Vox has an excellent video called 'China is erasing its border with Hong Kong' which details how the Chinese government is tightening it's control of Hong Kong. It's well worth a watch. Here's the video description:
"When Britain handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997, Chinese leaders agreed that Hong Kong would be able to keep its economic and political systems, including some of the civil freedoms denied to China’s citizens on the mainland, for the next 50 years.
Although Hong Kong still has nearly 30 years of semi-autonomy left, China has started tightening its grip, and many believe it is chipping away at Hong Kong’s freedoms."
The only thing keeping Hong Kong's sovereignty (such as it is) is Taiwan. There is some understanding on the Chinese side that a full annexation of the territory would strengthen independence hardliners in Taiwan - which is the real prize because Taiwan is absolutely critical for Chinese national defense. If it wasn't for that, Hong Kong would have been wholly annexed by now.
> Who wants to pick a fight with a giant well funded army?
History is littered with modern examples.
The US Colonies (British Empire). Latin America (Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, British, French). The Viet Cong (US, France). Finland (Russia). Iraqi resistance groups (US). The Taliban, Mujahideen (US, Russia). North Korea (UN). Ukraine (Russia). Hezbollah (Israel). Yugoslavia (NATO). Emus (Australia).
Every giant well funded army has also lost at some point. For China, it's ideal to remove Taiwan as a staging ground that could be held by any opposition. Consider a scenario where it's NATO countries + Japan + South Korea + Taiwan, + Australia + New Zealand vs China in a massive conflict (or any similar variation). It would be far better to wholly control the island of Taiwan than not.
Just look at the map. If Taiwan were to become independent and an American ally, that would mean the entire Chinese pacific coast would be encircled by American allies - South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines.
The ROC and the PRC _are_ independent countries. They don't say they are, but clearly they are. The PRC already basically (that qualifier probably isn't necessary) is an ally of the United States.
I don't disagree with your point (Chinese fears of encirclement), but the way you present. It's already the case and China is trying to invade Taiwan to change it. It's all consistent with China's attempt to phrase Taiwan as being separatist as opposed to the truth which is that China is being militaristic and imperialistic. It's dangerous double-speak and needs to stop.
The PRC and the ROC have separate economies, militaries, governments, currencies. They engage in interational trade separately, organize telecommunications separately, they issue their own passports and they are recognized separately. The land controlled by the PRC and the land controlled by the ROC have been stable for 70 years. Those two landmasses have been united under one government for about 4 years in the last 125. To say that they are not two separate countries is totally delusional.
> And what is the United States' position on the independence of Taiwan?
What does that matter? The facts on the ground are that they are separate countries. The US position that the PRC wasn't a country in the 50s and 60s didn't magically make it the case.
> Sometimes language can reflect reality, and the reality is that Taiwan is quasi-independent.
This is getting silly. You're being disingenuous and I don't know why. Everything you said is true, and yet you know that isn't the entire story. You know that Taiwan is special. It isn't like other sovereign states as it has no UN representation and is not recognized by the vast majority of states and it is claimed by PRC as its dependent. The political status of Taiwan is complicated (to put it mildly). The status quo is somewhat tolerated by all parties, but I wouldn't bet that you'll have another 70 years of it. As China grows into a superpower, I doubt Taiwan will be able to maintain whatever independence it has now - but we'll see.
Your line of argument also doesn't actually address the original point, which is that China tolerates the independence of Hong Kong because it has its sights set on Taiwan - which is the real prize. From that perspective, it doesn't matter how Taiwan sees itself.
What you say is irrelevant. The PRC may annex the ROC someday (militarily or by other means), but that wouldn't change the fact that between 1949 and until that happens that there were two separate countries. The UN doesn't make countries it's just a forum that some governments are invited to be a part of. The political status of the ROC is just as simple as that as the PRC. To say otherwise is what actually is disingenuous.
> Your line of argument also doesn't actually address the original point, which is that China tolerates the independence of Hong Kong because it has its sights set on Taiwan - which is the real prize.
Yes taking over the ROC is the real prize because right now it is _independent_ and the PRC wants that to change. The mental somersaults you do to avoid saying this obvious truth is mind boggling.
> From that perspective, it doesn't matter how Taiwan sees itself.
This is true! The ROC claims the territories of the mainland as well as Mongolia in its constitution. This is delusional. Similarly the PRC claims the mainland and the ROC's territories as its own. This is also delusional. It matters how neither side officially sees themselves. They _are_ two separate countries.
Why can't you just admit that the PRC has imperialistic ambitions and tries to make up justifications to make the PRC look like it is in the right? Why are you so hellbent to ignore reality?
Taiwan is an unsinkable aircraft carrier. It provides a massive platform from which to attack the mainland. Maintaining control denies this advantage to any attackers.
There are so many unsinkable aircraft carriers around China. Taiwan is not the only one, and also Taiwan island is too far away from USA, the only possible opponent of China. So once the war is starting, China is very easy to occupy Taiwan before USA can provide the support.
Invading Taiwan would require huge amounts of troop and material. Those things have to been moved weeks if not months in advance and can be easily picked up by satellites. Add to that that you can't simply land your soldiers anywhere on the shore, there are only a few landing spots that can be used and which are of course heavily defended.
Also, the two lands are close to each other so Taiwan can send missiles to the mainland and cause heavy damage to the cities on China's east coast.
Finally the weather, which according to some people [0][1] offers only two short windows during which an invasion is likely to not fail.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Taiwan consists of about 70% of mountainous areas, i.e the perfect terrain for an organized resistance.
Invading Taiwan is but an easy task and it is believed to be an endeavor that would surpass the D-day.
Taiwan is actually very close to two very important US allies, the Philippines and Japan. It’s alot harder and more expensive to launch an attack from Luzon or Okinawa than it is to launch it from Taiwan.
It's a hell of a lot closer to China than to Philippines or Japan.
FWIIW it was historically used by forces which threatened Chinese sovereignty, including Japan. Since Chinese leadership actually reads history instead of making stuff up as they go along, as Westerners do, that's probably why it's such a sore spot for them.
Full control of the Taiwan strait.
Break the first island chain.
Direct access to the pacific ocean.
Immediate access to deep waters, which they lack, and which is an advantage for submarines.
All you have to do is look at the map. If Taiwan becomes an independent state and an American ally, the Chinese Pacific coast would be encircled by South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Philippines - all American allies.
We don't know how many were taken discreetly (perhaps lesser known people), but the case that caused much concern was the bookstore owners disappearances [1].
Owners of a bookstore that sold PRC-censored books were taken to China secretly, trialed and convicted. One of them was even a Swedish national, but the CCP insisted he was "Chinese". He released a video "admitting" to his crimes of drunk driving a few years prior but his name in the records didn't even match his actual name, i.e. he was obviously forced to admit to a crime he didn't commit. Another one reappeared in Hong Kong, said he would take his family to China, praised Chinese living quality, and went back to China.
When the law is passed, the CCP doesn't need to abduct people discreetly anymore. They would simply order Hong Kong's officials to transfer them. In short, once this law is passed, no one is safe. Not even foreigners.
China could also use mainland family members as leverage, which might explain its otherwise-surprising influence over HK citizens outside its official reach. (Could they really credibly threaten to abduct him a second time, with the whole world watching?)
Which is probably why alot of business is backing this protest in contrast to the Umbrella protest of 2014; their lawyers know that it would be harder to incentivize Western business to send people and capital when they can be arbitrarily seized.
You could wonder: why does the mighty bejing government care about these little provinces that dabble with democracy? Actually, Hong Kong and Taiwan are very dangerous to the mainland government. They harbour elites who keep values of democracy and freedom. Those elites potentially could be put into power in order to oversee democratization of China. Not saying that they ever will, but it's certainly a danger for them.
I didn't think Hong Kong was particularly democratic. Free market but doesn't it have system where the electorate votes for some seats and business interests vote for others?
Yes, basically (35 seats for "geographical constituencies", ie districts, and 35 seats for "functional constituencies", ie industries and the like).
The opposition used to get enough seats to hold the pro-Beijing camp in check somewhat (with veto power on constitutional reforms), but after the (entertaining, but ex post unfortunate) oath-taking controversy [1] in 2016, six members-elect were disqualified, after Beijing "interpreted" the Basic Law of Hong Kong to "clarify" it (as it is entitled to do under the Basic Law).
Now the one-thirds minority to block constitutional changes is gone.
EDIT to add: Still, it's much too democratic for China!
[1] Among the antics: legislators held a "Hong Kong is not China" banner, mispronounced "People's Republic of China" as "people's re-fucking of Chee-na" (the latter a derogatory term), and spent about ten minutes reading the 80-word oath in extreme slow motion.
Taiwan is not a province of China, but an independent country.
Other than that, I agree with your assessment: Taiwan's thriving democracy undermines and contradicts the Chinese Communist Party claim to power, in particular the CCP's narrative that democracy is neither needed nor wanted, nor desirable for the Chinese people.
Being passionate about that fickle national identity doesn't solidify the claim more.
It enjoys independence and autonomy, but the rest is so nuanced to instead be a complete mockery to the whole nation state concept.
I don't think its worth debating. You can negotiate directly with Taiwan, and accept their rule of law to navigate business. Isn't that all you need to know?
some people in Taiwan would be offended by saying "Taiwan, China" by assuming that you are saying it is a province of the PRC. other people in Taiwan would not care, while yet other people in Taiwan would appreciate that you recognized that Taiwan is the legitimate China and you just wrote the Taiwan part for descriptive purposes, ALL WHILE you are just trying to maintain consensus with the other people you work with which includes your own country and also the PRC, and then a random Taiwanese-American will call you "racist" for "mistakenly" thinking their heritage is from "China" instead of Taiwan, projecting their own exile as part of an amorphous underrepresented Asian-American diaspora amongst ignorant foreigners, and its like "no, buddy."
This comment breaks two of the site guidelines: the one against commenting about voting on comments, and the one against insinuations of astroturfing. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not taking threads in those directions in the future? They lead to uninteresting places.
Well I don’t think they should be down voted, but it is wrong.
Taiwan is de-jure a part of China. China just happens to be in the curious state of having two competing entities claiming to be the legitimate government.
Both ROC and Beijing agree Taiwan is China. The “C” in ROC is China!
Taiwanese people I know don’t believe this, and my impression is that the Taiwanese government’s continuing claim over China is mostly a matter of historical inertia and symbolism rather than a serious practical goal.
But many mainland Chinese do, and the government spends considerable effort cajoling/bullying the rest of the world to not recognize Taiwanese sovereignty. From what I can tell there is a real threat China might sometime attempt military conquest.
Anyway it’s complicated. Some in ROC want independence. Some don’t. Some would like to join Beijing (many investors from ROC). Most probably want the whole thing to be on the low and the ROC ignored lest the dragon is awakened.
But regardless what civilians want, being part of China affects the actions of Taipei more than any other issue.
I am not sure even de jure the situation is clear. I think the following is the case (but I'm not a legal scholar, so please correct me if I'm wrong!)
When Japan lost the war, Taiwan was governed by the Allied Powers, who appointed Chen Yi from the Kuomintang (KMT) as chief executive and garrison commander of what was called "Taiwan Province". The Peace Treaty with Japan (Treaty of San Francisco) and the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty (Treaty of Taipei) both did not specify that Taiwan was a part of mainland China. I think formally/legally Taiwan was Japanese until 1952 but Japan was under allied control at the time. The question of Taiwan's legal status was left open in the aforementioned peace treaties. This is the legal/technical root cause for the problems with Taiwan's legal status even today.
So, as far as I can see: de facto Taiwan is an independent nation. And de jure it's ... unclear.
Finally, let's bear in mind that in a very real sense there is no such thing as "international law", much of what is called international law is really just voluntary consent of states.
Taiwan only holds on to the historical claim to ruling China because a change in status is feared to trigger the China's anti-secession laws, which in turn would lead to an invasion on Taiwan by China. Better not to "rock the boat" at this point.
(Taiwan probably also sees this as a bargaining chip, to be given up at an opportune moment (like the Kinmen Islands), in exchange for something else, e.g. China accepting Taiwan's independence. I suspect this would have been possible at some point when China was weak but seems unlikely now.)
Well the Republic of China (a.k.a. Taiwan) and the People's Republic of China (the big communist one) would both disagree with this (in principle). Of course in reality Taiwan is at this point a separate nation that some people go to great lengths to conspicuously ignore, but this isn't the "party line" on either side. The revolution in China is still within living memory and there's more than just Xi Jin-pingbots who don't see the status quo as valid, de jure.
> Taiwan is not a province of China, but an independent country.
Depends on the view. The central Chinese government certainly considers Taiwan to be its province, and achieved that Taiwan has no seat in the UN, and sanctions Hotel chains that treat Taiwan as separate country. Taiwan themselves maintain a claim to the entire mainland as well, they just disagree on who should hold power. There are also countries that recognize Taiwanese independence, as there are countries that recognize Taiwan's claim over of all of China.
>Taiwan themselves maintain a claim to the entire mainland as well, they just disagree on who should hold power.
This isn't the whole truth I don't think. They do maintain officially maintain this line... under the implied threat of invasion/war from the mainland if they deviate. Similar to how he US officially doesn't recognize Taiwan as a country because it isn't in the US interests to invoke hell's fury from the PRC over Taiwan, but for all intents and purposes the US treats Taiwan as an independent state.
The DPP (plurality party in Taiwan) generally leans towards viewing Taiwan as an independent nation. The main opposing party's view is generally consistent with what you've stated in my understanding.
It's a complicated topic but you're mainly projecting the main land's view onto the people of Taiwan.
who else idiot think Tibet as an individual country? That place belongs to China hundreds of years, and at 1950s, it already been fully controlled by the central government till now. And you saying, it's an individual country?! Should Mexico declare California still belongs to it?
One reason is that such freedom is prone to foreign interference. It's obvious if you look at local medias in TW and HK.
Democracy is not a taboo in the mainland, at least in academia. The government has also done a few democratization experiments in small villages and cities, but results were unpromising. Democratization in China is inevitable since the economic miracle won't last forever, the hard part is to figure out how to make sure the process of democratization keeps the country unified and brings prosperity, I remember there are even a few foreign professors working on this issue in Peking or Tsinghua University.
It seems to me like power concentrating into the hands of a small minority is inevitable everywhere. I'd really like to believe otherwise, but I'm hard pressed to see long lasting examples where money and power do not act like gravity
I gave the article a read. I don't feel like the author made a case for "democratization in China is inevitable". It was indeed an example of the Tsinghua democracy discussions you mentioned.
Democracy isn't the only form of governance that can work, and it's _definitely_ not a silver bullet. I just don't see the majority of China's citizens clamoring for democracy so much that they'll revolt. My main point of contention with your original comment is that democracy is inevitable. I'd like for you to be right, but I'm just not seeing it. (I'd also like for the American system to be more effective for all than it is, but I won't betting on that...)
Yeah, I agree. Democracy in its common definition is unlikely, but democratization is a gradual process in my view. I believe that, once Chinese people stop getting richer and become less content, they would seek alternatives, more and more democratic elements would be added if CCP wants to avoid a violent overthrown.
I've heard from Chinese people about these experiments too and that they were not particularly democratic, for example people would sell their vote. Do you know much about it. You say China must become democratic. It gives a me a feeling of optimism and all but how can you predict such things.
> they were not particularly democratic, for example people would sell their vote.
Classic... this is why democracy is a lot less important than some less-obvious factors when it comes to quality of governance - especially things like upholding the rule of law. BTW, there's nothing particularly "westernizing" about that, either - in fact, it's something that Confucianism explicitly calls for (albeit historically with other labels, such as "Rectification of Names") and I believe it's even mentioned in the official PRC Constitution.
Hong kong was never "democratic". Britain ruled hong kong for about 150 years and never allowed democracy or elections until China forced them to return hong kong. Oddly enough, Hong Kong became a "democracy" under Chinese Communist rule.
Taiwan wasn't a democracy until fairly recently. Ironically enough, the first elections in taiwan was created by the japanese when they conquered taiwan. When the nationalist chinese took over taiwan, they banned elections. It was only within the past few decades that "democracy" flourished in taiwan.
I suspect the only problem China has with the elites in hong kong and particularly taiwan are the pro-western elites. After all, Taiwan is a "client state" of the US and many of the nationalists and their descendents who rule taiwan are backed by the US.
Look at how much hysteria and suspicion there is about Trump's unproven collusion with Russia. The nationalists and their descendents in taiwan actually colluded with the west.
If china was really worried about "democracy" in Hong Kong, they would have simply not allowed it in the first place. And the idea that the elites of hong kong or taiwan care about democracy is simply not true. They, like all elites around the world, care about wealth and power.
If you look at the history of China, many times entire governments have been overthrown by a peasant revolt. China is sort of unique in that, other than the French. So to the Chinese: Viva la revolution. Down with Communist Party!
So to answer your question, that's why they are scared and should be the Chinese people have the ability to get rid of the fascist totalitarians running their country -- they have done so multiple times in the past.
Please keep the historical information bits of your comments to HN and drop the political battle bits (e.g. "fascist totalitarians"). You don't have to change your politics to post here, but they should not be the high-order element—because when that happens, curiosity is vaporized, and this place exists for curiosity. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Also, definitional flamewars about the word "fascism", which we're getting below, are useless, boring, and always escalate to worse.
I hate being the devil's advocate, but you know the word "fascist" has an actual meaning, don't you? I'm not trying to defend the Chinese government, but calling them "fascist" is just wrong
Many places around the globe "democratization" carry a negative connotation because it usually arrives with aircraft carriers and involves several hundred thousand civilian deaths. Loathing few people in HK or Taiwan as a real danger to Beijing is like saying an ant can be real threat to an elephant. Not sure if you are just underestimating the Chinese leadership or overestimating some guys in HK.
Not yet [1], not technically. Hong Kong, through the UK, has legal redress in international law which would at least make overt subjugation politically costly for Beijing.
> Hong Kong, through the UK, has legal redress in international law
The UK has gradually lost interest in ensuring that Hong Kong’s Basic Law is respected. For the UK, fighting for Hong Kong would jeopardize its relationship with the mainland, which is much more important in terms of business and trade.
Plus, mainland China has become more assertive and its leadership claims that China is rising back up again after the colonial era kept it down – an era in which the UK played no small role, both in the Opium Wars and in holding Hong Kong as a colonial possession. That means that if the UK tries to really fight for Hong Kong, it will be attacked for acting like a meddling colonial power again. The UK is just too sensitive to the propaganda campaign that China could throw at it.
> the UK has lost interest in ensuring that Hong Kong’s Basic Law is respected
I agree. When I say through the UK, I mean through the UK’s standing in international law. That gives Hong Kong the ability to petition various bodies and sue in certain courts. It also gives legitimacy to e.g. the U.S. taking it on as a cause.
TL; DR There are ways for Hong Kong to make an overt treaty violation costly to Beijing. Unless Beijing is concerned about an imminent threat to its legitimacy and power, it’s unlikely to find those costs worth incurring.
> when you say 'Hong Kong' can sue, you mean its pro-Beijing government?
When I sign contracts with a company, I negotiate against the imaginary dick who replaces the gentleman I know. Agreements outlast their signers. Politics can change.
The head of Hong Kong's government is elected via a council mostly consisting of business interests with huge incentives to keep the territory's main trading partner (China) happy. Any change to this would require amending the Basic Law, which only China is allowed to do. Nothing short of a coup would change the current situation.
Nobody is going to start WW3 over China tightening its grip on Hong Kong at this point. Because the west and China's economies are so tightly intertwined a war would be disasturous economically and militarily and for what purpose to prevent the inevitable 30 years early? Heck sanctions are almost pointless too.
The closer the 2047 deadline gets the tighter the control will become.
HK is slowly-but-surely heading towards full Orwellian Chinese rule. The handover was the beginning of the end, and all promises would be unenforceable and breached. It doesn't matter about petitionings through some international bodies, China could care less.
It is hard to imagine what it must be like being a young person in HK.
Growing up with some semblance of individual liberty (small L liberalism) and then knowing it will be gone in your lifetime. It would have been better to always be under authoritarian rule... then you wouldn’t know what you were about to go without.
We've banned this account for nationalistic flamewar. It's off topic here to say the least, and we don't allow it, regardless of which nation is being liked or disliked.
"When Britain handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997, Chinese leaders agreed that Hong Kong would be able to keep its economic and political systems, including some of the civil freedoms denied to China’s citizens on the mainland, for the next 50 years.
Although Hong Kong still has nearly 30 years of semi-autonomy left, China has started tightening its grip, and many believe it is chipping away at Hong Kong’s freedoms."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyxG4vTyZ8