When dictators’ economies slow, they tend to pick from one of two handbooks: scapegoating a minority or launching pointless wars.
Nothing Xi has done in the past year with Hong Kong has been smart. It’s short termed decision making, optimised for his political survival over the country’s long-term interests.
When dictators’ economies slow, they tend to pick from one of two handbooks: scapegoating a minority or launching pointless wars.
What has Xi done that you feel is in short-term interests?
What quickly comes to mind is the removal of term limits (detriment to China, favorable to Xi). There are lots of things that China has done since Xi that are bad for foreign diplomacy that makes neighbors nervous, which seems like a detriment in the long run, though it's hard to say. Some examples: (more hostile climate to foreign businesses, claiming the south china sea, cyberespionage, oppression in xinjiang)
Also Keep in mind what the Chinese gov is capable of, notably that there are up to a million or more Uighers in 're-education' camps at the moment [0].
0: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-45474279
0: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-45474279
If this happens in HK, everything is on the table for Beijing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2009_Ürümqi_riots
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2009_Ürümqi_riots
A bunch of jawjacking in this thread about how the US should "intervene", whatever that means.
He's a quick rehash of what the American military has been up to for the last 2 decades:
* Fighting a failing (read: failed) counter-insurgency, that has surely atrophied the necessary skills and experience of field-grade and above officers needed to fight great land and sea wars
* Mopping up the mess left from the above
I don't doubt the fighting ability of the line infantryman (I was one), but this idea that we could do anything about Hong Kong without engaging in a full-scale war is ludicrous. It ignores a) the actual military engagements this country has gotten into for the last 20 years, and b) the actual geo-political situation in the region. Perhaps consider what strategic interest to the United States Hong Kong represents before advocating that we get into yet another endless war with nebulous objectives and mystical thinking about how easy it would be.
He's a quick rehash of what the American military has been up to for the last 2 decades:
* Fighting a failing (read: failed) counter-insurgency, that has surely atrophied the necessary skills and experience of field-grade and above officers needed to fight great land and sea wars
* Mopping up the mess left from the above
I don't doubt the fighting ability of the line infantryman (I was one), but this idea that we could do anything about Hong Kong without engaging in a full-scale war is ludicrous. It ignores a) the actual military engagements this country has gotten into for the last 20 years, and b) the actual geo-political situation in the region. Perhaps consider what strategic interest to the United States Hong Kong represents before advocating that we get into yet another endless war with nebulous objectives and mystical thinking about how easy it would be.
To the more fortunate among us who live in the civilized parts of the world: please proactively fight for your democratic system and basic human rights. They are hard-earned, but can be easily eroded.