Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
China says its courts trump Hong Kong's on face mask ruling
China's top legislature has insisted Hong Kong courts had no power to rule on the constitutionality of legislation under the city's Basic Law, as it condemned a decision by the high court to overturn a ban on face masks worn by pro-democracy protesters.
The statement on Tuesday came a day after the high court ruled that the face mask ban - introduced through colonial-era emergency laws - was unconstitutional.
[...] "Whether the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region comply with the Basic Law of Hong Kong can only be judged and decided by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress," Yan Tanwei, a spokesman for the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, said in a statement.
"No other authority has the right to make judgments and decisions," he added.
[...] Protests started in June with rallies that brought hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets in a largely peaceful call for the withdrawal of a now-withdrawn bill that would have allowed suspected criminals to be extradited to mainland China for trial.
They have since evolved into a series of demands for greater democracy and freedoms as well as an independent inquiry into alleged police brutality. Protesters worry China is encroaching on the freedoms given to Hong Kong when the United Kingdom returned the territory to China under what was known as "one country, two systems" in 1997.
[...] China has repeatedly warned that it would not allow the city to spiral into total chaos, heightening concerns that Beijing might deploy troops or other security forces to quell the unrest.
"The Hong Kong government is trying very hard to put the situation under control," China's ambassador to Britain, Liu Xiaoming, said on Monday.
"But if the situation becomes uncontrollable, the central government would certainly not sit on our hands and watch. We have enough resolution and power to end the unrest."
[...] Protesters had been using masks to hide their identities in public. The proposal was widely criticised by supporters of the anti-government movement, who saw it as a risk to demonstrators.
Hong Kong's High Court ruled on Monday that colonial-era emergency laws, which were revived to justify the mask ban, were "incompatible with the Basic Law", the mini-constitution under which Hong Kong was returned to China.
Will China run out of patience with Hong Kong protests?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday November 21 2019, @08:45PM (46 children)
But unless they can broker military support for actual independence, national sovereignty is a bitch.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Fluffeh on Thursday November 21 2019, @08:52PM (22 children)
China isn't letting go of Hong Kong in any way. shape form or other. Ever.
No other nation is going to force an armed conflict with all the might of China over Hong Kong. The poor fuckers are basically done for. They know what a more democratic life is, but it's not going to come their way.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 21 2019, @10:20PM
Yes, that's it in a nutshell.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 21 2019, @11:02PM (15 children)
So what? Who is actually trying to take Hong Kong away from China?
I don't think international conflict is anyone's goal here. Instead, it's a freer China. That isn't such a huge hurdle to clear, considering that China has already liberalized a great deal in the past 40 years. And that's real liberalization not the fake optimism [soylentnews.org] of dead end ideologues.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Fluffeh on Thursday November 21 2019, @11:06PM (14 children)
The people protesting in Hong Kong right now want to have a freer system, one that's not built the same way as the rest of China. They are asking for help from outside sources - I'm saying that there isn't a single country that will help them in the way that they want help - as that will require a conflict with China. You can't give complete democracy and freedom to Hong Kong while China is running the show there. You can't make China not run the show - even if that's what the population there wants (and I'm not calling that one way or the other).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 21 2019, @11:19PM (12 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @05:24AM
China has moved to crush these protests. They don't want another Tiannamen in the world of livestreaming, and so they're not coming in boots and steel, they're easing into boots and steel, as the 'soft'er techniques of persuasion which they expected to work continue to fail.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @02:31PM (9 children)
I think this one is pretty simple.
One important nuance that most people don't understand is that the protesters are not popular in Hong Kong. Only 17.4% [reuters.com] Hong Kongers would want to separate from China, peacefully, after the one country, systems agreement expires in 2047. And that number, if anything, may be inflated due to the source. [wikipedia.org]
And that number is definitely lower now. The protesters had a fair amount of support early on in the protests. That support has been largely lost due to their increasing tendency towards violence and destruction. What is China's goal with Hong Kong? Again that's very easy, they want complete reunification. Xi Jinping spoke [chinadaily.com.cn] extensively of such goals during the most recent Chinese National Congress.
And so I think China is using the protesters to undermine themselves. That 17.4% seeking independence is not high, but it's much higher than it used to be. By letting the protesters destroy the country's economy, attack people, and generally engage in deeply unpopular behavior the protesters are undermining support for their own cause. By contrast if China cracked down on them hard, then the protesters would work as living martyrs for their own cause. It leads to this rather paradoxical scenario where the protesters want the police to crack down on them and the police want to exercise restraint.
I think China would be perfectly content if the economy of Hong Kong tanked, if it aided their goal of reunification - it can be built back up afterwards anyhow. So for now I think they are happy to simply play the waiting game. What they want to do is frustrate the protesters enough that the protesters act out. And there's no doubt they've also infiltrated the protesters and are probably trying to internally push for violence, destruction, and so forth. It leads to this quite paradoxical outcome where the Chinese are using the protesters as useful idiots to further their goals of national reunification. It's paradoxical because it seems that the protesters are also being used as useful idiots by Western interests who think the internal turmoil is damaging to China. So I suppose it turns into a contest of who has the more accurate political foresight. The one thing that's for certain is that it's damn sure not the protesters themselves!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 22 2019, @04:51PM (8 children)
The protests aren't about Hong Kong independence. So it doesn't matter that there's only 17% support for an unrelated issue.
China's "number" is lower too as well. It was a pretty dick move to try to include political persecutions with what could have been a relatively standard extradition law (still ignoring China's shoddy court system which on its own should rule out extradition laws). And the Hong Kong police have resorted to violence as well (and perhaps some China-directed counter protesters). Nor is it clear to me that there's more violent protesters than there are police.
And who in China has this goal of "complete reunification"? In Hong Kong, we could see that there was widespread support for the protests just from the number of people who turned out. But what protesters are turning out for this goal? Just because an elite has decided on a goal doesn't mean China has decided on a goal.
If China were playing the long game, they merely need to wait till 2047. And frankly, it's no loss to China's future, if Hong Kong autonomy continued forever. You should look at why this goal exists in the first place. A moderately free Hong Kong is not a threat to China. It is a threat to the establishment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @08:32PM (7 children)
What percent of those still supporting the increasing violent and destructive behavior of the protesters do you think would choose to remain controlled by China, given the choice for a peaceful option of genuine independence? I think it's quite difficult to form a genuine argument proposing that that number is not extremely low. There are a variety of other metrics we can measure the popularity of the protests by, but I think that one is simple and clear.
The waiting game and the long game are very different. Patience is something Sun Tzu obsessed over.
- He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious.
- The opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.
- Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
- Hence that general is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack.
- It is more important to out-think your enemy than to out-fight him.
- When the enemy is relaxed, make them toil. When full, starve them. When settled, make them move.
China is simply taking advantage of the situation the protesters are in. The only way the protesters can win is if China responds in a way that is framed as inappropriate, unwanted, or disproportionate. So all the protesters can do is to try to provoke that action. But the way they try to provoke that, with violence and destruction, is the exact thing that's killing off whatever dwindling support they have left. See even e.g. our coverage in the NYTimes. As the police forces exercise restraint against an ever more unrestrained mob, it's becoming increasingly difficult to spin the protests in a positive way. And now imagine the people in Hong Kong - businesses are closing or leaving, schools are closed, the region is now in outright recession, and the violence and destruction continues.
This will not take long.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 23 2019, @02:23AM (6 children)
Who are "the protesters" here? I imagine that there's vastly more support for peaceful protesters speaking out against extradition for speechcrime than there is for the people practicing a reenactment of the Alamo in a local campus building. The latter are more violent than the former. You tar with a very broad brush.
Sure, we could weasel all day about the alleged unpopularity of a few people holing up in some makeshift fortress as if that were everyone who has protested here.
As to the Sun Tzu quotes, consider this more relevant one:
This whole conflict existed in the first place because someone was too impatient and tried to pull a fast one legislatively. The resulting mess has ballooned into a protest that's almost half a year old. They weren't prudent, they didn't wait for the enemy to defeat themselves - they didn't even wait for an opportunity to not have an enemy in the first place, they aren't breaking said resistance without fighting, and so on. Just because someone is aware of these precepts doesn't mean that they're following them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 23 2019, @08:29AM (5 children)
Obviously there is vastly more support for peaceful protests than the people chimping out. Yet the latter invariably determine both the perception of the former and ultimately the outcome of a protest, because they bring things to a critical point. The idea of a peaceful protest, a la Gandhi, just naturally overturning a superior oppressive force is a fantasy. Britain gave up India not because of some civil disobedience but because their empire was already collapsing and they were effectively bankrupt after WW2. They would, in short order, grant nearly all of their colonies independence (including those without any meaningful independence movements) - without getting into the nuanced exception that is Hong Kong.
Take for instance something like the Boston Massacre. This was a, if not 'the', pivotal moment in the 'American' protests against the British. And indeed without it it's entirely possible outright revolution might never have gained enough support, almost certainly not as quickly as it did. But when you actually look into the details of the Boston Massacre we absolutely provoked it. Nonetheless, the winners and losers of that event at not judged by a court of law but by the court of public opinion - as all protests are subject to. Because the British responded poorly, they lost that judgement and perhaps the country alongside it. In Hong we now see the opposite happening and the protesters are being judged guilty in the court of public opinion.
As for what sparked these protests, I do not think it was the bill in and of itself. That a literal and admitted murderer could not be charged by police due to the lack of jurisdiction and the lack of extradition emphasizes how broken the system in Hong Kong was, and now remains. The proposal put forth by some of the protest movement was that the bill should be introduced only for the murderer, only for Taiwan (where he was from), and then immediately rescinded. That proposal was obviously not put forth in good faith. I think many in the protest group wanted a new protest and were looking for some sort of justification. The bill provided that justification. And similarly I think China now fighting not only against this protest, but against the root of the protests which is support for those ideological views. They could have ended these protests long ago if they wanted. They're letting the protesters continue to act out to undermine not only this protest, but the entire idea that the protesters stand for. In a nutshell, the protesters are being used as propaganda against themselves.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 23 2019, @01:00PM (4 children)
Except, of course, it worked in the case of Gandhi. And you might want to consider what the end states would be for a government where the only ways to express disapproval are through violence.
I have yet to see China act "opposite".
The protests came in response to the bill and have been a key component of the communication of at least "some" protesters as you note in your second paragraph.
So what?
It's institutional problems like creating the power to extradite someone to a Chinese kangaroo court for speechcrime, not nebulous ideology, that is the root problem here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 23 2019, @01:45PM (3 children)
Please speak holistically. This line by line nonsense is difficult to have a conversation flow with and a very lazy form of discussion/debate. It's also especially prone to disingenuous comments. E.g. in the above you decide to take my comment about Gandhi out of context and respond to it in a way that is utterly nonsensical given the context of what was stated.
Cutting to the chase here, China is dealing with protest in a new way. You don't have to engage in hypotheticals about what would happen if these protesters engaged this way in another country, there are protests going on all around the world -nearly all of them far less violent and destructive than the Hong Kong protesters- and we can see what happens. In the French protests, which had no meaningful violence whatsoever (but did have property destruction), the police responded in force with militarized tear gas grenades that were laced with explosives so you had fun things like protesters getting their hands blown off when trying to lunge back the grenades. The police have blinded more than a dozen protesters by firing nonlethal projectiles aimed at people's faces, destroyed limbs of various protesters, and even managed to murder a completely uninvolved elderly woman in her house (near one of the protest areas) after hitting her with a launched gas grenade. Spain responded with a militarized crack down, hundreds of arrests, and kangaroo court sentencing of leaders upwards of a decade a piece. So forth and so on.
By acting with extreme restraint they achieve two goals:
1) They turn the people against the protesters. Imagine if in e.g. Ferguson, the police force not only didn't respond in force but didn't respond at all. It wouldn't be long before the people of the city would be begging for intervention. At the same time it would also have worked to radically shift the general perception of the protests from perhaps an exaggerated response to little more than an excuse for rioting. Instead the police force acted decisively. They won in the short run, but completely lost the battle for mindshare which is far more important.
2) They destroy propaganda efforts. As one example here are two videos of one of shootings. The first is the US propaganda cut of the shooting, the second is an actual in-context video of the shooting. The videos are safe-for-life and mostly non-graphic:
US Version [reuters.com]
Singapore Version [youtube.com]
I particularly love the overt propaganda in the US version:
It implies, but does not say, that the Chinese statement is referring to the officer who had his arm brushed as the one who's life was in danger - not the police officer laying on the ground being beaten to death by a mob of protesters who refused to disperse even after the police arrived - and whom the "US cut" makes sure to cut out of the frame each time he'd become visible. Propaganda is the art of lying without ever speaking a false statement. The problem the US faces is people can find the "real" video with like 30 seconds of searching, if they're so inclined. On top of that I expect China is also ensuring the real videos are being made readily available to those in Hong Kong, and so the propaganda is not only not working, but backfiring. Effort to make the protesters seem like good people just demonstrating for a better tomorrow is undermined by their own behaviors and shines a spotlight on the agenda of those aiming to try to push a narrative.
---
The reason I'm so enthusiastic about this topic is because I don't think people realize this may end up setting a new normal in dealing with civil unrest. Should Trump win in 2020, we'll probably see some people chimping out on the streets stateside and this may even be an opportunity to utilize such techniques stateside. Don't arrest them, don't move in force, do nothing except make them uncomfortable enough that they feel obligated to continually push the "pace". If the protests don't organically dissolve, within a matter of weeks any support for them (outside of the protesters themselves) will have plummeted. You come in not as the militarized police enacting government agenda, but as the vet reluctantly putting down a rabid animal.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 23 2019, @04:47PM (2 children)
Ok, your post is apologetic junk. And anyone can spin incompetence as playing a deeper game. China wouldn't have to "deal with protest in a different way" - which let us note isn't actually different, there certainly isn't "extreme restraint" here in the first place, if they had approached this smartly in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 23 2019, @07:02PM (1 child)
Awesome and appreciated! Reading line by line stuff is simply tedious!
Now can you elaborate on your view perhaps with supporting evidence or logic instead of just unsupported assertions? In particular do you disagree that these protesters would have met a far more brutal response had they decided to start e.g. attacking police, destroying businesses, and other such behavior in the "free world" such as, for instance, the USA? If you do agree, as I expect you would, how could you not call the Chinese response restrained? Also, for what am I being apologetic?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 25 2019, @02:08AM
On the last part, the typical developed world response would be to arrest those responsible. My point is not to claim that somehow the Chinese and Hong Kong responses are unrestrained, but that they aren't dealing with the protests in the alleged "new" way, different from developed world approaches. So far, that's fine. The real problem is what would happen should China start calling the shots directly. After all, the tanks are idling nearby.
As to supporting evidence and logic, there's the initial conditions - as I noted already. We wouldn't have gotten into this situation in the first place without both a history of Chinese interference in the operations of the Hong Kong government and the blatant injustice of the failed extradition bill. You can assert that the protesters would have found some other, flimsier pretext for protesting, but those protesters didn't need to.
And that overlaps with a previous AC assertion, that China as part of its alleged competence is attacking some ideology which will be more effective at discrediting the protesters than attacking them directly. Such things don't exist in a vacuum. As long as the problem exists, protests will continue to erupt over and over again. Not a one of the great ideologies of the world, be them religious or secular existed in a vacuum, but as a reaction to great injustice, poverty, or oppression.
Let's consider some of the other things said in this thread. For example, a number of words were wasted on a single alleged beating of a police officer by protesters. Even if everything is as the claimed narrative, it's something like a dozen protesters beating a single police officer with a different spin by some sloppy foreign media. There were a lot more than a dozen people involved in the protests and there's a lot more sad stories than that one. One incident doesn't tell us anything about the whole.
Of course, there's serious problems with the claimed narrative of the "real" video. How is it that whoever took the "real" video could stand closely around both alleged protesters and a cluster of police who had just used deadly force to protect a downed officer without interference from either group? How did one police officer just happen to be so isolated that he could be jumped by a dozen protesters? Why did the video taker linger over the police officer rather than the dying protester? My take is that we don't even know that the "real" video was of the real attack!
There was an assertion that non violence doesn't work in protests, while quoting Gandhi - who was greatly successful at nonviolent protest contrary to assertion.
Or the initial dishonesty of equating support for the protests with support for separation from China.
So that's supporting evidence and logic for these posts by one of more AC to be apologetic junk for Chinese tyranny.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday November 22 2019, @07:00PM
Because the actual Trump card is wild. China is most likely not going to get the trade deal they need on pork and rice because of their desire to not end the Fentanyl trade, our key trade people have hinted at a decoupling instead with intense investment in Vietnam, India, etc as a replacement for dependence on Chinese exports. China might be able to get us to overlook the Fentanyl issue to at least get them more pork and rice even if no further trade deal comes. Crushing Hong Kong will cost them any hope they had for that, and possibly spark a rebellion in the mainland. Access by the Chinese people to pork has caused significant problems for the ruling party going back hundreds of years.
A soft takeover of Hong Kong will be overlooked, a hard takeover will cost them greatly.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @05:16AM
HK Protesters are not asking for outside help as far as I am aware. Also none of the five demands, from memory, are about separating China from Hong Kong or China making democratic reforms.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @09:29AM (3 children)
Perhaps some do but it's not like Hong Kong had democracy for the most of the time it was under British rule...
Democracy is good but overrated. No/low democracy doesn't mean things are automatically bad. Most people won't care that much about democracy as long as things are going well enough. Many people are happy to work in organizations where they have near zero votes on policy. Most children don't get to vote much in their family or orphanage.
I suspect the issue is life in Hong Kong has not become better (google for coffin homes) and expectations may have gone up faster than quality of life. Then for comparison google for HDB and Singapore.
Perhaps China could divert some of their excess in construction output and other overcapacity towards Hong Kong and make life better. But would China do that? Unfortunately for the Hong Kong people the harsh reality is the rest of the world and China no longer needs Hong Kong that much. Unlike the old days most investors, trade etc can go directly to China without Hong Kong involved.
China might even be able to (ab)use the Hong Kong protests as a convenient example of why the Gov should be more restrictive in mainland China.
The HK protesters are destroying stuff fairly indiscriminately (ice skating rinks, subway stations, tracks, etc). I've seen some bullshit excuses given for destroying stuff.
Can't say the HK Gov responded well either... Did they really need that law so much?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 22 2019, @05:01PM (1 child)
"as long as things are going well enough". What's the mechanism by which things stay that way? For example, democracy allows for leadership change in years rather than generations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 25 2019, @03:06AM
And the USA has so much confidence in democracy that they have term limits.
If democratic elections really worked then you should leave it up to the voters even if they keep reelecting their Beloved Great Leader every time.
If the elections are rigged then term limits don't fix that and just distract from the real problem.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday November 22 2019, @07:11PM
Spoken like someone living in the western republics who takes simple things for granted, like calling trump Orange and not being beaten for it
Watch the protestors and listen to their actual complaints.
China has no desire to help the people of HK. Those who disagree politically will have their organs harvested (Falun Gong) and those who are not "city people" are expelled from the cities to live in the country.
You don't get much more restrictive than putting political dissidents in prison camps and harvesting their organs. Although I suppose you could burn them for energy.
And we threw tea in the bay. You do what you can. You destroy the bread and circuses so people are forced to see the world before them. You destroy transportation to make logistics harder for the invading force.
The purpose of the law was to show that the CCP promise of not enforcing the extradition law was a lie. And it worked.
Maybe you are right and the Chinese aren't that bad, or maybe the protestors are right and they will be rounded up and put in prison camps and have their organs harvested like everyone else who has not aligned politically with the government. Maybe they will be lucky like the Tibetans and only be sterilized and put in work camps.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @01:51PM
Sadly, I remember thinking that the UK returning HK to China seemed like a good and fair thing back in the 90s.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 21 2019, @08:55PM (22 children)
In case Chinese economic is sufficiently fragile, a threat of really efficient sanctions can have much larger effect than one of a military intervention.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday November 21 2019, @09:03PM (20 children)
Unlike the US, china is a country that actually makes things, and the second largest economy in the world overall, and that's in addition to having huge resource extraction capabilities. The idea of just arbitrarily "declaring" sanctions and it having more than a perfunctory effect on the decision makers of the country is pretty suspect.
We've seen again and again with US sanctions deployed against basically stable countries like Cuba and Russia and Iran, that all it does is make regular peoples' lives harder and give those in power an enemy to blame all their problems on.
You can beat up on Zimbabwe or Libya or other politically unstable country you want to great effect, but this here is a pipe dream
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday November 21 2019, @10:12PM
And I have the hunch they are only the second by the monetary value of things they make, not by the utilization value (i.e. number of customers having their needs covered).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 21 2019, @10:28PM (14 children)
It's a common misconception that the US does not make things. It does. It's still the largest manufacturer in the world, though China is catching up fast. (Yes, it surprised me, too)
China does not have the developed domestic market to absorb its industrial output that the US does. Put each country in a bottle and the US would do just fine while China would wither. Again, Beijing is trying to change that, but it's tough sledding because the cadres from non-coastal cities are getting pissed that they're not getting the slice of the pie they feel they deserve.
China is not the rock solid country the American media makes it out to be. We have discussed this many times here, but in practice it's not all that far removed from the economy it had during the Great Leap forward, when they would count a pallet of goods coming out of the factory, run it around to the front of the factory and bring it out the exit so it could be counted again.
There are many mass labor demonstrations and other upheavals happening on the mainland that the MSM doesn't report, but there are widespread signs of unrest.
All that will presumably change if Beijing can hold things together long enough, but if there was any moment to brush them back on their one-sided trade with the rest of the world, it would be now.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by qzm on Thursday November 21 2019, @10:48PM (13 children)
Sorry, but the US is not #1, in either value (2T$ for china, 1.8T$ for us) or %age of world goods (20% for china, 18% for the us..) (yes, dont those numbers line up well?)
However there is a MUCH deeper difference.
China ALSO manufactures a huge proportion of the base components that then are 'manufactured' in the rest of the world into final products.
If China stopped shipping those, a huge amount of the rest of the world production plants would also stop.
The exception to this is silicon chips, where China is a bit behind for cutting edge items, but catching up reasonably quickly.
I think you really need to actually visit China, the huge majority of the Chinese there are very patriotic, at least as much an Americans, and there is not a general hatred for their leadership (I am talking mainland here), although there is the usual grumbling about the day to day things, much like all other countries.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 21 2019, @11:16PM
Companies recognize China as a single point of failure. [eastasiaforum.org] Many companies. [cnbc.com]
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday November 22 2019, @01:47AM (2 children)
In addition, China is bigger than the US in foreign trade. This simply means that any rational word businessman would chose to support China in case of a war.
The only sector that makes the US bigger is dollar terms is local services. In ppp even that is smaller.
The US is still trying to maintain military dominance, which is obviously futile and will only bring the US down Soviet style.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday November 22 2019, @07:15PM (1 child)
Not really. If you chose to manufacture in China you typically only have one or two product cycles before they take over manufacture of your product and sell it for cheaper and put you out of business. You make less money in the short run going to non-Chinese mainland countries, but you make more in the long run due to IP protections.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday November 22 2019, @10:27PM
I was not talking about manufacturing in China but about buying from China and selling to China. Both are more important to an average businessman now than buying and selling to the US. Therefore, given a one or another choice, the businessmen would rationally chose to side with China.
A real world example. Currently the US is the biggest aircraft customer so the US dictates flying regulations to the world simply by refusing entry to anybody who does not comply. Soon China will mandate air traffic rules whatever they might be, such as no Google allowed. Similar to the US before, China will mandate the rule to all the airlines, anywhere in the world, because it will otherwise ban violators which they would not be able to afford; exactly the same as the US doing now.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Arik on Friday November 22 2019, @03:35AM
That surprises you, in a surveillance state where even a hint of the wrong opinion could destroy your life?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 22 2019, @11:11AM (6 children)
I lived in Beijing and Harbin, in Manchuria and speak Mandarin. China is a country with feet of clay.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @05:03PM
Agree. Did you pick up a dongbei accent?
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday November 22 2019, @10:32PM (2 children)
What exactly do you imply by "feet of clay"? Do you believe that China will fold as Soviet Russia did?
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday November 23 2019, @11:14AM (1 child)
Meaning that the society is fragile. It's an old Chinese communist slogan.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday November 23 2019, @06:22PM
Yeah, I'd agree with this. That's why they are so touchy about foreign, how should I put it, meddling I guess.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by qzm on Saturday November 23 2019, @08:10AM (1 child)
What does that have to do with the patriotism of the average Chinese citizen? Do you refute that fact?
Have you never seen a restaurant in China that will not serve Japanese (insert list of other nationalities) or dogs?
And would you like to point to the country without feet of clay?
Having significant faults does not make China less of a manufacturing powerhouse, which is what was being discussed.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday November 23 2019, @11:19AM
Their patriotism is a double-edged sword. As soon as Beijing compromises in a way that the people feel harms that, it's lights out. It does not mean they are slavish to the CCP.
It used to be that they pushed communism as an enveloping ideology, but those days are gone. Now it's all about the Benjamins, and the cadres are siphoning all those unto themselves.
So their strength is quite brittle (has feet of clay). They don't have the civil society and NGOs to buffer economic and political dislocations the way, say, the other advanced economies, the democracies, do. The CCP does not suffer them to exist, and freak out whenever something does arise outside their control. See how they've reacted to Falun Gong.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday November 23 2019, @11:38AM
Well that must mean the US doesn't know how to make anything, then. Its engineers and tradespeople will have forgotten entirely how to make things. Thank you for proving that a country with those kinds of numbers is totally inept and incapable.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday November 22 2019, @01:01AM (3 children)
China also owns about 6% of US debt, which I am assuming they could use to make life difficult.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 22 2019, @11:12AM (1 child)
They could use it to make life difficult for themselves and everyone else at the same time.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday November 24 2019, @07:35PM
That's true. They might decide it's worth it.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday November 22 2019, @01:49PM
Eh, that's always been a bit of a red herring. While invalidating foreign-held debt has never happened in US history, it's been done over serious conflicts hundreds of times by hundreds of countries since the invention of international commerce.
Doing so would make our reputation in the one area that's been consistently positive eat shit, but I don't know that there'd be terribly much blowback if it were done specifically in the context of mutual financial hostility.
The bigger problem is when that sort of financial hostility inevitably degrades into actual armed conflict, whether indirect or direct.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 22 2019, @12:40AM
Please define "really efficient sanctions" for us. The US sanctions against North Korea, Cuba, and Iran seem to have accomplished diddly squat over the past decades. Unless you define "efficiency" by the number of children who go to bed without a good wholesome supper.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 21 2019, @09:48PM (16 children)
Okay, so China legislator says the Hong Kong courts can't rule on this. So what?
If the US claimed that Russia wasn't really a country and everybody there owed taxes to Donald Trump, would it matter? No, Russia would tell the US government to punk-off. That's the whole concept of sovereignty, and unless the people in the US are willing to fight and die to impose their will on Russians, that's it.
How this applies to Hong Kong is that the people in Hong Kong are asserting their sovereignty in certain things (notably: extradition from Hong Kong to the mainland). Mainland China has just claimed that Hong Kong does not have this sovereignty, and Hong Kong claims they do. That affects the consequences of the question of sovereignty, not the question itself: which side is willing to fight and die to prove they are right?
So I guess this declaration does make sense, in terms of a game of chicken. Mainland China has upped the ante a bit more, saying "if we win, things will be even worse for you." In my mind, though, is if another Tienanmen Square will happen, and if it does, what will be the consequences this time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Thursday November 21 2019, @10:14PM
What will the consequences be? Some grandstanding, some nice speaches and then..... nothing.
The world is filled with hypocrits, when money is involved we collectivly chose to look the other way.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by RamiK on Thursday November 21 2019, @10:17PM (10 children)
The first law in Hong Kong's Basic Law states they're a part of the People's Republic of China. The second says they have high, but not absolute degree of autonomy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Basic_Law#Text_of_the_Basic_Law [wikipedia.org]
The Sino-British Joint Declaration first policy declares that national unity and territorial integrity shall be upheld. The 2nd says Hong Kong will be directly under the authority of the Central People's Government and that their autonomy is limited to internal affairs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration#Joint_Declaration [wikipedia.org]
So, the PRC's high-court gets to overrule Hong Kong's courts decisions. Now, if the Legislative Council of Hong Kong decides to remove the law from the books, they'll be in their right to wear masks again. But, if the PRC courts and executives declare wearing masks is a national security threat, Hong Kong must abide by their decision since that's a defense issue unless they're willing to secede and demand full independence under their right for self-determination.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @12:03AM (2 children)
Oh, they're willing alright. China's just not playing ball.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @09:03AM (1 child)
No they aren't, not at all. Polls [reuters.com] indicate that only 17.4% of Chinese at least somewhat support the notion of peaceful independence -- that is, to separate from China after the "one country, two systems" agreement expires in 2047. If there's any bias in the data it's going to be over-representing that figure. The source is the Chinese University of Hong Kong [wikipedia.org]. The percent that would support an actively antagonized relationship with China as a result of such separation are presumably a fraction of those 17.4%.
Welcome to the world of propaganda!
Propaganda isn't some crackly speaker making absurdly positive claims of 'mighty leader', or absurd over the top posters. Propaganda is actively misinforming a population in a way such that they feel informed about the world, and think they are the ones coming to conclusions about it, when in practice they're being directed to said entirely unjustified conclusions. It both gives the propagandists plausible deniability as well as avoids coming off as propaganda since the reader feels they're the ones coming to their own conclusion. For instance skim every NYTimes article on Hong Kong and you'll never find mention of public support for separation, or support for the protests for that matter, aside from the very early phase when there was indeed a good amount of support. Instead they'll just shove it down your throat with implication -- outright lying without ever making a false statement. That is propaganda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @05:09PM
For more domestic examples, turn on CNN right now.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday November 22 2019, @12:08AM (6 children)
Isn't what people are allowed to do in Hong Kong an internal affair? If it isn't, then what is?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday November 22 2019, @01:32AM (5 children)
If the PRC decides wearing masks circumvents the surveillance state and risks national security, it doesn't matter if the Hong Kong government and courts think otherwise. It's still illegal since the PRC has the final word on defense affairs which also covers defining what defense affairs means.
To my knowledge, federal vs. state in the US leaves even broader powers and less autonomy to the state so this should hardly be a surprise to anyone.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Friday November 22 2019, @04:29AM (4 children)
You lost me on the second part. Why the hell should the Hong Kong courts accept that justification? Since they are autonomous, they don't have to recognize such a ludicrous definition of defense. Internal affairs includes internal strife, until non-citizens start trying to invade.
Defense does not include law enforcement. Hong Kong can and should ignore the PRC. If Beijing wants to violate the basic law, UK and US, as well as rest of NATO, should take Hong Kong from Beijing's control. China would collapse in a drawn out conflict becuase they lack engineering talent and need to copy western engineers. China is dependent on western countries for progress, even if it has many natural resources... for the same reason they can't expand too much.
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @09:41AM
Same reason the national supreme court overrules state supreme courts.
Beyond that, I have to ask - are you out of your mind? You might've heard of this neat invention in the 40s. They are literally the sole the reason war between developed nations, outside of proxy wars, no longer exists. They're small and make a big boom. Starts with an 'n' and rhymes with pukes. I'd say you're talking about the sort of action that would start World War 3. But it wouldn't, because you've got to be out of your goddamned mind to propose engaging in overt war with a "developed" (read: nuclear) nation and so if anybody did it, they'd be rapidly alienated by the rest of the world because you're talking about the sort of stuff that could destroy our entire species.
This is the reason that modern "war" is fought with economics. Even the harshest economic attack would not justify a military response, but seizing national territory would. I also think this is the reason that we are currently freaking out in regards to China. China is set to become the dominant world economic power. The underlying point there is that US power is not based on any particular moral authority or historical relations but on power. As that power fades, expect to see what is already happening: corporations and countries increasingly aligning themselves with China, and that risks completely shaping the worldwide geopolitical balance - something the US obviously does not want to happen.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @02:00PM
That works fine until PRC invokes, "bigger army diplomacy."
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday November 22 2019, @03:36PM
No they can't. Their autonomy is purely functional and subordinate to the PRC by their own laws and the joint deceleration. Even their final adjudication depends on how the PRC's high-court's right of final interpretation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Final_Appeal_(Hong_Kong)#Article_158_Interpretation [wikipedia.org]
So, the protestors in that specific case get a pass since they already got their final adjudication. But the following cases will render them guilty unless the law is undone by the legislative body.
As your arguments regarding defense, the US already set the necessary precedents to overrule them:
1. Spies are often local citizens so nationality isn't a criteria. You can even charge a foreign journalist / whistle-blower for espionage and deny them the right to say they're journalist / whistle-blower in the court by law. It's why Snowden refuses to be tried in the US under the current laws and why Assange can't put together any defense: The laws pertaining to espionage and secrecy in the US specifically disallow this. It's technically also why the UK shouldn't extradite him... But naturally, they'll look the other way.
2. A foreign disinformation campaign through contractors targeting civilian infrastructure is still an issue of national security. So, they can require all online communication to be unencrypted or backdoored while all citizens must not wear masks in public to prevent terrorism.
3. A foreign purchase of critical industrial facilities and IP can be blocked despite economic and trade freedom/autonomy. During such trade wars, taxation and tariffs similarly turn into a question of national defense.
Between the three, it's not too hard for the PRC to limit HK's autonomy to traffic cops and paving roads. Throw in how their equivalent of a national guard is part of the military, and it's entirely possible for the PRC to send in troops to deal with rioters without breaking their laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Armed_Police [wikipedia.org]
Look, neither of us is Chinese nor do we have a say in the matter. What we can do is compare the situation to the US and its laws, and realize just what kind of slippery slope the US got on post 9/11.
compiling...
(Score: 3, Touché) by tangomargarine on Friday November 22 2019, @04:01PM
I believe that falls under the 1743 Convention of Shut Up Or We'll Invade You.
Autonomy is like an unlimited cell data plan...you're autonomous as long as you don't want to use your autonomy to do anything that really pisses off your feudal lord.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 21 2019, @10:31PM (1 child)
Beijing has a track record of crushing dissent, so things don't bode well for the HK protesters there. But if Beijing does get medieval on the city, they will be killing the goose that laid the golden egg. They would lose a crazy amount of face.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @09:54AM
This isn't really true anymore. Hong Kong is a worldwide economic center, but not especially relevant to China's economy.
- Hong Kong GDP = $0.373 trillion
- China GDP = $14.2 trillion.
This is no doubt part of what is causing some agitation. China's developing at a rate like no country ever before. Hong Kong has also been developing, and not even at an especially poor rate. Yet when you plot the GDP of Hong Kong vs China, the slope of progress is so stark that Hong Kong essentially looks like it's in stagnation.
I think this is why they've also been relatively content to let the protesters destroy the city and its economy just to turn opinion against them. China values assimilating Hong Kong (which the protesters paradoxically make easier) far more than the economic value of the city.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 22 2019, @03:54PM (1 child)
That analogy is specious, since Hong Kong is a part of China now, and Russia isn't a part of the U.S.
Although the situation is muddied by this Basic Law agreement that the Chinese higher-ups seem to think they can just start ignoring now.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 22 2019, @03:56PM
Also, calling it "a game of chicken" is another stupid analogy. The game assumes that if you hit each other, you both die: in this case, China and Hong Kong colliding would be more like a tank rolling over a bicycle...maybe the tank will be slightly damaged, but the bike is most assuredly fucked.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday November 21 2019, @09:54PM (1 child)
so ... China is supporting letting protesters wearing face masks? Or has a Chinese court already ruled on this? Or maybe they have gait analysis down? Or China wants protestors to destabilize the Hong Kong government so they can swoop in? Need a little help. Maybe I'll ask this guy [youtube.com] to comment on it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Friday November 22 2019, @03:51PM
Pairs of negatives cancel out, so China wants the ban to stay in place. They're condemning the overturning of the ban.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Hartree on Thursday November 21 2019, @09:55PM (1 child)
Is there anyone who was actually thinking when the deal with the British was struck that it would end any other way than complete domination by Beijing?
Tiananmen Square was already 8 years in the past at when sovereignty was transferred. The Basic Law was a fig leaf to be maintained only as long as Hong Kong provided revenue to mainland China and didn't become a problem.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mhajicek on Friday November 22 2019, @12:11AM
It was indeed supposed to end this way, in 2047. China is jumping the gun because they can.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 21 2019, @10:36PM
in 2047
But by doing this now, they are lowering the odds.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 21 2019, @10:36PM
...but the ants have nothing to say when the boy with the magnifying glass is bored.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 21 2019, @10:39PM (1 child)
All Chinamen look identical, so why bother wearing masks?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 21 2019, @11:14PM
All wypipo look the same, with dead inside school shooter eyes instead of slants.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Friday November 22 2019, @12:40AM (4 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @12:54PM (3 children)
Or much of France (not for some kind of independence, more general demands from yellow vest. Yes, they are still going on after 1 year, yes protesters are still losing eyes and have bad things happen to them.)
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday November 22 2019, @02:35PM (2 children)
Spain and France being NATO members?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 23 2019, @10:05PM (1 child)
Where do you think US dominance drives from? It's certainly not moral or any sort of historical relationship. IMO it's almost entirely from our economy, still riding off momentum since WW2 where we became firmly established as the dominant economy in the world. Our economic advantage even played a major role in the fall of the USSR. We got them into an arms race, which was a proxy for an economy race. Their economy was driven in large part by oil and funny money. When oil collapsed, all they had left was funny money, and their collapse became imminent.
American world dominance corresponds pretty much 1:1 with American economic dominance. The thing that's changed is nobody really expected China to keep progressing at the rate it has. And so our economic dominance is coming to an end. And not like a sort of gradual decline, but hard and fast. This [wikipedia.org] is a list of countries by their effective (purchasing power adjusted) GDP. China is already, by far, the world's biggest economy. But the unique thing about China is that they still have a ton of people living in rather extreme poverty. And so they not only continue to grow extremely rapidly but have an immense amount of room to continue growing into. Their "slowing" growth recently reported in the news is an economic expansion of 'only' 6% against the forecast 6.1%. Our rate was higher than expected - 2%.
And the nasty thing about a globalized world is that the rich get richer. What's going to happen as China begins to cement it's position as the leader of the world economy? Well what's already happening - countries and corporations alike will begin to "defect" to China. This, in turn, results in even faster growth in China that is also paralleled by slower growth outside of China. The exact same effect that we've been benefiting from for decades. Only catch is that as all other things start to equalize, a country of 330 million people cannot compete against a country of 1.4 billion people.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday November 23 2019, @11:48PM
I don't think that's true at all. At the end of WWII the US had a position of moral leadership; we used it to create the UN and the rest of the post WWII world order essentially to our taste. We have positive historical relationships with allies and potential allies around the world, many dating from that time. Unfortunately we've also consistently resisted taking note of changes since then, which is one of the reasons that we've increasingly eroded our own position with bad decisions.
The Russian Federation is not the USSR, but our foreign policy insists on conflating them and refuses to adjust. The PRC is now focused on soft power, but we're still trying to counter them by sailing warships up and down their coast. Despite decades of blowback we continue to prop up salafists in the ME, etc. etc.
"IMO it's almost entirely from our economy"
Well, economy is a lot of it, yes, but it's the economy of a century ago. At the end the great wars the only major industrial power not bombed was the US. After WWII our economic power was such as to essentially guarantee superpower status. Again, we've been eroding that lead, to the point it's arguably already gone, but that is still the root of the current international system with the US on top.
"The thing that's changed is nobody really expected China to keep progressing at the rate it has."
I disagree. What's been, not really surprising, but a bit disappointing, is how little the mainland has really liberalized after decades of very generous economic treatment which allowed this to happen.
You're right about the disaster looming ahead, and we're still wasting money hand over fist on solutions that might have worked a century ago.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @02:40AM (8 children)
If we're talking asylum, it seems that everyone in HK could get asylum in the USA by the simple virtue of being able to prove their residence in HK (they have IDs), and given that there is no other bordering nation to which they could turn, without trekking through hundreds of miles of hostile country, or over very treacherous seas, showing up at the US embassy should do fine.
If I were Trump, I'd simply declare that anyone in HK who'd like asylum in the US is welcome, and that they can bring their skills, their entrepreneurial spirit and their hatred for the commies along.
Beijing mightn't even care. Yes, please take these uncooperative assholes away without us having to massacre 'em...
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday November 22 2019, @03:30AM
A fair number of them are already Canadian.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @03:53AM (6 children)
Is that the right course of action though? I mean from the outside it seems like they poke the bear and started the fight. If that is indeed the correct path to political asylum, then I'd imagine we wouldn't have people smuggling.
To be clear HK is part of China, it was leased to the British and has since been returned, with some arrangement they'll give them their existing reality for 50 years. In most parts China have honored that but had recently started to transition by proposing a law change, which was effectively dropped after the initial protest. The protesters got a small win, now they want more. I just can't honestly say that those protesters are valid candidates for political asylum seekers.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 22 2019, @07:47AM
Indeed. But are we going to start offering sanctuary to Chinese leaders as a result?
"Effectively dropped" doesn't mean much since the proposed regulation can be reintroduced at any time.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @02:05PM (4 children)
Britain: So here are the terms, we keep Hong Kong, and we promise not to invade Nanking and over thrown the emperor.
China: Those lease terms seem fair.
Narrator: The Chinese did not feel this was fair.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 22 2019, @03:47PM (3 children)
What are you talking about? The lease expired, like both countries knew it would eventually. The original deal was made in 1898.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handover_of_Hong_Kong [wikipedia.org]
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @09:07PM (2 children)
He is saying that "leased" does not accurately reflect the connotation of their arrangement. The "lease" was a theft of territory that China was forced into due to military inferiority.
Now the positions of strength are reversed. It's not directly relevant but I do think it's a useful bit of historical context because it provides the setting for modern relations which, in many ways, continue to derive from this former power imbalance.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday November 25 2019, @03:45PM (1 child)
No, you're understandably conflating two separate things: Britain originally got the core of the Hong Kong territory [wikipedia.org] via treaty acquisition, then leased the New Territories later for 99 years. They could have kept the inner part, but since the infrastructure between the two bits was so interconnected they decided it wasn't worth the bother of separating them.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday November 25 2019, @03:48PM
Regardless of how fair they think the original treaty was (are the losers in a war usually enthusiastic about the terms of peace?), that doesn't mean they can legally just decide that they want everything back anyway, and throw the treaty out the window.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"