Not that it helps but its the truth, but if China does anything no one would do anything about it. You can do sanctions against china, but then self destruct your own economy and further ruin the economy of the western world, like trump is doing. And then it really would end up being a world wide depression/recession with many smaller nations probably just collapsing. The only ones who'd likely come out on top is US (but with big problems on way there), China and Russia (russia only cause china probably help them out since they are pretty much allies). And no one wants a war with china.
Feel bad for you guys though, cause china can literally do anything they want with little repercussions (as seen by their expansion of their ocean territory). But if anyone does anything to them like trump with his sanctions, then it destroys the economy. So literally nothing can be done in a way that only effects china. I wouldn't be surprised if they do just move in if the protests go on too long, its just sad no one is likely (or really able) to do anything about it. I sometimes talked about china, to my hong kong friends who felt same way. They came to california, but they always thought it felt like china wanted full control of hong kong and didn't like they had a democracy right inside "their" territory or a black sore of their regime.
But that was just their thoughts of course, but I did think the same. But that is coming from someone who just sometimes reads stuff from there and what china has been doing over there in that region in general, so I dunno all the internal stuff
I think pretty much everyone here knows we are meat on the chopboard, it's just that people react differently to this fact. Some pro-democracy people wish for foreign intervention, but outside of economic sanctions (which are already there as a result of the trade war) there is precisely nothing anyone can do if China decides to send in the tanks now. However, I do think China won't do that as it does care about international opinion, if only just a bit. It is known that the period after 1989 was amongst the most difficult time for China to operate internationally. Of course, it has now become a heck of a lot wealthier, but China has a massive productivity surplus and it needs its markets. Also, unlike at Tibet or in Xinjiang, Hong Kong has a much stronger international media presence. Anything that happens here will be made known (if serious/sensational enough) across the world. Also, compared to some of the semi-hidden unrest that has had happened inside China, the situation at Hong Kong is really not a big deal.
If you would like, I can try to satisfy your curiosity on the situation here as much as I can, just ask away.
It might seem like an odd question, but I was wondering if any interesting (particularly humourous or politically incisive) graffitti has been appearing in the streets recently. Would be most interesed in hearing about it if you see any, or is that something that would not happen in Hong Kong?
Keep safe, I do hope any violence passes you by.
Most actual graffiti are pretty normal, saying things like "the police are dogs," "revolution of our time" or other words meant to cheer protesters on. However, some people online came up with this:
Explaining the joke, this is based on the warning signs the police use to warn protesters to back off before using weapons and force. Black ones say "Warning tear smoke," red ones say "Stop charging or we use force," orange ones say "disperse or we fire (less-lethal munitions, for now.)" Obviously there isn't a pink sign, but it was a parody based on the red one used by the police. "Spring pocket" is colloquial term for someone's testicles. Now, why is there ball-kissing? It is because someone mistyped a single word. The Chinese character for kick "踢" is very similar to the word for kiss "錫" and someone who meant to say "Stop charging or we kick your balls" ended up saying "Stop charging or we kiss your balls." The rest, as they say, is history.
I'm wondering whether there's any overt signs that some of the protests have foreign political backing. I'd imagine many western political entities would relish the opportunity to stir up trouble in China's backyard, and my cynical side says that perhaps some of the protests aren't as spontaneous as they might seem.
That is a common rhetoric used by the pro-Beijing camp and the government itself. However, from where I am seeing, the protests are typically ad-hoc affairs, organised through Telegram or on lihkg, which is kind of Hong Kong's 4chan. Several political parties and groups also organise their own protests, typically these are more peaceful. Of course it is perfectly possible that some foreign agency have pushed things along, but I think mostly it is the locals. On the other hand, the police has outright admitted having officers dressing up as protesters, allegedly to arrest people easier, but they may as well as agents provocateur for all we know. Also, people are pretty certain the pro-Beijing people hired the white-shirted attackers to hit people on 21/7, but nobody knows if this was organised by the government or just spontaneous action by pro-Beijing locals.
That's kind of interesting, Autohummer. The media over here tends to frame it as Beijing vs. Protesters. While the Hong Kong government kinda gets ignored. (Other than Carrie Lam.) Most of the attention gets put on the extradition law rather than a gradual buildup of resentment that led to this.
The HKSAR government got sidelined because all it has been doing is fanning the fire. At the very beginning, Carrie Lam could have elegantly and quietly withdrawn the amendment. End of story. However, she is, in my opinion, very uncompromising and very unapologetic, almost to a pathological degree. It Carrie Lam wanted something done, she'd staunchly get it done, popular opinion or political reality be damned. Before she became the Chief Executive (CE, HK's big cheese) this was a boon to her as she made an impression of someone who could get things done, and after the previous CE got laid off the central government picked her for the job (that was another story and another can of worms.) But her stubbornness meant that while she did say that the amendment was "dead," she staunchly avoided using the exact wording as demanded by the protesters, "withdraw," for some unfathomable reason. That, and the police defining one of the initial protests, where some protesters breached the Legislative Council Building, as a "riot" (which brings much heavier charges,) eventually got 2 million people on the streets. (I was one of them.) After that, the government more or less responded by being aloof, and made press conferences where officials say (rather stupid) things on air. Eventually, nobody listens to the HKSAR government anymore, as you can almost guess what they would say. Thus, the "main opponent," if you may, is the central Beijing government, which can control the HKSAR government much like how the Crown could the Colonial government, or the Japanese Empire the Occupation government.
The media here focuses more on police/protester violence and the protest situation more than anything else, since it does impact our daily lives, but the law? That is not really much mentioned, like Archduke Ferdinand after the first week of the Great War.
Author
Topic: RedKing's East Asian Politics Megathread (Read 84643 times)