HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

> Could someone explain my why they really protest?

Vox recently made a good video on the topic [1].

In 1984, Beijing agreed with Britain that after the handoff in 1997, China would respect Hong Kong’s political system [2]. Hence, Deng Xiaoping’s “one country, two systems” [3].

Beijing is breaking that agreement. It already tried abduction [4]. Now it wants to be able to extradite anyone to China to be tried in Chinese courts.

This is problematic. Hong Kong, like Japan, Taiwan, Britain and America, has an independent judiciary where the government must prove its case. So if a dissident is tried in Hong Kong, prosecutors have to prove their case in a relatively fair court.

Chinese courts are party instruments. (Consider that there is no way to enforce Hong Kong’s rights under the 1984 agreement.) Under the proposed legislation, said dissident would be shipped to China where a rubber-stamp conviction could be sought.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyxG4vTyZ8

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_sovereignty_over...

[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems

[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappear...

⬐ NedIsakoff

The agreement between China and UK was for 50 years, so by right China can start changing things totally in 2047. So the issue is China is 28 years too early.

Why the downvote? The Wikipedia article even backs it up: "The Basic Law ensured Hong Kong will retain its capitalist economic system and own currency (the Hong Kong Dollar), legal system, legislative system, and people's rights and freedom for fifty years, as a special administrative region (SAR) of China." -- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems

⬐ JumpCrisscross

> the issue is China is 28 years too early

You are correct and shouldn’t be getting downvoted. I left out the timeline because it is extraneous.

Beijing made an agreement, is breaking it, and in breaking it reveals the lawlessness which Hong Kong fears.

⬐ digianarchist

In that first video he states Hong Kong was leased to Britain for 99 years. Not exactly true. Hong Kong Island was seized like Gibraltar. Only the New Territories were leased. (the footage admittedly corrects this).

"The lease consisted of the rest of Kowloon south of the Shenzhen River and 230 islands, which became known as the New Territories. The British formally took possession on 16 April 1899." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Hong_Kong#Growth_and_e...

⬐ fennecfoxen

Note that, besides dissidents and the obvious human rights risks, major international firms have often used Hong Kong as a regional headquarters for their Southeast Asian business (or just as a headquarters generally). This is also threatened, as these businesses thrive in an environment defined by capitalism, property rights, and the rule of law — rather than government-run enterprise, property seizure, and the whims of China's rulers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/business/hong-kong-china-...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/11/asia/hong-kong-extradition-ch...

https://www.afr.com/news/world/asia/labor-business-alarmed-b...

⬐ pbalau

> Now it wants to be able to extradite anyone to China to be tried in Chinese courts.

That's not true.

> It allows for extradition requests from authorities in mainland China, Taiwan and Macau for suspects accused of serious criminal wrongdoing such as murder and rape. The requests would then be decided on a case-by-case basis. [1]

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-48591001

⬐ gvhst

Case-by-case basis is a slippery slope to unchecked power. Let’s also not pretend that China hasn’t fabricated charges against those it doesn’t like (e.g. Ai Weiwei’s “tax fraud”).

Lastly, as sad as it is freedom has a price (not just in the military sense as often echoed stateside). Sometimes that price is death without what everyone would called justice (which in this case is extradition). Abraham Lincoln’s words, you will have situations where people will be “sacrifices on the altar of freedom.”

⬐ cycrutchfield

You would have to be a credulous fool to expect that the Chinese government would not manufacture “criminal wrongdoings” for political purposes. Therefore, the GP post is essentially correct.

⬐ calyth2018

https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr18-19/english/bills/brief/b201903...

⬐ knolax

How is China the one violating the agreement when it's the Hong Kong Legislative Council passing the extradition law.

I mean even the protesters are protesting against __their__ legislative council. [0]

[0] "forced the city’s legislature to postpone debate on a widely unpopular bill"

⬐ chibg10

The HK legislature and executive aren't democratically elected, but directly or indirectly chosen by Beijing. Moreover, Beijing's control over the legislature was increased when they "reinterpreted" the agreement and removed several pro-democratic legislators a few years ago.

Beijing wants this law passed, Beijing controls the political future of those who with the power to pass the bill. The HK citizenry oppose the bill.

⬐ surge

China is the one pushing the law. Influencing and eroding the HK political system to make it so they have more say over what HK people can say and do.

They've been slowly taking freedoms away from HK since the Xi Jinping got into office and declared himself President for life.

⬐ JumpCrisscross

> How is China the one violating the agreement when it's the Hong Kong Legislative Council passing the extradition law

China selects the chief executive [1]. Opposition members were recently removed from the Legislative Council [2]. The law is wildly unpopular.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/24/hong-kong-sele...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/14/hong-kong-pro-...

⬐ ptah

I am unsure why beijing would be obligated to make any promises to UK as they are essentially just taking back their property after a lease ended?

⬐ fennecfoxen

China made these promises in part to assure the residents of Hong Kong (and international observers) that their rights would be respected, and also to prevent economic collapse caused by businesses deeming the island an unsafe place to do business.

⬐ NedIsakoff

What most people call Hong Kong consists of three major areas: Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, and New Territories.

Hong Kong Island (where majority of people live) was given to UK with no lease limits. Kowloon and New Territories were leased to UK for 99 years in 1898. So, in theory UK only needed to return Kowloon and New Territories. Of course, this wasn’t practical. It’s like giving Manhattan to another country but keeping Queens and Brooklyn. So in 1994 UK agree to return all 3 (Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, and New Territories) in 1997.

⬐ larrysalibra

Kowloon south of Boundary street was also ceded in perpetuity to the UK in 1860. Kowloon north of boundary street was leased for 99 years in 1898. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_Street

⬐ NeedMoreTea

Well they did sign an internationally binding agreement over how Hong Kong would be treated after handover.

They already made the promises, and lodged them with the UN.

Now they are breaking those treaties.

⬐ Angostura

To ensure a smooth transfer and a certain degree of self-determination for the people who lived there, were reasonsably content with the existing set-up and would have been most unhappy if the UK had simply washed its hands and disapeared.

⬐ None

None

⬐ y2kenny

Because they signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration

⬐ twic

They weren't just taking back their property after a lease ended. The UK had leased the New Territories, but the Kowloon peninsula and Hong Kong island had been ceded. When the lease expired, the UK could have given back the New Territories and kept the rest, but it was agreed to hand over the whole lot.

That agreement was part of a deal which also included "one country, two systems".

⬐ dehrmann

> Beijing is breaking that agreement.

You forgot China having to approve candidates in Hong Kong elections: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-32397179

Great point regarding GDP. Vox did a piece[1] that pointed out that with the recent rise of highly economically productive cities in the mainland like Shenzhen, the mainland is getting more emboldened in projecting its control over HK.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyxG4vTyZ8

For anyone like me who was looking for some background on this, on Reddit, someone linked to a Vox video entitled "China is erasing its border with Hong Kong" [0]. At 15 minutes, it's a captivating introduction to the conflict.

Another video (6 minutes) you might be interested in by Vox is "China's trillion dollar plan to dominate global trade" [1], which is on China Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyxG4vTyZ8

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvXROXiIpvQ

Edit: One great passage from the first video [0] at 11:29 says:

"The [umbrella movement] protest didn't change the government's mind and it didn't immediately change anything in Hong Kong.

But this spectacle of young people rising up to defend their rights from the central government of China did spark a political awakening among the many in the city who had never before paid attention.

'I think post-umbrella movement was the first time that the middle class came out and voted in droves, and voted for the opposition force.' - HK Resident"

⬐ y2kenny

This should give you a good overview:

China’s Trojan horse: Hong Kong’s new extradition arrangement puts foreigners at risk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUl-J0oh3k0

⬐ chii

The vox video paints the Belt and Road Initiative in a negative light - which i feel is wrong. Why shouldn't China be allowed to invest and gain soft power? Why shouldn't they be allowed to make deals with countries the US deems 'undemocratic'?

⬐ AnimalMuppet

If you're making deals with a government that is undemocratic, you're making a deal with the government, but not with the people. At that point, the deal is probably going to be one that benefits the government, but not the people. Countries do that, when it is in their best interest to do so.

But the US (rightly) gets criticism for doing such things. If it's right to criticize the US for such actions, it's also right to criticize China for them.

⬐ Youden

> If you're making deals with a government that is undemocratic, you're making a deal with the government, but not with the people.

I think a better way to phrase "a government that is undemocratic" as "a dictatorship".

The idea that democracy is the only system of government that can possibly represent the people is a horrendously American view of the world.

To show an example that counters the "everything that isn't democracy is oppressive" claims I usually hear, have a look at Lichtenstein (which admittedly is partly democratic but is also a constitutional monarchy), where the people voted to give the monarchy _more_ power and refused to curb it in a referendum: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18649156

⬐ JumpCrisscross

> where the people voted to give the monarchy _more_ power and refused to curb it in a referendum

This is democracy. The people voted for a strong executive and to be represented by the monarchy. Nobody gets that vote in Uzbekistan.

⬐ Youden

It's a democratic process yes but the country is still a constitutional and largely functional monarchy.

Democracy is an indicator of whether the people are represented but it is not the definition.

I think a better indication of whether a government represents its people is whether the government acts according to the people's wishes.

At one end of the spectrum is Switzerland, where the people can choose to directly override any government policy by referendum (or propose an action of their own).

At the other end of the spectrum is a government like North Korea, where the people have zero say.

Somewhere in the middle you see most Western democracies.

⬐ JumpCrisscross

> a better indication of whether a government represents its people is whether the government acts according to the people's wishes

How do you measure the latter? That’s the essence of democracy.

There are many democratic systems. Constitutional republics are democratic because the monarch must answer to the public. Dictatorships featuring leaders for life with limited options for sidelining or recalling are not democratic. The latter describes North Korea, China and certain African and central Asian states.

⬐ eastendguy

Your Lichtenstein example is nonsense. Liechtenstein is not "partly democratic" but fully democratic. It has a monarch as Head of State (like the UK and others), and an elected parliament that enacts the law. It is also a direct democracy, where voters can propose and enact constitutional amendments and legislation independently of the legislature. The fact that the prince got a few more veto powers in 2003 does not change anything about the fact that it is democracy, and - equally important - people have full freedom of speech.

⬐ NeedMoreTea

It's been referred to as "debt trap diplomacy".

Here's a piece from last month reporting that a raft of countries including Turkey have refused to attend latest summit.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/25/belt-and-road-...

⬐ tepidandroid

Alternative viewpoint: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/opinion/china-belt-road-i...

⬐ Farradfahren

If it were colonialism, that would be a strange thing, because only western country can produce colonialism, while victim countrys and socialistic countrys can have puppet-states and liberate other countrys but never colonialize them.

The HMS Narrative running aground again, threatening to sink once more into the salty waves. Its another round of the greatest game, fun for new and old players.

⬐ owens99

Thanks for sharing. Key point:

> Yes, debt is on the rise in the developing world, and Chinese overseas lending is, for the first time, a part of the story. But a number of us academics who have studied China’s practices in detail have found scant evidence of a pattern indicating that Chinese banks, acting at the government’s behest, are deliberately over-lending or funding loss-making projects to secure strategic advantages for China.

> The main example of these purported ploys is the Hambantota Port in southern Sri Lanka: The government handed control over the port to a Chinese company in 2017 after struggling to make its loan payments to China. But that’s a special case, and it is widely misunderstood.

> China does not publish details about its overseas lending, but the China-Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins University (which I direct) has collected information on more than 1,000 Chinese loans in Africa between 2000 and 2017, totaling more than $143 billion. Boston University’s Global Development Policy Center has identified and tracked more than $140 billion in Chinese loans to Latin America and the Caribbean since 2005.

> Based on the findings of both institutes, it seems that the risks of B.R.I. are often overstated or mischaracterized.

⬐ NeedMoreTea

Yet something has put off a fairly large number of nations from joining the latest event in the BRI initiative.

⬐ y2kenny

According to the wiki, BRI started around 2013 [1] so how come loans made prior to that being counted towards BRI?

My recollection is that, prior to BRI/earlier loan diplomacy from China, the strategic goal was for influence in the UN against Taiwan (checkbook diplomacy.) So the goals are completely different.

'Taiwan’s current foreign relations bind stems from a deal brokered in 2008. This “diplomatic truce” guarantees that neither China nor Taiwan will pursue formal diplomatic relations with a country that has already recognized one or the other. Beijing calls it the one-China policy, and it forces nations to choose between it and Taipei, with Beijing increasingly coming out the more appealing choice.'[2]

Lumping data over strategic change seems like a poor research to me.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative#Histo...

[2]https://www.voanews.com/a/once-influential-in-africa-taiwan-...

⬐ Leary

World bank analysis of BRI which shows that BRI is a net positive to the world:

" BRI will potentially have a large effect on trade and welfare for many countries ▪ All countries in the world experience a decrease in trade costs ▪ Not all sectors/countries will gain but potential aggregate effect is largely positive

But many policy barriers still remain in place. Potential gains of BRI would be enlarged by complementary reforms ▪ Need to reduce border delays, trade barriers and FDI restrictions ▪ But also boost investor protection, open public procurement, ensure private sector participation

Economic and non-economic risks associated to BRI projects need to be managed ▪ Public debt sustainability, governance, environmental and social concerns ▪ Coordination problems, lack of data, poor transparency magnify these challenges"

[1]http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/501961539875310440/Michele-B...

Vox has an excellent video called 'China is erasing its border with Hong Kong' which details how the Chinese government is tightening it's control of Hong Kong. It's well worth a watch. Here's the video description:

"When Britain handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997, Chinese leaders agreed that Hong Kong would be able to keep its economic and political systems, including some of the civil freedoms denied to China’s citizens on the mainland, for the next 50 years.

Although Hong Kong still has nearly 30 years of semi-autonomy left, China has started tightening its grip, and many believe it is chipping away at Hong Kong’s freedoms."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyxG4vTyZ8

⬐ odiroot

What's Hong Kong, you mean southern part of Greater Shenzhen?

/s

⬐ macspoofing

The only thing keeping Hong Kong's sovereignty (such as it is) is Taiwan. There is some understanding on the Chinese side that a full annexation of the territory would strengthen independence hardliners in Taiwan - which is the real prize because Taiwan is absolutely critical for Chinese national defense. If it wasn't for that, Hong Kong would have been wholly annexed by now.

⬐ everdev

Why is Taiwan absolutely critical to Chinese defense?

⬐ attempt39

Full control of the Taiwan strait. Break the first island chain. Direct access to the pacific ocean. Immediate access to deep waters, which they lack, and which is an advantage for submarines.

⬐ macspoofing

All you have to do is look at the map. If Taiwan becomes an independent state and an American ally, the Chinese Pacific coast would be encircled by South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Philippines - all American allies.

⬐ vaughnegut

Taiwan is an unsinkable aircraft carrier. It provides a massive platform from which to attack the mainland. Maintaining control denies this advantage to any attackers.

⬐ StreamBright

Chinese army practiced taking control of Taiwan for years. This will be their first move in any armed conflict.

⬐ Ankaios

What attackers? China has had nukes for many decades. Mutually assured destruction will prevent attacks.

Given that, why again is Taiwan critical for China's defense?

⬐ dionian

so is japan, is it not?

⬐ taobility

There are so many unsinkable aircraft carriers around China. Taiwan is not the only one, and also Taiwan island is too far away from USA, the only possible opponent of China. So once the war is starting, China is very easy to occupy Taiwan before USA can provide the support.

⬐ pimmen

Taiwan is actually very close to two very important US allies, the Philippines and Japan. It’s alot harder and more expensive to launch an attack from Luzon or Okinawa than it is to launch it from Taiwan.

⬐ taobility

I wouldn't count Philippines as US's alley now. And also, Taiwan Strait just 150KM wide, and how long between Luzon and Okinawa?

⬐ scottlocklin

It's a hell of a lot closer to China than to Philippines or Japan.

FWIIW it was historically used by forces which threatened Chinese sovereignty, including Japan. Since Chinese leadership actually reads history instead of making stuff up as they go along, as Westerners do, that's probably why it's such a sore spot for them.

⬐ attempt39

Invading Taiwan would require huge amounts of troop and material. Those things have to been moved weeks if not months in advance and can be easily picked up by satellites. Add to that that you can't simply land your soldiers anywhere on the shore, there are only a few landing spots that can be used and which are of course heavily defended. Also, the two lands are close to each other so Taiwan can send missiles to the mainland and cause heavy damage to the cities on China's east coast. Finally the weather, which according to some people [0][1] offers only two short windows during which an invasion is likely to not fail.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Taiwan consists of about 70% of mountainous areas, i.e the perfect terrain for an organized resistance.

Invading Taiwan is but an easy task and it is believed to be an endeavor that would surpass the D-day.

[0] https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=mzwGDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT117&l... [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/25/taiwan-can-win-a-war-wi...

⬐ wbl

Taiwan is not critical for Chinese defense. Who wants to pick a fight with a giant well funded army?

⬐ macspoofing

Just look at the map. If Taiwan were to become independent and an American ally, that would mean the entire Chinese pacific coast would be encircled by American allies - South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines.

⬐ CogitoCogito

The ROC and the PRC _are_ independent countries. They don't say they are, but clearly they are. The PRC already basically (that qualifier probably isn't necessary) is an ally of the United States.

I don't disagree with your point (Chinese fears of encirclement), but the way you present. It's already the case and China is trying to invade Taiwan to change it. It's all consistent with China's attempt to phrase Taiwan as being separatist as opposed to the truth which is that China is being militaristic and imperialistic. It's dangerous double-speak and needs to stop.

⬐ macspoofing

>The ROC and the PRC _are_ independent countries.

You know that's not true.

>They don't say they are, but clearly they are.

So why don't they say that?

>The PRC already basically (that qualifier probably isn't necessary) is an ally of the United States.

And what is the United States' position on the independence of Taiwan?

>It's dangerous double-speak and needs to stop.

Sometimes language can reflect reality, and the reality is that Taiwan is quasi-independent.

⬐ CogitoCogito

> You know that's not true.

The PRC and the ROC have separate economies, militaries, governments, currencies. They engage in interational trade separately, organize telecommunications separately, they issue their own passports and they are recognized separately. The land controlled by the PRC and the land controlled by the ROC have been stable for 70 years. Those two landmasses have been united under one government for about 4 years in the last 125. To say that they are not two separate countries is totally delusional.

> And what is the United States' position on the independence of Taiwan?

What does that matter? The facts on the ground are that they are separate countries. The US position that the PRC wasn't a country in the 50s and 60s didn't magically make it the case.

> Sometimes language can reflect reality, and the reality is that Taiwan is quasi-independent.

You clearly don't live in reality.

⬐ macspoofing

This is getting silly. You're being disingenuous and I don't know why. Everything you said is true, and yet you know that isn't the entire story. You know that Taiwan is special. It isn't like other sovereign states as it has no UN representation and is not recognized by the vast majority of states and it is claimed by PRC as its dependent. The political status of Taiwan is complicated (to put it mildly). The status quo is somewhat tolerated by all parties, but I wouldn't bet that you'll have another 70 years of it. As China grows into a superpower, I doubt Taiwan will be able to maintain whatever independence it has now - but we'll see.

Your line of argument also doesn't actually address the original point, which is that China tolerates the independence of Hong Kong because it has its sights set on Taiwan - which is the real prize. From that perspective, it doesn't matter how Taiwan sees itself.

⬐ CogitoCogito

What you say is irrelevant. The PRC may annex the ROC someday (militarily or by other means), but that wouldn't change the fact that between 1949 and until that happens that there were two separate countries. The UN doesn't make countries it's just a forum that some governments are invited to be a part of. The political status of the ROC is just as simple as that as the PRC. To say otherwise is what actually is disingenuous.

> Your line of argument also doesn't actually address the original point, which is that China tolerates the independence of Hong Kong because it has its sights set on Taiwan - which is the real prize.

Yes taking over the ROC is the real prize because right now it is _independent_ and the PRC wants that to change. The mental somersaults you do to avoid saying this obvious truth is mind boggling.

> From that perspective, it doesn't matter how Taiwan sees itself.

This is true! The ROC claims the territories of the mainland as well as Mongolia in its constitution. This is delusional. Similarly the PRC claims the mainland and the ROC's territories as its own. This is also delusional. It matters how neither side officially sees themselves. They _are_ two separate countries.

Why can't you just admit that the PRC has imperialistic ambitions and tries to make up justifications to make the PRC look like it is in the right? Why are you so hellbent to ignore reality?

⬐ adventured

> Who wants to pick a fight with a giant well funded army?

History is littered with modern examples.

The US Colonies (British Empire). Latin America (Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, British, French). The Viet Cong (US, France). Finland (Russia). Iraqi resistance groups (US). The Taliban, Mujahideen (US, Russia). North Korea (UN). Ukraine (Russia). Hezbollah (Israel). Yugoslavia (NATO). Emus (Australia).

Every giant well funded army has also lost at some point. For China, it's ideal to remove Taiwan as a staging ground that could be held by any opposition. Consider a scenario where it's NATO countries + Japan + South Korea + Taiwan, + Australia + New Zealand vs China in a massive conflict (or any similar variation). It would be far better to wholly control the island of Taiwan than not.

⬐ wbl

Is taking China worth losing LA? Or Seattle? They have nukes.

Great video by Vox on the topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyxG4vTyZ8

Vox has some very good videos on Hong Kong and one in particular on China's current approach to the integration of the city : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyxG4vTyZ8