
Xi’s Dilemma: Send Forces into Hong Kong, or Wait Out Protesters - JumpCrisscross
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-13/xi-s-dilemma-send-forces-into-hong-kong-or-wait-out-protesters
======
Aperocky
How is this a dilemma at all? There are two options, send in the troops and
forcefully pacify HK or wait and let all kind of mayhem happen. The second
choice is a no brainer. Xi's powerbase is in mainland China, and the people
there currently have negative sympathy towards protest in HK, not least
because they labeled mainland people as 'locust' and waved British flags
calling for foreign intervention. HK's economy is also not directly controlled
by China, nor benefit China directly, having the protester turn the whole
place into shit does not harm China at all, and serve as an 'I told you so' to
all of China as to its point on the protester. Rolling in the troop might
galvanize support for HK both outside of China and within China, and taking
all the blame for past protest and whatever pacifying action the troop did.
It's clear as day which choice is superior to the Chinese government.

The troops in Shenzhen are most likely just a threat - if they do roll into HK
it will be the worst miscalculation by Chinese government since 89.

~~~
ddoolin
Is there evidence to suggest China sees '89 as a miscalculation? Seems like
their ultimate goal was successful.

~~~
josh2600
Yeah, I’m not sure Tiananmen Square was a miscalculation. When’s the last time
you heard about a serious mass democratic movement in China?

~~~
Aperocky
The point is China, not HK. Whatever HK does at the moment have 0 or negative
effect in China itself.

~~~
philwelch
The goal is to make HK part of China.

------
theseadroid
As a Chinese mainlander emmigrated because BOTH of the Chinese gov and the
people, I'm fine with an independent Taiwan or Hong Kong or whatever. With
that being said, I find the stupidity in those reportings and conversations
around Hong Kong's protest astonishing. It is sad to see illogical media-
induced anger has taken the better part of many commenters here at HN as well.

There's no incentive for the Chinese gov to use military force, period. What
the protestors are doing is actually pretty beneficial to the Chinese gov. The
protest is destroying HK's economy, yes. But HK's economy is actually not
vital to China's economy anymore[1]. Instead, a less economic significant HK
would be much easier to govern in the long run. China would rather further
develop its Shanghai or Shenzhen, than investing into HK.

What's more, the recent trade dispute with US, and the Hong Kong protest, have
made significant negative impact on mainland Chinese attitude toward the
western countries and idealogies. If there's any internal conflicts and fights
for certain types of freedom before, they certainly become muted now. The rise
of nationalism is surely making the higher-ups happy.

1\. [https://www.vox.com/2014/9/28/6857567/hong-kong-used-to-
be-1...](https://www.vox.com/2014/9/28/6857567/hong-kong-used-to-
be-18-percent-of-chinas-gdp-now-its-3-percent)

~~~
uranusjr
I very much agree that most reportings and conversations lack proper context,
especially non-Chinese ones (although I refrain from describing them as
_stupid_), but can’t help but wondering whether your concluion is also missing
some other context.

Reports conflict on how China is faring on the trade disputes, but Hong Kong,
being the only place not affected in these trade conflicts, may be too
valuable to give up as a worst-case plan, even if it might not be vital in
numbers. Even given the same information, a spectator’s mindset can be
drastically different than a player’s, since a spectator has nothing to loose,
but a player does.

The current Hong Kong incident is really, really complicated not only because
of China itself, but also it happens at a very perculiar time. The fact that
China chose this particluar time to assert control on Hong Kong (proposing the
Fugitive Offenders Bill and providing the sparking point) is also under-
discussed, and no-one AFAIK has a good explaination–it can’t be simply
stupity, for sure? I certainly would not jump into the conclusion that China
has “no incentive, period” to use military force without first understanding
all those nuances and much more.

~~~
theseadroid
Genuine question, with all the context and nuances you have provided, what
positivity would bring to Beijing if they use military force? For me I dont
see a militarized HK will help with the trade dispute in any way.

~~~
uranusjr
A militarized HK certainly won’t, but China may be convinced they could use
military to bring Hong Kong back to approximately its pre-protest state. Hong
Kong in its current state would be increasingly less likely to fill the
economic role Beijing might need it to. It’d be reasonable to risk military
action if they think they can repeat Tiananmen, with (western) countries
repeating the appeasement policy on that occassion.

And honestly I kind of feel they actually might have a chance to pull it off.
Prominent countries don’t have a good track record reacting to China’s
bullying tactics (except Trump, as much as I dislike him).

~~~
theseadroid
You think Beijing would think pulling a Tiananmen 2.0 would bring HK into the
right track fulfilling its economic role after? I dont think almost anyone,
include almost every mainland Chinese would think that way.

If military is involved, economies will crash, hard. Not only HK's economy, a
lot of economies will crash. It will be an economic suicide for mainland
China. Is there any doubt about that? And that's irrelevant if any western
countries intervene or not.

You probably haven't talked to any educated mainland Chinese recently? For the
ones who would like to get HK in line and even get Taiwan back, the only
feasible way they see is economic dominance over those territories. As a
strategy by itself, I kinda agree.

Edit: I dont think PRC depends on HK more economically than emotionally. HK is
one of the symbols of western countries invasion 100 years ago. Getting it
back has a great deal of emotional value for mainland Chinese. What I see PRC
can extract more value out of HK right now is to emphasize the western
influence over the protest, making regular Chinese more in line with PRC's
world view and values. Anger directed towards other countries rather than
introspective is a good thing for the gov if and when there's any hardship
inflicted during the trade dispute period.

~~~
uranusjr
I agree as much as the next commenter here that HK can’t survive Tiananmen
2.0, but am not so sure about the CCP leadership. And I do have actual
interactions with mainland Chinese (although I don’t know whether you’d
consider them “educated.”)

> It will be an economic suicide for mainland China. Is there any doubt about
> that?

Why not? I would most definitely doubt it. Again, I do assume it would crash,
but there is absolutely no actual proof that is the case. This wouldn’t be the
first time CCP uses armed forces against civillian protest, and on every
previous occassion they ended up just fine.

~~~
theseadroid
>This wouldn’t be the first time CCP uses armed forces against civillian
protest

Europeans have killed how many American Indians and ended up just fine. But
can they do that today? Coerced sterilization of Indigenous women in Canada
had been legal for as late as 1970s and do they dare to do that today [1,2]?

What I'm saying is the world has changed quite a bit and so do CCP.

>and on every previous occasion they ended up just fine.

Really? For starters during previous conflicts CCP rarely had an economy to
crash.

Again, the legitimacy of CCP within mainland is almost purely lay on its power
of economy growth. There are many Chinese people who are not content with it
but bear CCP because of the economy growth [3].

You probably knew the 2014 Hong Kong protest, which had a similar scale? If
CCP can wait that one out, why can't it do it again this time? [4]

1\. [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/forced-sterilization-
la...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/forced-sterilization-lawsuit-
could-expand-1.5102981)

2\.
[https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/sterilizat...](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/sterilization-
of-indigenous-women-in-canada)

3\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20148705](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20148705)

4\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Central_with_Love_and_P...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Central_with_Love_and_Peace)

------
Schnitz
"dilemma"? - give me a break! As if this is some kind of crisis nobody saw
coming. This is a homemade problem, a dictator facing the results of
dictatorship. It's sad the world isn't much louder in its support for Hong
Kong.

~~~
ksdale
This is a complicated situation and I don't claim to have all the answers so
I'm just offering a perspective here, but it's not at all clear that the world
should loudly support Hong Kong. If the world loudly supports Hong Kong, and
China sends in the military, will the rest of the world defend Hong Kong?
Would that be a good outcome? If the rest of the world stays relatively quiet,
it plausibly allows China to let the protesters win without creating the
appearance of being cowed by the threat of violence from the rest of the
world.

I agree completely that it's a homemade problem and I have no sympathy for the
Chinese government, but that doesn't mean it isn't still very complicated from
an international perspective. Of course, the right answer is that China just
give the protesters what they want, but what's right and what's going to
happen don't always overlap and it's not particularly helpful to end the
analysis so quickly.

~~~
uranusjr
I’m sorry to see you downvoted. Maybe the problem is you use “rest of the
world” when you really mean other national governments? It is easy for people
to loudly voice support, but the perspective you raised is quite valid for
governments to consider. Which is why most government leaders (except e.g. the
UK) do stay silent on this very topic.

~~~
ksdale
That’s an excellent point, thank you. I hadn’t considered that, obviously.

------
falcolas
I kinda hope someone advocates option 3: Start negotiations to change some of
the rules.

Idealistic, I know. But I can still hope.

~~~
theandrewbailey
That's the 'give in' option.

~~~
falcolas
I don't live in Hong Kong. I don't work for a company that has influence in
Hong Kong or China. I voted for a different party to handle the US foreign
relations. Hoping is about all I, practically speaking, can do.

------
cronix
The world is watching.

~~~
pmezard
Was it watching Tibet as well?

~~~
Arubis
Watching, and sending thoughts and prayers. /s That said, HK is different in
that it's China's primary interface with the Western financial system.

~~~
Mikeb85
> HK is different in that it's China's primary interface with the Western
> financial system.

 _Was_.

Part of the reason for protests in HK is that it's not as important as it once
was, and young people growing up in HK who don't remember the British
(remember, HK never had democracy under the British) are at once lamenting the
lack of lucrative jobs like their parents had/have and idealising a past that
never existed in order to maintain a self-identity that isn't simply
'Chinese'.

Unfortunately this also won't unfold the way the protesters want. China can
turn HK back into a fishing village by simply opening up Shanghai and Shenzhen
even further, and HK has no real path towards independence. There's literally
no sympathy for them on the mainland, no foreign power will intervene, they
have no real power.

------
m3kw9
Wait to see what back to school is like come sept. Then they will reassess

------
SubiculumCode
Or give the protesters what they want: Liberty and self-determination, and
welcome those changes into China's mainland.

~~~
andyonthewings
This. I have no idea why people thought it's a dilemma of choosing either send
forces or wait out protests, but not consider the ethical, correct, and right
option of giving what the protesters want.

~~~
echaozh
So you protest to get everything you want? Not all protests are guaranteed to
be just. What if the Mainlanders then decide to protest to stop the protests
in HK?

~~~
andyonthewings
I am not saying ALL protest objectives are right. I have no idea why you would
generalize that. In this particular event, don't you think what the HK
protesters ask for are just?

------
zuuow
I think Xi is not well prepared for urban guerrilla. He'll probably wait this
out, get prepared for it, and shut up the protestors once and for all the next
time they decide to make noise (maybe in 2-3 years?).

------
hencq
Unfortunately in the event of (armed) intervention, I expect the US and
Europe's reactions to be similar to the Kashoggi murder. A bit of faux outrage
and then everything goes back to normal. Heck, I could even see Trump praise
Xi Jinping for being such a strong leader.

~~~
Mikeb85
And what would the US and Europe do? Invade China? Nuclear deterrence is still
a thing.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _what would the US and Europe do?_

Recognise and arm Taiwan.

~~~
ryacko
Taiwan as Taiwan, or Taiwan as the Republic of China?

There is only one UN Security Council seat for China.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Taiwan as Taiwan, or Taiwan as the Republic of China?_

Taiwan can call itself whatever it wants.

Recognising the island’s right to govern itself would be reasonable. Nobody
would recognise Taiwan’s claim on the mainland.

> _There is only one UN Security Council seat for China_

Out of all the challenges around recognising Taiwan, this is like the nine
hundredth most pressing.

~~~
philwelch
The issue is that PRC, ROC, and every other country in the world agrees in
principle to the “One China Policy”. The One China Policy is the fundamental
basis of things. Nobody, even the Taiwanese, is willing to officially accept
the notion that Taiwan is not part of China. I suspect that neither China or
Taiwan would allow any country to simultaneously recognize both of them as
separate de jure nation states.

------
madengr
They are screwed without an armed populace.

~~~
consumer451
> They are screwed without an armed populace.

Say Hong Kong did have something like the 2nd amendment, and more private
firearms than citizens just like the USA.

What are the strategies and tactics that these people could use to win a
military campaign against the might and weaponry of Chinese People’s
Liberation Army?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _What are the strategies and tactics that these people could use to win a
> military campaign against the might and weaponry of Chinese People’s
> Liberation Army?_

Modern warfare hasn’t figured out urban insurgencies. Pot shots and IEDs,
sabotage, _et cetera_ would have made China’s occupation of Hong Kong a PITA.
It would raise the stakes of invasion from worldwide outrage to having to
destroy Hong Kong in a Pyrrhic victory.

~~~
ivalm
> Modern warfare hasn’t figured out urban insurgencies.

Only in a sense of US rules of engagement.

However, look at other less scrupulous countries dealing with urban combat and
you will see that while bloody they can pacify quickly.

If you know that resisting means death of your family, you're less likely to
resist.

If your neighbour's best way to safeguard his family is to expose every
guerilla fighter he knows he will do it.

The thing is, it won't be pyhrric victory, it will be a full and near lossless
victory for PLA. Most HKers will lay down their arms because people generally
dont want to die in a hopeless struggle and collective punishment will flush
out the remaining guerrillas.

~~~
swirepe
> less scrupulous countries dealing with urban combat

Do you have any examples? I'm not challenging you, I just don't know much
about this topic.

~~~
ivalm
ISIS conquering land in Iraq and Syria

Taliban taking over cities in Afghanistan

More "police" actions:

China pacifying Uighur and Tibet regions.

El-Sisi pacifying Muslim brotherhood in Egypt.

Basically, intense indiscriminate violence "solves" some problems.

------
m0zg
And now think whether there'd be a "dilemma" if they had the Second Amendment
like we do. I think not.

~~~
Iv
The good thing with a second amendment, from the point of view of an
authoritarian regime, is that if you arm loyalist militia to gun down
protestors, you have plausible deniability. Look at Ukraine. A lot of weapons
in the population, makes it easier for Russia to support a side without direct
involvement.

~~~
m0zg
Ukraine doesn't have 2A though. Most of the "weapons in the population" in the
hot phase of the conflict there came directly from the military bases where
the separatists used to serve. People simply switched allegiances. Some
willingly, some not so willingly.

~~~
bushin
Wrong. Soldiers and weapons came from Russia.

~~~
m0zg
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

~~~
bushin
Yep, I dismiss your incorrect comment.

