Hong Kong protests

It's not going to be that easy for China to steamroll in with the military, unless there are some hardliners in Beijing that want to do it Russian style like Chechnya.
 
Last edited:
DreamKing said:
In accordance with the "one country, two systems" principle agreed between the UK and the PRC, the socialist system of PRC would not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), and Hong Kong's previous capitalist system and its way of life would remain unchanged for a period of 50 years until 2047. The Joint Declaration provides that these basic policies should be stipulated in the Hong Kong Basic Law and that the socialist system and socialist policies shall not be practised in HKSAR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration
Click to expand...

I don't know why you posted that. I did not dispute this. However China can do what she wants. If she wants to honour that agreement she can, if she doesn't she doesn't. Point was that there is no power that can force China to honour that. Short of a nuclear war where both Beijing and London cease to exist there is nothing effective Britain can do. The days of the British empire are over.
 
DreamKing said:
no. but I also don't think china will break the promise.
Click to expand...

What makes you so sure? You do know that for China internal stability is paramount. That means if enough Chinese demand it, the PRC government will do their bidding? Or do you think they will go down fighting for Great Britain? LOL.

best for china: HK accepted the fake democracy.

plan B: continue to have a fully controllable chief executive.

worst: the dead of the joint declaration.
Click to expand...

What will Britain do if PRC annexes HK? Stop doing business with China? Perhaps. That will prolly hurt Britain more than China.

War? Will white Britons risk annihilation over a war over Han Hong Kongese? I don't think so.
 
From Wiki:

The territory that now comprises Hong Kong was incorporated into China during the Qin dynasty (221–206 BC),
Click to expand...

HK was initially Chinese. It's now returned to China. Britain just has to accept it, and if the Chinese continue with this agreement it will be their decision entirely.
 
Space_Chief said:
What makes you so sure? You do know that for China internal stability is paramount. That means if enough Chinese demand it, the PRC government will do their bidding? Or do you think they will go down fighting for Great Britain? LOL.


What will Britain do if PRC annexes HK? Stop doing business with China? Perhaps. That will prolly hurt Britain more than China.

War? Will white Britons risk annihilation over a war over Han Hong Kongese? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

mainland china will not make this thing to happen because prc will not accept that the entire world pointing fingers to them and acquiring them ignoring the joint declaration. how they can respond to the entire world says, "we don't care any agreement signed with any country"? can they say that?
 
interesting .:D

Things that could only happen in a Hong Kong protest

By Samanthi Dissanayake BBC News

Tear gas, pepper spray, feelings of anger and betrayal, crowds forced to run from riot police... and yet the protests retain that uniquely Hong Kong character.

Reporters and Hong Kong residents have shared their most surreal and charming experiences on the streets.
Click to expand...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-29423147
 
DreamKing said:
mainland china will not make this thing to happen because prc will not accept that the entire world pointing fingers to them and acquiring them ignoring the joint declaration. how they can respond to the entire world says, "we don't care any agreement signed with any country"? can they say that?
Click to expand...

Of course they can, in the exact same way Putin has ignored the West's toothless gestures while he creates unrest in Ukraine. The red Chinese learned well from the red Russians.
 
DreamKing said:
fail logic.
Click to expand...

It was initially a Chinese territory. It was conquered by the Brits. There is no reason why China can't take all control back. After all UK got the control in the first place through military might. No logic fail.
 
DreamKing said:
mainland china will not make this thing to happen because prc will not accept that the entire world pointing fingers to them and acquiring them ignoring the joint declaration. how they can respond to the entire world says, "we don't care any agreement signed with any country"? can they say that?
Click to expand...

The entire world? Who?

SA will not do that. Most of the Third World won't do that. Russia and neighbours won't do that. Most Asian states, outside of Japan and perhaps the Philippines won't do that. Middle East - most would not want to upset CHina, a big oil buyer. I doubt most of South America would do it. And at best there would be token gestures and business would go on as usual. And no, most would not scuttle the good business.

Secondly as mentioned the agreement was beaten out through force. China had to cede the territory after defeat by the British. Why should a distant country - the UK - dictate to the Chinese? Please explain that to me.

Name and shame does not work. Did it ever stop anyone in history?

And as said, if the Chinese people demand it, it will happen. Chinese history is full of popular uprisings which overthrow the government. The Chinese Communist Party will not go against that.
 
Space_Chief said:
It was initially a Chinese territory. It was conquered by the Brits. There is no reason why China can't take all control back. After all UK got the control in the first place through military might. No logic fail.
Click to expand...

your logic:
so alaska still belongs to russia?

In 1784, Grigory Ivanovich Shelikhov arrived in Three Saints Bay on Kodiak Island.[5] Shelikhov and his men killed hundreds of indigenous Koniag, then founded the first permanent Russian settlement in Alaska on the island's Three Saints Bay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alaska#Early_Russian_settlement
 
Space_Chief said:
The entire world? Who?

SA will not do that. Most of the Third World won't do that. Russia and neighbours won't do that. Most Asian states, outside of Japan and perhaps the Philippines won't do that. Middle East - most would not want to upset CHina, a big oil buyer. I doubt most of South America would do it. And at best there would be token gestures and business would go on as usual. And no, most would not scuttle the good business.

Secondly as mentioned the agreement was beaten out through force. China had to cede the territory after defeat by the British. Why should a distant country - the UK - dictate to the Chinese? Please explain that to me.

Name and shame does not work. Did it ever stop anyone in history?

And as said, if the Chinese people demand it, it will happen. Chinese history is full of popular uprisings which overthrow the government. The Chinese Communist Party will not go against that.
Click to expand...

I don't want to spend so much time with you about this issue. obviously you are lack of understanding of ..... so many things.
 
DreamKing said:
your logic:
so alaska still belongs to russia?

In 1784, Grigory Ivanovich Shelikhov arrived in Three Saints Bay on Kodiak Island.[5] Shelikhov and his men killed hundreds of indigenous Koniag, then founded the first permanent Russian settlement in Alaska on the island's Three Saints Bay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alaska#Early_Russian_settlement
Click to expand...

HK was conquered by the British, something we these days consider unacceptable and wrong. But that conquest could only last as long as they were strong enough. They're no longer strong, and a resurgent China retook their territories, peacefully. It was even very kind of the Chinese to respect British influence over HK for the next few decades, something the British did not do for the Chinese. Now did the British ask the Chinese about HK in the 1800s? No, they did what they wanted. Now China can do the same. Or do you mean there should be a double moral standard for the British and Chinese?

Alaska was sold to the US. I don't see what your analogy is. The legitimate government of the time ceded the territory to the US in exchange for money. Now the Soviets if they were strong enough could say the Tsarist government of the time was not legitimate and retake the land by force. But the Soviet Union had no interest in that, nor were they willing to start a war over that. But China is potentially capable of that.

Morally the Chinese have a greater claim to HK. The people there are culturally and ethnically Chinese for thousands of years. The land was under Chinese authority for thousands of years. It was also successful in the past too, as a trading area and pearl hunting region. Anyhow.

A good analogy could be made with the US and Britain too, i.e. the American War of Independence.

Now if the people of HK want to be independent that's another issue. But that's an issue separate from the practical ability of the PRC to enforce their will on the territory, or any agreement with a third (imperial) power.
 
Last edited:
SUPPORT PEOPLE OF HONG KONG: TUTU

Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu has called on all who believe in democracy to support the people of Hong Kong in their protests, his foundation said on Wednesday.

"I salute the courage of the hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong citizens who have participated in mass demonstrations in the territory in recent days to assert peacefully their right to have a say in the election of their leaders," Tutu said in a statement.

"Their struggle is one that all who believe in the principles of democracy and justice should support."

The Deutsche Presse-Agentur on Wednesday reported that thousands of pro-democracy demonstrators were blocking major roads in various districts of Hong Kong, continuing a protest that began Sunday.

In the early hours of Wednesday, protesters extended their demonstration to Tsim Sha Tsui, a popular tourism and shopping district.

Protesters are demanding reforms ahead of the 2017 elections, including the public nomination of candidates for next chief executive.

Tutu said peaceful demonstrations presented opportunities for various points of views to be ventilated, and for parties to demonstrate their commitment to the principles of freedom of expression, dialogue and rule of law.

He slammed the attack on protesters by law enforcement agencies.

"The firing of teargas at demonstrators, as happened on Sunday, was a bitter blow to what many still hope will be a peaceful, inclusive and dignified transformation process. I pray that the voices of the people of Hong Kong will never be stifled," he said.


Source : Sapa /kn/tk
Date : 01 Oct 2014 07:22
 
Space_Chief said:
It was initially a Chinese territory. It was conquered by the Brits. There is no reason why China can't take all control back. After all UK got the control in the first place through military might. No logic fail.
Click to expand...

You are probably right BUT the Law Of Contract is of prime importance in international affairs. If China were to impose their will on Hong Kong, they would be setting a precedent which could backfire on them and cheese-off the rest of the world which requires some form of integrity and trust for trade and agreements between wildly differing countries and cultures. They would seriously undermine this (informal) relationship between countries by imposing their will on Hong Kong and destroy trust between countries (agreements mean nothing – you can do what you want if you are strong enough).
 
Space_Chief said:
HK was conquered by the British, something we these days consider unacceptable and wrong. But that conquest could only last as long as they were strong enough. They're no longer strong, and a resurgent China retook their territories, peacefully. It was even very kind of the Chinese to respect British influence over HK for the next few decades, something the British did not do for the Chinese. Now did the British ask the Chinese about HK in the 1800s? No, they did what they wanted. Now China can do the same. Or do you mean there should be a double moral standard for the British and Chinese?

Alaska was sold to the US. I don't see what your analogy is. The legitimate government of the time ceded the territory to the US in exchange for money. Now the Soviets if they were strong enough could say the Tsarist government of the time was not legitimate and retake the land by force. But the Soviet Union had no interest in that, nor were they willing to start a war over that. But China is potentially capable of that.

Morally the Chinese have a greater claim to HK. The people there are culturally and ethnically Chinese for thousands of years. The land was under Chinese authority for thousands of years. It was also successful in the past too, as a trading area and pearl hunting region. Anyhow.

A good analogy could be made with the US and Britain too, i.e. the American War of Independence.

Now if the people of HK want to be independent that's another issue. But that's an issue separate from the practical ability of the PRC to enforce their will on the territory, or any agreement with a third (imperial) power.
Click to expand...

I do not really understand what you are trying to argue. :confused:
 
PROTESTERS TO HK BOSS: QUIT OR WE OCCUPY BUILDINGS

Student leaders of pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong warned Wednesday that if the territory's leader doesn't resign by the end of Thursday they will step up their actions, including occupying several important government buildings.

By raising the stakes in the standoff, the protest leaders are risking another round of confrontation with the police who are unlikely to allow government buildings to be stormed. It also puts pressure on the Chinese government, which has so far remained mostly silent and preferred to let Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying deal with the crisis.

The student leaders, who have played a key role in organizing the protests to press for greater electoral reforms, would welcome an opportunity to speak to a Chinese central government official, Lester Shum, vice secretary of the Hong Kong Federation of Students, said at a news conference.

"However, we ask them to come to the square and speak to the masses," Shum said. "This is a movement of Hong Kongers and not led by any specific group."

Shum demanded that Leung resign by the end of Thursday. He said there was "no room for dialogue" with Leung because he ordered police to fire tear gas at protesters over the weekend, after the street protests started Friday.

"Leung Chun-ying must step down. If he doesn't resign by tomorrow we will step up our actions, such as by occupying several important government buildings," he said, adding that demonstrators won't occupy "essential" government offices, such as hospitals and social welfare offices.

The protesters oppose Beijing's decision in August that candidates for the territory's top post in inaugural 2017 elections must be approved by a committee of mostly pro-Beijing local elites. The protesters don't want such restrictions and see China as reneging on a promise that the chief executive will be chosen through "universal suffrage."

The demonstrations pose the stiffest challenge to Beijing's authority since China took control of the former British colony in 1997.

Earlier Wednesday, a holiday, protesters kept behind police barricades heckled Leung as he attended a flag-raising ceremony on China's National Day, which marks the founding of communist China in 1949. Hundreds of them yelled at him to step down, then fell silent and turned their backs when the ceremony began.

China's government has condemned the student-led protests as illegal. President Xi Jinping, who has taken a hard line against any perceived threat to the Communist Party's hold on power, vowed in a National Day speech to "steadfastly safeguard" Hong Kong's prosperity and stability.

Agnes Chow, another student leader at the news conference with Shum, said she hoped that Beijing would look past the flag ceremony and see "the anger and frustration of the Hong Kong people and that we don't have our basic democratic rights."

Given the holiday, the protest numbers swelled Wednesday to tens of thousands, including many families with children, couples, students, retirees and foreigners who live in the city of 7 million. Many thronged a six-lane highway in front of the government headquarters in the Admiralty area, while others gathered in the downtown areas of Causeway Bay and Mong Kok.

"I came out today to support the movement. No student leaders or occupy leaders urged me to come out. I came out on my own," said Pierre Wong, a 36-year-old IT technician. "I hope there will be democratic reform, instead of using the current framework."

Throughout the protest zones, volunteers were manning supply stations under canopies to protect against the sun, handing out water, crackers, umbrellas, rain coats and plastic wrap - which was also used to protect against the pepper spray and tear gas used by police to try to disperse crowds over the weekend.

In his speech, Leung made no direct mention of the protesters, but he told voters it is better to agree to Beijing's plans for nominating candidates and to hold an election, than to stick with the current system of having an Election Commission choose the chief executive.

"It is definitely better to have universal suffrage than not," Leung said. "It is definitely better to have the chief executive elected by 5 million eligible voters than by 1,200 people. And it is definitely better to cast your vote at the polling station than to stay home and watch on television the 1,200 members of the Election Committee cast their votes."

The growing protests have attracted worldwide attention, with British Prime Minister David Cameron saying he planned to summon the Chinese ambassador to discuss the dispute, saying it is essential that Hong Kong's people have a genuine right to choose their top leader.

"It is not for us to involve ourselves in every dot and comma of what the Chinese set out," Cameron said in England. But he added: "I think it is a critical question. Real universal suffrage doesn't just mean the act of voting; it means a proper choice."

Chan Kin-man, one of the leaders of another protest movement called Occupy Central, said the protests would continue as long as the Hong Kong government failed to give a satisfactory response to their demands.

"I hope people will understand why the action keeps on escalating. It's because the government is getting more and more closed without listening to Hong Kong people," he told The Associated Press in an interview on the street. "If the government can give us a proper response in due course I think we can end the occupation immediately."


Source : Sapa-AP /mr
Date : 01 Oct 2014 14:10
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X