• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hong Kong police clash with pro-democracy demonstrators

Xi has put himself in a tough position. His anti-corruption campaign and consolidation of power has no doubt made him many enemies who are just waiting for him to mess up. He can't afford to have PLA soldiers shooting people in the streets of Hong Kong. At the same time, he certainly cannot afford to have protests like this popping up in the Mainland. There is simply no way he can back down now. I think we have already seen his next move, as he summoned all the wealthy tycoons of Hong Kong to Beijing for a photo opportunity and a pep talk. As usual, money talks and he hopes by putting economic pressure on those with a vested interest in the status quo in Hong Kong, he can make the business and political community here bring an end to the protests. It will probably work. I know many a banker who aren't happy with the traffic and the market's performance today.

Let's also not forget Xi is very much in the Putin mold, and has made numerous hints that he believes the Soviet Union fell because the leaders didn't have the heart to stamp out the opposition in 89 and 90. He may be in a lose-lose position, but I think it's clear he will go the Tiananmen route before he will concede to pro-democracy activists.

In lose-lose situations, it generally pays to do something confusing that makes it hard for observers to tell who won and who lost.
 
Xi has put himself in a tough position. His anti-corruption campaign and consolidation of power has no doubt made him many enemies who are just waiting for him to mess up. He can't afford to have PLA soldiers shooting people in the streets of Hong Kong. At the same time, he certainly cannot afford to have protests like this popping up in the Mainland. There is simply no way he can back down now. I think we have already seen his next move, as he summoned all the wealthy tycoons of Hong Kong to Beijing for a photo opportunity and a pep talk. As usual, money talks and he hopes by putting economic pressure on those with a vested interest in the status quo in Hong Kong, he can make the business and political community here bring an end to the protests. It will probably work. I know many a banker who aren't happy with the traffic and the market's performance today.

Let's also not forget Xi is very much in the Putin mold, and has made numerous hints that he believes the Soviet Union fell because the leaders didn't have the heart to stamp out the opposition in 89 and 90. He may be in a lose-lose position, but I think it's clear he will go the Tiananmen route before he will concede to pro-democracy activists.

I love communists/socialists, they believe their failures are everyone elses fault...

Nice post BTW.
 
The Soviets fell because socialism doesn't grow economy. Afghanistan destroyed the Soviet Union - the cost of war destroyed them.

Sorry to the socialists but war cost money and socialism doesn't grow capital.
 
The Soviets fell because socialism doesn't grow economy. Afghanistan destroyed the Soviet Union - the cost of war destroyed them.

Sorry to the socialists but war cost money and socialism doesn't grow capital.

Not really sure how you can say that with a straight face given Communist China has been growing at 8% for two decades now.
 
Not really sure how you can say that with a straight face given Communist China has been growing at 8% for two decades now.

The Chinese aren't communist/socialist - they're authoritarian..

Do you understand this?

Oh, and China is eating our debt (buying bonds) like ****ing pac man.
 
Xi has put himself in a tough position. His anti-corruption campaign and consolidation of power has no doubt made him many enemies who are just waiting for him to mess up. He can't afford to have PLA soldiers shooting people in the streets of Hong Kong. At the same time, he certainly cannot afford to have protests like this popping up in the Mainland. There is simply no way he can back down now. I think we have already seen his next move, as he summoned all the wealthy tycoons of Hong Kong to Beijing for a photo opportunity and a pep talk. As usual, money talks and he hopes by putting economic pressure on those with a vested interest in the status quo in Hong Kong, he can make the business and political community here bring an end to the protests. It will probably work. I know many a banker who aren't happy with the traffic and the market's performance today.

Let's also not forget Xi is very much in the Putin mold, and has made numerous hints that he believes the Soviet Union fell because the leaders didn't have the heart to stamp out the opposition in 89 and 90. He may be in a lose-lose position, but I think it's clear he will go the Tiananmen route before he will concede to pro-democracy activists.

I appreciate your on-the-ground analysis from Hong Kong. IMO, China faces a complex challenge with implications that extend beyond the political outcome in Hong Kong.

China's main goal is to avoid perceptions that it has lost any degree of authority over events in Hong Kong, as that could exacerbate a number of its other challenges. Not too surprisingly, the Chinese government is weighing in with an unambiguous statement concerning its authority over Hong Kong. Reuters reported, "'Hong Kong is China's Hong Kong,' Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying defiantly told a news briefing in Beijing."

A muddled outcome or failure by the Chinese government to achieve its basic goals regarding the Hong Kong election could further intensify the separatist movement in China's Xinjiang Province and embolden terrorists there to increase the frequency and intensity of their attacks. It could also encourage other Asian states to take a tougher stand regarding China's moves over disputed territories and waters. China does not want to wind up in a worse geopolitical position on account of Hong Kong's events and I believe the Chinese government is very much focused on the larger picture. This, of course, makes significant concessions to the protesters very unlikely.

At the same time, an overly harsh response, could also have high to extreme costs. After having witnessed events related to Ukraine, the U.S. and European Union might be much more willing to reassess China's longer-term evolution and to slow economic cooperation. Failure to do so, in their view, could give incentives to Russian President Putin to become even more inflexible. A Tiananmen Square-type approach could lead to significant economic sanctions at a time when China is trying to sustain robust economic growth, avoid risks associated with some inflated regional real estate valuations, and address regional debt issues. Taiwan could suspend or even reverse some of its recent expanded cooperations with China and Taiwan's independence movement could gain new force. Asian states facing territorial disputes with China could seek much greater security collaboration with the United States and, if the U.S. concludes China is potentially evolving into a hostile actor, could be more willing to accommodate those concerns. The still vaguely defined U.S. "Asian Pivot" could also gain the kind of concreteness and specificity that has been lacking to date.

The anti-corruption drive you have cited is also an important element. Outside China there are questions as to whether the drive's goal is solely about stamping out corruption, helping President Xi consolidate power to an extent that some of his recent predecessors have not, or some combination. If part of the goal concerns political power consolidation, the Chinese President cannot afford to allow Hong Kong to defy his approach, even as he is constrained to some extent. A Tiananmen Square-type event would have far larger costs today than it did 25 years ago, given China's domestic and regional challenges (recent more volatile economic performance, growing terrorism in the Xinjiang Province, increasing East Asia rivalry over waters and islands, etc.). Therefore, I don't expect such an event barring a dramatic and sustained escalation of developments.

In the end, I believe the Chinese government will show some degree of patience, even as it seeks to display firmness and slowly ratchets up pressure on the protesters. I expect that China will pursue alternative measures to a harsh crackdown in coming days or weeks depending on the evolution of events, especially if cosmetic or symbolic concessions prove inadequate, but won't use massive force to break the protests in the near-term. At the same time, it will not compromise on its fundamental approach to handling Hong Kong's political affairs, as it believes it would have too much to lose in the larger domestic and geopolitical frameworks if it is perceived as displaying weakness.
 
I appreciate your on-the-ground analysis from Hong Kong. IMO, China faces a complex challenge with implications that extend beyond the political outcome in Hong Kong.

China's main goal is to avoid perceptions that it has lost any degree of authority over events in Hong Kong, as that could exacerbate a number of its other challenges. Not too surprisingly, the Chinese government is weighing in with an unambiguous statement concerning its authority over Hong Kong. Reuters reported, "'Hong Kong is China's Hong Kong,' Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying defiantly told a news briefing in Beijing."

A muddled outcome or failure by the Chinese government to achieve its basic goals regarding the Hong Kong election could further intensify the separatist movement in China's Xinjiang Province and embolden terrorists there to increase the frequency and intensity of their attacks. It could also encourage other Asian states to take a tougher stand regarding China's moves over disputed territories and waters. China does not want to wind up in a worse geopolitical position on account of Hong Kong's events and I believe the Chinese government is very much focused on the larger picture. This, of course, makes significant concessions to the protesters very unlikely.

At the same time, an overly harsh response, could also have high to extreme costs. After having witnessed events related to Ukraine, the U.S. and European Union might be much more willing to reassess China's longer-term evolution and to slow economic cooperation. Failure to do so, in their view, could give incentives to Russian President Putin to become even more inflexible. A Tiananmen Square-type approach could lead to significant economic sanctions at a time when China is trying to sustain robust economic growth, avoid risks associated with some inflated regional real estate valuations, and address regional debt issues. Taiwan could suspend or even reverse some of its recent expanded cooperations with China and Taiwan's independence movement could gain new force. Asian states facing territorial disputes with China could seek much greater security collaboration with the United States and, if the U.S. concludes China is potentially evolving into a hostile actor, could be more willing to accommodate those concerns. The still vaguely defined U.S. "Asian Pivot" could also gain the kind of concreteness and specificity that has been lacking to date.

The anti-corruption drive you have cited is also an important element. Outside China there are questions as to whether the drive's goal is solely about stamping out corruption, helping President Xi consolidate power to an extent that some of his recent predecessors have not, or some combination. If part of the goal concerns political power consolidation, the Chinese President cannot afford to allow Hong Kong to defy his approach, even as he is constrained to some extent. A Tiananmen Square-type event would have far larger costs today than it did 25 years ago, given China's domestic and regional challenges (recent more volatile economic performance, growing terrorism in the Xinjiang Province, increasing East Asia rivalry over waters and islands, etc.). Therefore, I don't expect such an event barring a dramatic and sustained escalation of developments.

In the end, I believe the Chinese government will show some degree of patience, even as it seeks to display firmness and slowly ratchets up pressure on the protesters. I expect that China will pursue alternative measures to a harsh crackdown in coming days or weeks depending on the evolution of events, especially if cosmetic or symbolic concessions prove inadequate, but won't use massive force to break the protests in the near-term. At the same time, it will not compromise on its fundamental approach to handling Hong Kong's political affairs, as it believes it would have too much to lose in the larger domestic and geopolitical frameworks if it is perceived as displaying weakness.

As always Don, fantastic analysis.

I hope you're right that Beijing will not seek a Tiananmen square style approach.

I was thinking about that yesterday as well and I just couldn't see President Xi or the Central Committee approving such a tactic in this day and age.

Even among Han Chinese on the mainland I think it would create a real stir, making many question whether the Communist Party really has the peoples best interests at heart with an act of brutality unknown among the latest generation.
 
As always Don, fantastic analysis.

I hope you're right that Beijing will not seek a Tiananmen square style approach.

I was thinking about that yesterday as well and I just couldn't see President Xi or the Central Committee approving such a tactic in this day and age.

Even among Han Chinese on the mainland I think it would create a real stir, making many question whether the Communist Party really has the peoples best interests at heart with an act of brutality unknown among the latest generation.

Thanks for the kind words, Jetboogieman.

When I was in Beijing in June, it seemed that the Chinese people have literally moved on from Tiananmen Square. Their expectations and goals are more focused on their own personal wellbeing rather than democratic reform. The reasons for the evolution are probably complex. What's potentially important is that I don't think the Chinese government will want to risk rekindling the memories of that horrific event, as such an outcome could undermine its domestic legitimacy at a time when China faces a larger array of economic, domestic, and regional issues than it did in 1989.

I don't think it's a coincidence that coverage of the 25th anniversary was almost non-existent in China. Even coverage that might have attempted to explain the Government's decision was not broadcast. There seemed to be almost a mutual consensus among the people and government that the past should be left alone. A harsh crackdown in Hong Kong could alter this situation and barring extreme circumstances I don't see the Chinese government adopting such tactics.
 
I appreciate your on-the-ground analysis from Hong Kong. IMO, China faces a complex challenge with implications that extend beyond the political outcome in Hong Kong.

China's main goal is to avoid perceptions that it has lost any degree of authority over events in Hong Kong, as that could exacerbate a number of its other challenges. Not too surprisingly, the Chinese government is weighing in with an unambiguous statement concerning its authority over Hong Kong. Reuters reported, "'Hong Kong is China's Hong Kong,' Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying defiantly told a news briefing in Beijing."

I went to help the protesters last night and there were significantly more people in the streets than on Sunday. Not just students, but people from all walks of life who were upset by the heavy handed tactics of the police on Sunday. Agree or disagree with the protests, most Hong Kongers do see themselves as different from their mainland counterparts, and one of those main differences is the right to assemble and protest without fear of violence by the state. Many don't want Hong Kong to turn into just another Chinese city. Yet, the use of violence by the police against student protesters makes Hong Kong seem more and more like any other Chinese city, which disturbs many people from all walks of life. I talked to a lot of people last night who saw this as about more than democracy. They wanted to draw a line in the sand and do what they could to remind Beijing that Hong Kong is unique and you cannot just stamp out any dissent here like you would on the mainland.

A muddled outcome or failure by the Chinese government to achieve its basic goals regarding the Hong Kong election could further intensify the separatist movement in China's Xinjiang Province and embolden terrorists there to increase the frequency and intensity of their attacks. It could also encourage other Asian states to take a tougher stand regarding China's moves over disputed territories and waters. China does not want to wind up in a worse geopolitical position on account of Hong Kong's events and I believe the Chinese government is very much focused on the larger picture. This, of course, makes significant concessions to the protesters very unlikely.
Nothing like this could take place in the mainland. Any political gathering would be stamped out in minutes Literally minutes. According to a few friends of mine in Beijing at the moment, many english sites are taking forever to load (not blocked per se but taking upwards of 3 minutes to load google when other sites work fine) and many social networking sites have been blocked all together. CY made a statement today saying the protests would not change Beijing's mind, but it only seemed to reinforce the point that the chief executive has little power of his own and instead is a puppet of Beijing. I can't see China backing down on this but at a certain point they will have to do something. CY said he expected the protests to last for a while, but it's difficult to imagine how much longer half the island can remain shut down. Banks are closed, schools are closed, and many events for the Oct 1 holiday here have been cancelled. It's already quite a bit of egg in the face of Beijing at this point.
 
At the same time, an overly harsh response, could also have high to extreme costs. After having witnessed events related to Ukraine, the U.S. and European Union might be much more willing to reassess China's longer-term evolution and to slow economic cooperation. Failure to do so, in their view, could give incentives to Russian President Putin to become even more inflexible. A Tiananmen Square-type approach could lead to significant economic sanctions at a time when China is trying to sustain robust economic growth, avoid risks associated with some inflated regional real estate valuations, and address regional debt issues. Taiwan could suspend or even reverse some of its recent expanded cooperations with China and Taiwan's independence movement could gain new force. Asian states facing territorial disputes with China could seek much greater security collaboration with the United States and, if the U.S. concludes China is potentially evolving into a hostile actor, could be more willing to accommodate those concerns. The still vaguely defined U.S. "Asian Pivot" could also gain the kind of concreteness and specificity that has been lacking to date.
Many people I talked to last night spoke of getting their affairs in order to leave Hong Kong should something like Tiananmen happen. This is a global city and many of the residents do have connection abroad, have studied abroad at some point, and have the money to leave should they desire. Obviously that's a last resort for many, but the prospect of Hong Kong coming under the heavy hand of Beijing would drive many to leave. A few people I spoke with last night said many Hong Kongers had already put their affairs in order prior to the 97 handover precisely because of this fear. Already I think the police have over reacted to the point of damaging Chinese policy. Everyone in Taiwan is laughing at the prospect of a "one country, two systems" agreement with Beijing, as it becomes apparent that when push comes to show the communist will do as they please. It should also be noted Hong Kong has a huge expat community. There were plenty of people at the protests from Europe or the USA, and plenty of people at the protests who are employees of big multinational firms and banks. It would be one thing to shoot at students, but I can't see that happening without harming foreign citizens and employees of foreign companies. If that happens then it would be politically impossible for western governments and companies to look the other way, even if they wanted to. Also, unlike Tiananmen, everyone here has a camera or a smartphone with an excellent camera. The imagery would be significantly worse than that of Tiananmen. The larger these protests get the less I think sending in the PLA or using deadly force is an option. It would scuttle everything China has accomplished in the last decade, politically and perhaps economically.

The anti-corruption drive you have cited is also an important element. Outside China there are questions as to whether the drive's goal is solely about stamping out corruption, helping President Xi consolidate power to an extent that some of his recent predecessors have not, or some combination. If part of the goal concerns political power consolidation, the Chinese President cannot afford to allow Hong Kong to defy his approach, even as he is constrained to some extent. A Tiananmen Square-type event would have far larger costs today than it did 25 years ago, given China's domestic and regional challenges (recent more volatile economic performance, growing terrorism in the Xinjiang Province, increasing East Asia rivalry over waters and islands, etc.). Therefore, I don't expect such an event barring a dramatic and sustained escalation of developments.
Corruption is a fact of life in China. You don't get to an important position in the party without being extremly competent and greasing a few wheels. Xi could find a small amount of corruption to bring down anyone in the party if he so wanted, and he probably would not have to invent false charges. I think it's clear the corruption campaign is focused on his political enemies, and focused on those who are so outright in their graft that the people notice. He is certainly trying to consolidate power, but Hong Kong presents a serious challenge the that because despite all his efforts to consolidate, he is facing the biggest political challenge to the party since Tiananmen.

In the end, I believe the Chinese government will show some degree of patience, even as it seeks to display firmness and slowly ratchets up pressure on the protesters. I expect that China will pursue alternative measures to a harsh crackdown in coming days or weeks depending on the evolution of events, especially if cosmetic or symbolic concessions prove inadequate, but won't use massive force to break the protests in the near-term. At the same time, it will not compromise on its fundamental approach to handling Hong Kong's political affairs, as it believes it would have too much to lose in the larger domestic and geopolitical frameworks if it is perceived as displaying weakness.
The thing is, I'm not sure how much longer they can allow parts of the city to be shut down. Fortunately perhaps, the Oct 1 holiday is tomorrow and most people were slated to take the day off work anyway. However, that is also a huge shopping day and of course many of the shopping districts are filled with protesters. There is also the concern that many people will choose to spend their day off taking to the streets, which could see the protests grow to record size. It will be sensitive for the next few days here but as you said, I can't see CY or Beijing deciding to take decisive action anytime soon.
 
Jackson state in 1970, guardsmen fired on the crowd and killed innocents. You are drawing distinctions where there are none. The fact remains American armed forces HAVE fired on protesters. The Hong Kong police have never done such a thing (yet).


I'm no CCP apologist, but Hong Kong is not Beijing. And yes, any government would do what the hong kong police did. American police routinely use tear gas and pepper spray on unsanctioned demonstrations. Happened in Ferguson just a few weeks ago. They did it to the occupy protesters in wall street. If you protest without a permit and block streets and disrupt public life, every government on earth will use things like tear gas or pepper spray to try to restore order.

If the Hong Kong police start shooting live rounds, then I will change my tone. Until then, they haven't done anything to warrant a comparison with Tiananmen and only have responded in the way every other metropolitan police force would.


No one here is trying to over throw the government. Your point however, remains invalid. Lets not forget about the civil war, where the federal government literally went to war to prevent a section of their country from trying to leave. I just find it amusing that there are multiple instances of where the military actually has killed protesting civilians in the US, while there are zero such instances in Hong Kong. Yet you are the one insisting it can't happen?



How many innocent people or unarmed people have been killed by the police, just this year, that we got on video. Again, I have to laugh. I don't think the police in Hong Kong have gunned down anyone in years. There are two videos of the police shooting unarmed people in the USA just this week. Like I said, you seem to be throwing a lot of stones for someone who lives in a place where the police regularly take the lives of citizens. That does NOT happen here.




You shot protesters at kent state. And at jackson state. Hong Kong has ZERO such incidents. Your government shoots 400 citizens a year without trial. The police here almost never shoot anyone. You can argue they are all rioters or criminals, but we actually have video evidence to prove that many of these people were not a threat or were not doing anything to warrant getting shot. You come from a place where there are more instances of police shooting unarmed people on video than there are instances of the police shooting anyone, bank robbers and gangsters included, here.


Yes, but none of that had anything to do with democracy. Democracy is not equivalent to proper governance. Proper governance does not require democracy.

You will always run into this with apologists of US excess.

Some of the students who were shot had been protesting the Cambodian Campaign, which President Richard Nixon announced during a television address on April 30. Other students who were shot had been walking nearby or observing the protest from a distance.[7][8]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
 
BBC News - Hong Kong: Tear gas and clashes at democracy protest

Thoughts? I think it quite unlikely China will back down on this issue.

I really dont know how this will end since China's leadership views any sort of protest against its rule as something that they must deal with harshly but at the same time the political and economic consequences would be disastrous for them if they attempt another Tienammen square style crackdown. I have some friends in HKG and I hope they are alright.
 
The thing is, I'm not sure how much longer they can allow parts of the city to be shut down. Fortunately perhaps, the Oct 1 holiday is tomorrow and most people were slated to take the day off work anyway. However, that is also a huge shopping day and of course many of the shopping districts are filled with protesters. There is also the concern that many people will choose to spend their day off taking to the streets, which could see the protests grow to record size. It will be sensitive for the next few days here but as you said, I can't see CY or Beijing deciding to take decisive action anytime soon.

At least for the time being, I don't think there's any alternative. A harsh crackdown might shift the silent majority of Hong Kong residents for lack of a better term firmly on the side of the protesters. If so, the issue could become far more complicated. Some residents would undoubtedly leave given the connections you cited earlier. China's reputation as a reliable partner would be damaged, as it would be difficult for China to maintain that it honored the terms of its "One China-Two Systems" commitment. In the wake of any harsh crackdown, there would very likely be economic and political consequences regionally and even globally.

Nevertheless, I don't expect Beijing to make any significant concessions for the reasons discussed earlier in this thread. As a result, I still suspect pressure will slowly be increased on the protesters for the time being. Efforts will be made to portray the protesters' actions as illegal, violations of the law, etc., but public perceptions will turn on whether the general public believes the protesters' have legitimate grievances for which no recourse was possible.

In the near-term, I don't think there will be any sudden and decisive effort to end the demonstrations. Whether or not the protests ultimately fizzle with little success in achieving the protesters' goals remains to be seen. Even if they dissipate in coming days or weeks, the protesters might simply shift strategy and attempt to organize a large-scale boycott of the upcoming elections. Such a tactic has been used elsewhere e.g., during the recent Egyptian elections, by opposition movements to try to portray the electoral process and outcome of the elections as illegitimate. Results of such boycotts are mixed at best. For example, in the aforementioned Egyptian elections, the outcome is widely viewed as legitimate despite abnormally low turnout. During the ongoing UN General Assembly regular session, some of the Mideast leaders praised Egypt's political transformation.

Of course, I could be wrong. But this is how I see things right now.
 
Hong Kong has its special privileges at the will of the Communist Party of China. If you think that is not so then you have a hard lesson to learn.

Not really. You ignore the internal and external constraints Beijing has to operate under. It's much more difficult, if not impossible, to take away rights once they have been granted. That is why Hong Kong still has it's special privileges to this day, and why the communist party does not censor or abuse the people in the manner which they would any municipality in the mainland. Hong Kong is still China's only global city, and still it's window to the world. That is only the case because of the freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong's citizens, and the relative political stability created by Beijing's hands off approach. If the communist party thought it could gain by cracking down it would, but it hasn't because they would stand to lose more than they would gain.

An immense amount of Chinese firms are listed in Hong Kong and are able to enjoy access to world markets, and the global capital markets, because of Hong Kong's special status. It's a loophole that has allowed autocratic china and it's state run multinationals to do business in a world dominated by free and liberal economies. The communist party cannot freely break the Basic Law or impose it's will in Hong Kong as it would any other Chinese city without repercussions that would only harm China. Let's not forget that Hong Kong is still a Chinese city, destroying it's status as a global financial center and as a world city would only serve to harm China in the long run. People and firms leaving Hong Kong will not be going to Beijing or Shanghai, they will be going to Singapore or Tokyo or the United States. China has everything to gain by keeping Hong Kong peaceful and prosperous. The only rational for curbing the freedoms in Hong Kong would be to prevent such ideas and freedoms coming to the mainland, which no one except the paranoid CCP has any any illusion will happen.

Put simply, the CCP has shown that it's "will" will never be to tolerate democrats, free speech or political dissent. And yet it does so with Hong Kong. Not because it wants to, but because it makes complete sense to given the constraints they operate under.
 
Not really. You ignore the internal and external constraints Beijing has to operate under. It's much more difficult, if not impossible, to take away rights once they have been granted. That is why Hong Kong still has it's special privileges to this day, and why the communist party does not censor or abuse the people in the manner which they would any municipality in the mainland. Hong Kong is still China's only global city, and still it's window to the world. That is only the case because of the freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong's citizens, and the relative political stability created by Beijing's hands off approach. If the communist party thought it could gain by cracking down it would, but it hasn't because they would stand to lose more than they would gain.

An immense amount of Chinese firms are listed in Hong Kong and are able to enjoy access to world markets, and the global capital markets, because of Hong Kong's special status. It's a loophole that has allowed autocratic china and it's state run multinationals to do business in a world dominated by free and liberal economies. The communist party cannot freely break the Basic Law or impose it's will in Hong Kong as it would any other Chinese city without repercussions that would only harm China. Let's not forget that Hong Kong is still a Chinese city, destroying it's status as a global financial center and as a world city would only serve to harm China in the long run. People and firms leaving Hong Kong will not be going to Beijing or Shanghai, they will be going to Singapore or Tokyo or the United States. China has everything to gain by keeping Hong Kong peaceful and prosperous. The only rational for curbing the freedoms in Hong Kong would be to prevent such ideas and freedoms coming to the mainland, which no one except the paranoid CCP has any any illusion will happen.

Put simply, the CCP has shown that it's "will" will never be to tolerate democrats, free speech or political dissent. And yet it does so with Hong Kong. Not because it wants to, but because it makes complete sense to given the constraints they operate under.

Again, I don't envy your the lessons you have to learn.

Denying rights is the easiest of all political endeavors. A group of well armed enforcers can crush an unarmed population in a matter of days. This isn't just easy, it is the standard the world over. You sit in a perceived freedom under the yoke of a massive Authoritarian government with a huge army and the only thing standing between you and a massive crackdown is the US Military who, under current leadership, is about as likely to come to your aid as they are Ukraine... meaning not at all.

You really have no idea how precarious Hong Kong's position is. I wish you the best of luck.
 
At least for the time being, I don't think there's any alternative. A harsh crackdown might shift the silent majority of Hong Kong residents for lack of a better term firmly on the side of the protesters. If so, the issue could become far more complicated. Some residents would undoubtedly leave given the connections you cited earlier. China's reputation as a reliable partner would be damaged, as it would be difficult for China to maintain that it honored the terms of its "One China-Two Systems" commitment. In the wake of any harsh crackdown, there would very likely be economic and political consequences regionally and even globally.

The thing I think the CCP realizes is that this is not 1989. Even the great firewall and a media blackout will not keep the Chinese people insulated from knowledge of a Tiananmen style crackdown. Make no mistake about it, such imagery would be a far bigger threat to the CCP's political authority than the citizens of Hong Kong being allowed to vote. Any such crackdown would result in the death of westerners, and severe political and economic consequences. It will be very very hard for a party who's legitimacy is based on economic growth to explain to factory workers in Shenzhen why orders have stopped coming in and they all gat laid off. Keeping such news from being publicly expressed will also require a level of censorship and violence that will only risk truly enraging the average Chinese citizen.

Nevertheless, I don't expect Beijing to make any significant concessions for the reasons discussed earlier in this thread. As a result, I still suspect pressure will slowly be increased on the protesters for the time being. Efforts will be made to portray the protesters' actions as illegal, violations of the law, etc., but public perceptions will turn on whether the general public believes the protesters' have legitimate grievances for which no recourse was possible.
Easier said than done. Tomorrow is the October 1 holiday, and some are predicting hundreds of thousands in the streets because everyone has the day off. With numbers like that it's very very hard for anyone to control the situation. I could easily see circumstances in which undisciplined protesters or outnumbered and scared police end up taking actions that make this entire event violent without the Chinese or protesters ever intending it. Once that happens then all cards are on the table and anything could happen.

In the near-term, I don't think there will be any sudden and decisive effort to end the demonstrations. Whether or not the protests ultimately fizzle with little success in achieving the protesters' goals remains to be seen. Even if they dissipate in coming days or weeks, the protesters might simply shift strategy and attempt to organize a large-scale boycott of the upcoming elections. Such a tactic has been used elsewhere e.g., during the recent Egyptian elections, by opposition movements to try to portray the electoral process and outcome of the elections as illegitimate. Results of such boycotts are mixed at best. For example, in the aforementioned Egyptian elections, the outcome is widely viewed as legitimate despite abnormally low turnout. During the ongoing UN General Assembly regular session, some of the Mideast leaders praised Egypt's political transformation.

Of course, I could be wrong. But this is how I see things right now.

There are already enough pro-democracy MP's in the legislature to veto any election if Beijing does not change course, and they have promised to do just that. It won't get to the point where there are elections to boycott because of this. Of course, this put China on the back foot because there will come a time when CY has to be replaced and if that's not done through an open and fair election, expect a repeat of this exact same thing. China has no interest in seeing this happen again.
 
Again, I don't envy your the lessons you have to learn.

Denying rights is the easiest of all political endeavors. A group of well armed enforcers can crush an unarmed population in a matter of days. This isn't just easy, it is the standard the world over. You sit in a perceived freedom under the yoke of a massive Authoritarian government with a huge army and the only thing standing between you and a massive crackdown is the US Military who, under current leadership, is about as likely to come to your aid as they are Ukraine... meaning not at all.

You really have no idea how precarious Hong Kong's position is. I wish you the best of luck.

Again, I don't think you understand the situation. You are thinking in a simplistic manner where the only check on violence is violence. No one is doubting the ability of the PLA to over run Hong Kong tomorrow. The point is that such an action would only serve to damage China's own interest, and so while they have the power to do it, they have no interest in doing that.

It's like saying every skinny man is at the mercy of every muscle head in society, because at any point the muscle head could beat them to death. Sure, physically they could, but the muscle head would only be damaging their own life by doing so, and thus has no interest in doing it. This is Chess not Checkers, and fortunately the one thing that can be said about Chinese people and China in general is that they are practical.
 
Again, I don't think you understand the situation. You are thinking in a simplistic manner where the only check on violence is violence. No one is doubting the ability of the PLA to over run Hong Kong tomorrow. The point is that such an action would only serve to damage China's own interest, and so while they have the power to do it, they have no interest in doing that.

It's like saying every skinny man is at the mercy of every muscle head in society, because at any point the muscle head could beat them to death. Sure, physically they could, but the muscle head would only be damaging their own life by doing so, and thus has no interest in doing it. This is Chess not Checkers, and fortunately the one thing that can be said about Chinese people and China in general is that they are practical.

But when that skinny man is throwing punches at the muscle head I feel safe in warning the skinny man that a beating is coming. Especially when the given muscle head has a history of delivering brutal beatings.
 
But when that skinny man is throwing punches at the muscle head I feel safe in warning the skinny man that a beating is coming. Especially when the given muscle head has a history of delivering brutal beatings.

No punches are being thrown. Universal suffrage was guaranteed in the 1997 handover, this is a predictable course of events only changed by Beijing's decision to select the candidates that could stand in the election. Had they simply granted universal suffrage per the handover accords, it wouldn't mean a damn thing to mainland Chinese because they have long understood Hong Kong's special status does not apply to the mainland. But by going back on those agreements, Beijing has created a standoff which could lead them to the difficult decision of backing down or cracking down. Both options which are far more damaging to the CCP than allowing Hong Kong to enjoy another special privilege when it already has so many.

People in Hong Kong are truly stunned at the size of the turnouts, and of the commitment of the demonstrators. This goes completely against everything Hong Kong, let alone Beijing, thought about how the SAR operated. No doubt the Chinese already realized they made a mistake, but they also realize the mistake has been made and they can't undo it at this point. Any way you slice it this is a huge policy blunder on the part of Beijing as they have made a predictable situation into one in which they face two damaging choices. The only way a crackdown happens is by accident, or due to internal CCP politics in which Xi is forced to act due to the pressure of competitors and enemies within the party. That may happen but the fact remains this is not the outcome the CCP expected or wanted, and if they could go back and change things, Hong Kong would have proper universal suffrage.
 
The idiocy if this whole situation is astounding. It only demonstrates how pretty much all the Western media are a bunch of corrupt propaganda outlets, little better than the Eastern news media they deride so much.

Hong Kong democracy is not under threat, it is advancing. What this complaint is about, fundamentally, is that certain people want to have a completely open nomination process for the first direct competitive elections for the Chief Executive. Beijing's proposal is essentially that nominees will be selected by a committee and that committee consists of over a thousand people from various walks of life in Hong Kong. Where you see the prospect of a compromise is Beijing may relax the requirements for approval by that committee or change up the composition of the committee, which is currently seen as predominantly supportive of Beijing's policies in Hong Kong. One has to question whether that would even be necessary, since approval by the committee does not preclude a more liberal-leaning candidate being nominated in the first place and elections have a way of making officials more accountable to the people regardless.
 
The thing I think the CCP realizes is that this is not 1989. Even the great firewall and a media blackout will not keep the Chinese people insulated from knowledge of a Tiananmen style crackdown. Make no mistake about it, such imagery would be a far bigger threat to the CCP's political authority than the citizens of Hong Kong being allowed to vote. Any such crackdown would result in the death of westerners, and severe political and economic consequences. It will be very very hard for a party who's legitimacy is based on economic growth to explain to factory workers in Shenzhen why orders have stopped coming in and they all gat laid off. Keeping such news from being publicly expressed will also require a level of censorship and violence that will only risk truly enraging the average Chinese citizen.

We agree. There are too many uncertainties and potential costs for China to carry out a forced clearing of the protesters. Moreover, the protests are happening in Hong Kong, which enjoys special status, rather than the heart of Chinese power in Beijing, so there are fewer incentives for such a crackdown.

Easier said than done. Tomorrow is the October 1 holiday, and some are predicting hundreds of thousands in the streets because everyone has the day off. With numbers like that it's very very hard for anyone to control the situation. I could easily see circumstances in which undisciplined protesters or outnumbered and scared police end up taking actions that make this entire event violent without the Chinese or protesters ever intending it. Once that happens then all cards are on the table and anything could happen.

I don't expect much effort on the part of Hong Kong's authorities or the police to rein in the 10/1 protests. There would be too much risk of an accidental incident that could lead events to run out-of-control. I do expect continued efforts at moral suasion for the time being, but additional measures (not necessarily police measures) aimed at ramping up pressure afterward.

There are already enough pro-democracy MP's in the legislature to veto any election if Beijing does not change course, and they have promised to do just that. It won't get to the point where there are elections to boycott because of this. Of course, this put China on the back foot because there will come a time when CY has to be replaced and if that's not done through an open and fair election, expect a repeat of this exact same thing. China has no interest in seeing this happen again.

I don't disagree. A lot will depend on the protesters' degree of confidence in those MPs if, of course, the protesters choose to try to delegitimize the electoral outcome. I'm not sure that the protesters have really devised strategy for what comes next if the Hong Kong and Chinese governments effectively "wait" them out, if public sentiment turns against them should Hong Kong begin to face adverse economic consequences, among numerous other plausible scenarios. The same goes for Hong Kong's government and even China's government. There are a lot of unknowns.
 
Ok "Tank Man" you're delusional....

I don't know who you are but you're not "free."

Gotta love it when a nonnative tries to tell a native all about his country and calls him a liar. It's the epitome of arrogance.
 
[/I][/U]Ah, no, actually. One of the benefits of our political system is that our government would not do that, and that' its' military would refuse to do so, if ordered. You lose the election, your butt is out.


Are you really that naive?


Hong Kong's liberties are degrading - hence the protests (incidentally, yes, there are protests across mainland China. The government simply downplays them, and often the protests are to the central government about local officials)


All in all, my second main take-away from this is that I wonder what the play on this is in Taiwan.

The only issue Hong Kong has is China reneged on their agreement to allow Hong Kong to pick their own candidates without China having to vette them.
 
Back
Top Bottom