
China signals plan to take full control of Hong Kong - onetimemanytime
https://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/China-signals-plan-to-take-full-control-of-Hong-15285627.php
======
OkGoDoIt
On Reddit there are some pretty intense videos and other first-hand accounts
of democratic-leaning lawmakers in Hong Kong being forcibly removed from
government buildings. I’m surprised this isn’t getting more press. But also
it’s pretty clear China is doing this now during coronavirus since the world
has bigger things to care about at the moment

~~~
woutr_be
Some background on why this is happening; The legislature was supposed to
elect a new chairman in October last year, pan-democratic lawmakers have been
blocking this election by filibustering any meeting that tried to elect a new
chairman.

The goal was to block this until the elections in September this year. About a
month ago, China spoke out against this, and since then, the legislature has
been trying to push this through. Evicted lawmakers tried to physical prevent
this from happening, which is why they were removed from the room.

I don't really agree with the actions of both parties, but this is the back
story. They weren't just forcefully removed out of nowhere, there were actions
that led up to it.

~~~
av_engr
From my understanding, they were filibustering because a pro-china legislator
was the former chairwomen of the internal committee (a group that review
policies before submitted to vote in general legislature), and for her to be
re-elected, she must resign first. Then pro-china party realized their fuck up
and caused a whole drama.

According to the rulebook, the vice chairman (pan-democratic) is supposed to
hold the meeting till new chair is elected. The democratic legislators saw
this as a chance to filibuster because pro-china legislator had an agenda to
push for establishing the National Anthem Act. In this case, the filibuster
forces the pro-china party into a losing situation.

The resolution was that the pro-china legislators seek "legal advice" from
some government legal counselor and directly broke the filibuster by having
the general legislature chairman (pro-china) appoint a new "chairman"(who
happens to be pro-china) to hold the new election. Of course, this is highly
illegal, but it went through anyways. Ultimately, it led to democratic
legislator surrounding chairman podium and protesting the illegal filibuster
breaking, which resulted in being forcefully removed from the legislature
hall.

~~~
woutr_be
I’m unsure about the first past, as far as I understood it, they wanted to
prevent the election of a new chairman until the next elections. Mostly
because in the current legislature the pan-democrats don’t hold a majority,
which is expected to change in September. So they wanted to prevent new laws
(like the national anthem law) to be pushed through

The last part is difficult, both sides sought legal advice, both were
contradicting each other. Eventually the pro-China side pushed through with
their advice, which resulted in clashes and eventually the eviction of pan-
democracts.

All in all; it’s an absolute mess, and not expected to get any better. China
is already circumventing the HK government by pushing for a national security
law. (Which was supposed to be implemented over the past 23 years)

~~~
ksec
>The last part is difficult, both sides sought legal advice, both were
contradicting each other. Eventually the pro-China side pushed through with
their advice, which resulted in clashes and eventually the eviction of pan-
democracts.

Actually the legal advice from Government ( Which in the past 10-15 years has
always been Pro-China ) on the issue was that the Pro-Democrats were right as
it was listed very clearly by the rules. That there was no way "reinterpret"
it. It was a surprise to the Pro-China party so they sort to _external_ legal
advice and suggest or basically completely changed the rule.

Is was at that moment, Hong Kong is officially Rule by Law and not Rule of
Law.

And yes that is why the later part was an absolute mess. People were planning
to protest about it anyway, but before anything was planned the new security
law happened.

~~~
woutr_be
I’m aware that the government’s own legal team cited against that move, so
they sought external legal advice and pushed through. It’s all very strange,
and I’m surprised the courts haven’t been involved yet.

It’s looking like a couple of rough months ahead, the new security law will
take into effect, most likely the national anthem law will go through as well.

At best the elections in September give a majority to the pan-dems.

------
centimeter
I am a US citizen who resided in HK for 5 years, until this last December.

I think Hong Kongers' efforts to resist increasing Chinese encroachment, while
admirable, are probably futile. They are simply too British. British culture
is completely incompatible with any kind of successful resistance against a
hostile government. They are too scared of weapons and (justified, defensive)
violence to make Chinese occupation unviable. The absolute most extreme
behavior we saw from protestors was thrown bricks and the occasional molotov
cocktail. Almost none of the destruction was targeted at Chinese government
facilities in HK - instead they went after easy HK-controlled targets like
road equipment and the airport. This is not a winning strategy.

~~~
tensor
I think US people are incredibly naive in thinking that they are going to
oppose government military action with their personal guns. It won't work, the
only difference will be many more dead.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
To an American, that sounds completely clueless. The soldier is likely a
neighbor (who isn't going to shoot); there's no way to isolate part of the
country from any other part (excellent secondary roads); they're outnumbered
1000 to 1 in any case.

~~~
tensor
Neighbours already shoot each other over politics in the US. As these things
always happen, it would be a corrupt government plus a significant part of the
population that supports the corrupt government.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
That just leaves the last two items.

------
ghostpepper
Interesting that a slightly reworded version of the same article is also
currently on the Washington Post home page.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-
sign...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-signals-plan-
to-take-full-control-of-hong-kong-realigning-citys-
status/2020/05/21/2c3850ee-9b48-11ea-ad79-eef7cd734641_story.html)

The headlines are different as well:

China signals plan to take full control of Hong Kong

vs

China to impose sweeping national security law in Hong Kong, bypassing city’s
legislature

~~~
partingshots
The Washington Post article was originally titled the same, but they edited it
in the last three hours.

~~~
tmaly
I remember reading a book years ago where news would switch and rewrite
stories and headlines every day.

~~~
vulcan01
1984, George Orwell?

------
koenigdavidmj
They've been able to get away with whatever they wanted in Xinjiang because it
has no bearing on their economy. But HK has ties to the west, and enough
people old enough to remember something resembling liberal government.

HK's only play at this point seems to be the Northern Ireland strategy--be as
ungovernable as possible, and rely on China having a bit of shame. I don't see
that working, though--the UK in Northern Ireland had a reputation to maintain.
I fear that turning HK into a prison camp would do to China's reputation
exactly what they want it to do.

~~~
free_rms
Point of fact, colonization by the British wasn't exactly 'liberal
government'. Anywhere. In HK's case, they only got their limited democracy in
the last couple years immediately before handover to China. The 150 years
prior, not so much.

Back in the 1980s, while Thatcher and Reagan were preaching about freedom,
british-ruled HK had less freedom than they do now under the bad guy commies.

EDIT: This is not to cheerlead a regression of rights in HK. I'm just saying
that being an imperial subject, being brutally put down every few decades when
revolting, that's not some liberal utopia.

~~~
hker
Note that Beijing limited Hong Kong’s democracy since the 60s, threatening
invasion.

See the following articles for the historical context [1][2]:

"Even in the '60s and '70s, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London
attempted to introduce democracy and free elections only to be told by
Beijing, including by Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, that under no circumstances
would [China] tolerate a democratically elected Hong Kong because they saw
that as the first step toward independence," she said. [1]

"These documents … show that not only were the Brits mulling granting Hong
Kong self-governance in the 1950s; it was the Chinese government under Mao
Zedong who quashed these plans, threatening invasion." [2]

[1]: [https://asiasociety.org/new-york/why-didnt-britain-
democrati...](https://asiasociety.org/new-york/why-didnt-britain-democratize-
hong-kong)

[2]: [https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-
still...](https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-stillborn-
democracy/)

~~~
thedudeabides5
Also note that if they do this, China will be in official violation of the
Sino–British Joint Declaration of 1984.

Meaning Hong Kong would _technically no longer be part of China, and would
revert to British sovereignty._

Meaning, if they pass this law and take over defense/security in HK, they are
essentially violating the Hong Kong Basic Law (Constitution) and invading what
would then be (through their actions) a foreign country.

Defer to international lawyers on the technicalities, but that's how I've seen
this read.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-
British_Joint_Declaration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-
British_Joint_Declaration)

~~~
hker
As an academic exercise of what if the Sino–British Joint Declaration of 1984
is revoked, one alternative possibility to for Hong Kong to join Taiwan
(quoting my earlier comment):

Note that Hong Kong was given to the Britain by three treaties in the 19th
century (1842 Treaty of Nanking, 1860 Convention of Peking, 1898 The Second
Convention of Peking), and the true copies of all treaties are in the hand of
Taiwan, which were brought to Taiwan by the KMT government during its retreat
to Taiwan before 1950.

So if the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, the declaration behind the
handover of Hong Kong from Britain to China, is revoked (partly because CCP
declares it invalid), Britain might declare that Hong Kong should return to
the holder of the three treaties–Taiwan.

Extremely unlikely, but arguably has legal justification.

~~~
aasasd
How does this work? If a dude flies to Jamaica with these papers then Jamaica
can own HK? Are those, like, bearer shares?

~~~
hker
The Britain signed the treaties with the Qing government (the last dynasty in
China until 1912), and the bearer shares of the treaties were brought to
Taiwan by the KMT government before 1950.

So the issue is: who represents China? The government in Beijing or the
government in Taipei?

Later, Britain signed the Sino–British Joint Declaration of 1984 with Beijing
to decide the (then) future of Hong Kong. If the Sino–British Joint
Declaration is revoked, things could be different.

Just recently US is asking the Beijing government to repay the debt of Qing
dynasty [1], which Beijing said would be the responsibility of Taiwan.
Following this logic, receiving Hong Kong from Britain could also be the
responsibility of Taiwan.

[1]: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-29/trump-
s-n...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-29/trump-s-new-trade-
war-weapon-might-just-be-antique-china-debt)

~~~
free_rms
That article is amazing. I figured Trump was just shit stirring, I should have
known he'd have a relationship with people who've been trading in that debt.

Since 2001! There's a century of this debt getting rolled over to greater
fools.

------
ENOTTY
Companies with significant ties to the US financial system and interests in
Hong Kong need to start planning for the contingency that Hong Kong loses its
special status under US law that treats it differently from mainland China.

~~~
ksec
They did. And as far as I know they will be very busy for the weekend.

------
Medicalidiot
The other day when HK leaders were dragged out of the legislative building was
surreal. It's something that I would have thought would only be seen by a
dictator in the developing world, not in one of the most advanced cities in
the world. It only adds to the adage that freedom must be continually fought
for.

~~~
munificent
_> It's something that I would have thought would only be seen by a dictator
in the developing world, not in one of the most advanced cities in the world._

People said the exact same thing about the Holocaust. How could such a modern,
enlightened country like Germany kill six million Jewish people?

We like to believe that the trappings of modern society are an innoculation
against tyranny, but they are not and have never been.

~~~
Medicalidiot
[https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html](https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html)

------
runawaybottle
Good time to do it since everyone is focused on covid.

~~~
scottLobster
More than that, Xi has been ginning up Chinese nationalist sentiment for
months now as a way of distracting the Chinese populace from the economic hit
they've taken/a supposed reason for their suffering. Hence all the conspiracy
theories about COVID being starting by the US Army and such.

If they're going to start projecting that nationalist sentiment outward, Hong
Kong is low-hanging fruit.

------
microcolonel
Weren't they signalling that this whole time? Weren't the civilized people of
Hong Kong out in the streets by the millions protesting for sovereignty most
of last year?

Anyway, It's amazing how much wealth and prosperity they're willing to erase
for the control. Hong Kong's actual functioning legal system was a huge part
of why it was the conduit to China for civilized nations; now what is there?

------
DonaldFisk
It is stated in the Sino-British Joint Declaration that "The [HKSAR] will be
vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including
that of final adjudication." [1] So it's unclear how this can be legally
imposed unilaterally on Hong Kong. That said, the proposed law appears to be
one which the HK legislature is required to pass under Article 23 of the Basic
Law, which states "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact
laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition,
subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets,
to prohibit foreign political organisations or bodies from conducting
political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organisations or
bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political
organisations or bodies." [2]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-
British_Joint_Declaration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-
British_Joint_Declaration)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Basic_Law_Article_23](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Basic_Law_Article_23)

------
amelius
Who is next? Taiwan?

~~~
altgeek
The PRC is playing the long game. Decades from now, they'll take the ROC
without firing a shot. It will be through economic integration leading to a
vote.

I know plenty of businesses in Taiwan that set up factories right across the
way in Xiamen. It's been well underway for the past 20 years.

~~~
blueblisters
Mainland China is already Taiwan's largest trading partner by a big margin
(followed by the US at second place). A lot of Taiwanese migrate to Mainland
for better jobs.

I am more curious what would happen, if say 50% of Taiwanese agree to some
sort of reunification with Mainland through a referendum? How would the US
react especially given the amount of US military resources and other strategic
interests in Taiwan?

~~~
mytailorisrich
The US's interest in Taiwan is part of a divide and conquer strategy. Nothing
less, nothing more.

The current political regime in mainland China is actually the best thing for
the US and a transition to democracy would be bad because that would make
reunification more likely, at least possible, and it would take away much of
the arguments the US use against China.

If the nationalists had defeated the communists and the mainland and Taiwan
had remained united, I doubt that the tensions between China and the US would
be less than they currently are, for example, because these tensions are not
caused by the political regime in Beijing, they are much more profound.

In any case, the US cannot realistically intervene militarily directly against
China whatever happens.

~~~
Robotbeat
That’s pretty silly and unfounded. The US is happy to trade with Europe, which
is overall more economically powerful than the US but is democratic.

~~~
DiogenesKynikos
Europe isn't a country. The US would strongly oppose political unification of
Europe, if such a thing were ever in the cards.

------
credit_guy
A lot of people here are alluding to the fact that China is planning to invade
Taiwan in a not so distant future. China wants to annex Taiwan, that's for
sure, and I don't think they are trying too hard to conceal this intention.
But military invasion means crossing a sea that is 130 km wide at its
narrowest. Such an think can't happen if you don't own the sea and the skies.
There are two ways to do that: you get a better Navy than the US Navy, or you
get the US Navy to stay out of the way. The first one is all but impossible,
while the second one is highly unlikely. The only realistic way for China to
take over Taiwan is via a democratic process, by a charm offensive. This is
many, many times more likely to happen than a military operation, but if it
happens, then that's the will of the people.

~~~
ginko
>The only realistic way for China to take over Taiwan is via a democratic
process, by a charm offensive.

They haven't been doing all that well with that lately.

~~~
koheripbal
China has publicly said that it is very patient in this regard. The only thing
that will trigger invasion, is if Taiwan makes a concerted effort towards full
independence.

...and while we can say that HK protests and covid-19 have reduced the
popularity of unification, it is still, on average, more popular an idea than
at any time since the split in 1949.

EDIT: Because I couldn't find any data supporting my above statement, I'll
just throw a link with the latest (20yr) trend that mostly just says that the
vast vast majority of Taiwanese want to maintain the status quo...

source:
[http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/2019/01/](http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/2019/01/)

...and since China has said publicly that they won't act against Taiwan as
long as they don't move away, then the only outcome we're going to see on
Taiwan is a whole lot of nothing for the foreseeable future - even if HK
students on here _want_ to see Taiwan supporting them - that doesn't seem like
that's going to happen.

------
justaguy88
I thought the UK might complain a little louder about this

~~~
centimeter
The UK is weak (both in terms of their collective mentality and their
influence on international politics), and they have an aggressive self-hate
over their history of successful colonization efforts. This is what they
decided they wanted for Hong Kong - they knew what would happen when they
voluntarily ceded control of HK to China.

~~~
ericmay
> This is what they decided they wanted for Hong Kong

Historical revisionism much? China was prepared to come and take Hong Kong,
the only thing that preserved the current state was a deal that allowed China
to save face. The U.K. had no ability to defend Hong Kong - they actually got
a much better deal than could have been expected, with China worrying about
its international reputation at the time. The Chinese could have walked right
in to Hong Kong and taken it much, much more quickly.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
The fact that China might have come in shooting doesn't make it any less of a
choice. If they had thought it was critically important to maintain democracy
in Hong Kong, they wouldn't have agreed to a 50 year phase-out, they would
have simply demanded democracy forever and set up a government in exile if the
tanks rolled in.

~~~
ericmay
What good is a government in exile going to do? The 50 year phase out at least
kept Hong Kong democratic for awhile so people could normalize it and expect
and demand it, versus has China just rolled in many people would have died and
they wouldn’t have enjoyed democracy at all.

------
irrational
I understand that HK was under British rule for a long time (I remember well
when the hand over happened). But after the hand over I don't understand why
HK was not treated just like any other Chinese region/province/state/district
(I realize now that I don't know how China splits up it's country)? Why was HK
granted special privileges that made it different than other parts of the
country? To me it would be as if Kansas is allowed to do things totally
different than the other 49 states, such as not pay federal income tax. Why
would that kind of thing be allowed?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Because the handover treaty said that it had to happen for the next 50 years.
And the 50 years aren't up.

~~~
irrational
Ah, interesting. I did not know that.

------
archibaldJ
An earlier take-over is bound to happen unless the protests in Hong Kong
manage to escalate to the national scale.

There will have been more public empathy in mainland for Hong Kong have people
in Hong Kong in general been nicer to people visiting from mainland in the
last 20 years instead of being so discriminative and unfriendly. And if there
are more empathy, we will see protests as well as stronger public opinions
among people in mainland favouring non interference in Hong Kong. And it will
become an actual movement. And there will be actual changes. Let's not forget
the protests in 1989 were started by mainland Chinese themselves and though it
ended in the worst way possible it was not in vain. In many ways they had had
positive impacts to the system and the overall human rights in China (though
it still doesn't enjoy the same degrees of freedom as in the West).

People in Hong Kong as well as people in China should take this as a
sociocultural lesson. If we want to change and improve the system, we need to
unite. As much as the system is authoritarian the way the system works
ultimately reflects how divided the people see themselves.

------
garyclarke27
Time for democratic countries - those with genuinely free elections and an
independent effective judiciary - to leave the UN and WTO and form their own
global Democratic Freedom Organisation - with members benefiting from Free
Trade, common standards, and in the long term, freedom of movement plus a
supreme court. They should impose onerous tariffs on corrupt governments like
the PRC and lower tariffs on countries progressing towards democracy and away
from corruption. Some short term pain as supply chains are disrupted but would
be a massive force for the good of humanity in the long run.

~~~
rorykoehler
Interesting that this is downvoted without comment. That ratio is mighty
suspicious, especially since this is an idea worth discussing.

~~~
shdh
And yet no one discussed the idea.

~~~
rorykoehler
That’s what happens when stuff gets downvoted. It’s why astroturfing works

------
ngcc_hk
The better title is take external or alien control of HongKong.

Whilst pathetic most laws and bills have a process local in Hong Kong. Like a
right wing paradise you not just have free market but also has essentially no
government (police dare not to walk the street say) and no bill pass for
months now. Even pandemics the response of the Gov is continue to open the
border so the mainland Chinese can fly in and out of china. The public just on
their own finding ways to get mask, making them and wearing them. On their
own.

Now the china would bypass the local legislature to enact the law the local
has opposed since 2004 with the 1st time million comes out again the security
law.

Guess they want to as that law give mainland rights to institute their own
force and likely their own legal procedure which unlike common law the accuser
has to prove themselves innocent.

Good luck and with that gone Hk is ended. In the past we at least may know.
Now we may not. Just no idea if you are in mainland why Hk stock market drop
5% in friday, the largest drop in last 5 years.

When the law is enacted bypassing your constitution (see all us, uk+2, and
even the Eu Announcement), you are done.

What to do if you are Jews under nazi. Unlike USA to Jews, there is nowhere to
go as the law actually covered any HKER in the world. We know they will
enforce it in spite of you are outside china. It is a bigger country than
North Korea.

Fight. See you.

------
gok
The writing was on the wall once it became clear that the West isn't going to
do anything about it.

~~~
alphawong
Very true. China gov is easy to find that the West will do nothing for it. We
can find an example from the Crimean Peninsula.

So, the fact is that another East Berlin has been set up. Let see how many
tragedies like East Berlin will be replayed.

------
haunter
Not that I'm arguing for China but that was always the case since the takover
right? I mean that it will happen before 2047 or sooner as a part of a gradual
change

>In accordance with the "one country, two systems" principle agreed between
the UK and China, the socialist system of China 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 [0]

0 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-
British_Joint_Declaration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-
British_Joint_Declaration)

~~~
chaostheory
There was a huge wave of immigration from HK in the 90s because of this.
Children of these families resented their parents. Hopefully, this vindicates
the parents.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was another wave of immigration away from HK.
Of course, the poor and uneducated are trapped.

~~~
rorykoehler
Just a small tip... Outward immigration is called emigration.

------
djohnston
The Chinese takeover of HK will be an excellent case study for the thesis from
Why Nation's Fail

~~~
naringas
because bigger nation invades?

~~~
djohnston
No, because one has a more or less free market with inclusive economic and
political institutions, and the other is China

~~~
djohnston
And if the thesis holds, the erosion and replacement of these institutions by
the central state's preferred methods should result in a drastic reduction in
prosperity for HK.

------
peisistratos
Hong Kong is a colonial relic, it makes all the sense in the world for China
to reintegrate this former imperial outpost now.

~~~
chr1
China itself is a colonial relic, it just happens to be a relic of a much
older and much more cruel empire. In a more lucky timeline, it would have
crumbled similar to Roman empire, and now, instead of one mega-dictatorship,
there would be an alliance of multiple independent countries.

------
ping_pong
Why are people surprised? I'm frankly surprised this didn't happen sooner. The
handover was 1987 it's over 30 years now. The Chinese have been slowly gutting
HK and moving the financial center over to Shanghai for decades now. The idea
that China wouldn't take over HK and essentially crush it into line is
shocking to me. I wish it didn't happen but it's fairly obvious it would. I
have many, many friends currently living in HK right now and they all seem to
be living with their heads in their sand for years now.

~~~
unfunco
It was 1997 (I was old enough to remember it.)

~~~
ping_pong
Yes 1997, you're right I got my dates wrong. I was living in Vancouver so the
date was ingrained in our heads because of so many immigrants from HK coming
to Vancouver, but I forgot entirely.

