The UK and the US ignored the blatant breaking of the Hong Kong Treaty by China. Back then the UK, US and EU should have put heavy sanctions on China. But stopping the 1% from loosing a few dollars.
We didn't even use the time to prepare for the authoritarians going to expansionists wars to stabilize the fragile regimes. Those who benefited from this Geo-strategic blunder, should be taxed heavily to finance the fight against its fallout.
Your comment is misleading. First, yes police showed up. Not first or last time.
Now, the salient question: were they charged and convicted with subversion, treason, or anything like a felony? Because that's what happen in HK.
If US kids trespassed, vandalized, assaulted the police well the US doesn't put up with either. And they are charged commensurately.
What I can tell you is the police and political class are not threatened by saying British, slavery or any other touch word from our past. You won't get a subversion conviction for that.
Are you familiar with Georgia’s “Cop City”? This sort of thing does and has happened in the United States, and recently.
> Carr obtained indictments against 61 people, alleging violations of the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law, over ongoing efforts to halt construction of Cop City. Indicted activists, including a protest observer, face steep penalties of up to 20 years in prison. Three bail fund organizers face additional money laundering charges, and five people also face state domestic terrorism charges. [0]
Is it ok because the prosecutor isn’t seeking life sentences? Do you contend that the activists are being treated fairly as one expects in a democratic society that values rule of law? Is it acceptable because America is 66% less repressive than China and against a narrower range of views (like socialism/communism, see Debs et al)? Have you really even interrogated your positions?
> Is it ok because the prosecutor isn’t seeking life sentences?
Okay and comparable are planets part. The prosecutor is prosecuting. They aren’t a general opening machine gun fire at the protesters. The false equivalence is beyond ridiculous.
To find an American analog to the Tiananmen massacre, you have to go back to when we were fighting Indians. (The Ludlow massacre, in 1914, comes close in kind but not scale [1].)
This not being Like to like != I think America is Okay.
The comparison was between the recent campus arrests and this.
Most of the rest of your comment is just baseless speculation on my views
> were they charged and convicted with subversion, treason, or anything like a felony? Because that's what happen in HK.
Not yet. But it’s obtuse bordering on disingenuous to claim this isn’t on the table, given rhetoric from politicians (current and former). Or is eliminationist rhetoric and political repression okay as long as it isn’t done the way China does it?
Also, are you familiar what how the anti-Cop City protest movement has been treated in Georgia?
Honestly I want to know if you’re speaking from ignorance or malice.
As a American who's followed politics closely since 1980s, I'll bet I can level harder hitting more direct criticism of US politics bleeding into justice under the law than any outsider. Now is not that time. Yet, the prepondernce of immigration remains to the US and oecd. Not china, and many other places the US has substantial differences with. Eventually even the Chinese/hk populous who are in a sense more patient will get sick of things too. Let's not work in absolutes that US criticism means our house is 100% not glass. Instiutionally the US congress, gop, and even scotus have serious problems which are bad for everyone. Basically since newt gingrich was house speaker congress has been sucking it more and more. And that's from a person who until about 10 years ago was a straight line gop voter, the only one in my family.
The CCP declared martial law. It had its troops, not police, indiscriminately fire machine guns into protesters and bystanders alike while other units drove tanks over crowds of kids [1]. Thousands died, thousands more were disappeared, and to this day the government is so scared it will jail anyone who talks about it.
It’s more complicated than that. China lacked riot police in 1989, the PAP didn’t really exist, and the normal police had no training for riot control, or even any guns.
Even the PLA was really provincial. They first brought in local garrisons made up of Beijingers who sympathized with the protesters and the beijingers who rioted after the army came in. They had to bring in remote garrisons to actually shoot people.
China made lots of mistakes and fixed them in many ways:
* the PAP was greatly expanded to provide something between police and the PLA for dealing with protests.
* They stopped garrisoning PLA troops in their hometowns.
* political obedience to the party was given priority over merit in PLA promotions.
Everything else is about right. They don’t want to talk about it. Even the middle school students involved are all 50 now, so it’s disappearing from memory. Also, it stopped a period of non-economic liberalization that was going on in the 80s, and stunted much liberalization afterwards.
> China lacked riot police in 1989, the PAP didn’t really exist, and the normal police had no training for riot control, or even any guns
Beijing had experience with riot control in Tibet [1]. One month prior to Tiananmen, they put down protests in Urumqi [2].
Agree that the police were unprepared. But the decision to violently suppress was made by the CCP’s top leadership. This wasn’t an accident. It was a deliberate massacre of protesting children.
> China made lots of mistakes and fixed them in many ways
Beijing switched from open to covert killing. Were China party to the ICC or ICJ, Xi would be open to charges of genocide and crimes against humanity in Tibet and Xinjiang/East Turkestan [3]. The continued fear and repression in Hong Kong is noteworthy not because it’s unstable, but because it’s still visible.
In modern dictatorships like China they don't use the police on protests that much anymore, you just get kidnapped and disappear a few days after the protest.
Up until 1997 wasn't the governor of Hong Kong just appointed by the English monarch [1]? Has it flaws but elections where "Hong Kong’s chief executive be drawn from candidates vetted by Beijing" actually seems closer to self determination
> wasn't the governor of Hong Kong just appointed by the English monarch
In the same way Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand’s prime ministers serve at the King’s pleasure. It’s ceremonial, much like the monarchy itself.
> elections where "Hong Kong’s chief executive be drawn from candidates vetted by Beijing" actually seems closer to self determination
They had a full democracy after 1997. That was self determination.
The wikipedia page does not point to being a ceremonial role. It says "most of the civil functions of this office went to the chief executive of Hong Kong" and "no serious attempt was made to introduce representative government, until the final years of British rule."
Hong Kong wasn’t a democracy before 1997. But it also wasn’t under the Crown per se after WWII [1].
It was a British colony, ruled partly by increasingly-elected councils and executives, including the Governor, appointed by London (not the monarch, except in name) with consultation with the locals. The last time the Hong Kongese rioted against the British was in 1967 [2].
There isn’t a comparison between British Hong Kong circa 1990 and the present iron grip Beijing holds over it; freedom of speech, for instance, prevailed as did the rule of law. There is much less comparison one can make between free Hong Kong after 1997 and the mess Xi has turned it into today.
> The last time the Hong Kongese rioted against the British was in 1967
From TFA, also 1981, 1982, and 1984. (Admittedly, these were generally economics-driven)
>> After the [1967] riots, the British Hong Kong government publicly reflected on its failure to address certain social grievances and carried out major social reforms. However, another series of riots would occur in 1981.
I think it's fair to say the 80s riots were 'riots against the economic policies of the current administration, which was British.'
Given that the 1967 riots were explicitly CCP-supported, they've a clearer line to regime change as a goal.
And given the CCP was somewhat busy in the late 70s and early 80s rendering Mao's excesses anathema [0], it's unlikely they saw formenting revolution in Hong Kong as a priority.
> In the same way Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand’s prime ministers
> serve at the King’s pleasure. It’s ceremonial, much like the monarchy itself.
This is incorrect: the British monarchy is not ceremonial. Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand were self-governing dominions of the British Empire, with their own parliaments, and each nation still has a governor-general who is nominally approved by the monarch but who is actually selected by the government of each nation from time to time. Hong Kong was a Crown Colony, a.k.a. Overseas Territory, and had a governor who was selected by the British government in London and approved by the monarch. Governors-general and governors are quite different things. Governors-general are the representatives of the monarch and exercise the monarch's reserve powers according to the constitution of the nation. The Hong Kong governor was a colonial governor and had much more power over administration than the governor-general of a dominion.
>They had a full democracy after 1997. That was self determination.
This is incorrect: The creation of a democratically elected administration in Hong Kong was fiercely opposed by the People's Republic of China from 1949 onwards, even threatening violence to prevent it. The last governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, created a parliament, the Legislative Council, which was partially elected by universal suffrage. The Legislative Council was declared illegitimate by the PRC and was immediately and permanently shut down after the PRC takeover of Hong Kong. The government of Hong Kong since the handover consists entirely of people selected and appointed by Beijing who are all, or mostly all, members of the Chinese Communist Party.
> each nation still has a governor-general who is nominally approved by the monarch but who is actually selected by the government of each nation from time to time. Hong Kong was a Crown Colony, a.k.a. Overseas Territory, and had a governor who was selected by the British government in London and approved by the monarch
Sorry, badly worded on my part. The monarch’s role is entirely ceremonial in the appointment of the Governor of Hong Kong much as they don’t actually select the governors or PMs of Britain nor Australia.
> The government of Hong Kong since the handover consists entirely of people selected and appointed by Beijing who are all, or mostly all, members of the Chinese Communist Party
Wasn’t aware. Do you have a good source? I thought there was opposition in the LegCo.
