Just because Hong Kong “belongs” to China doesn’t mean the west should ignore the wishes of what seems like the majority of the population that lives there. Especially when they’re protesting against an anti-democratic authoritarian government, and all they’re asking for is a reduction of police brutality and the right to a democratically elected government.

Though what could we do about it?

Shine light on the brutality and inhumanity of the Communist Party of China to the rest of the world. The CPC tries to keep secret its cruelty, tries to keep secret its concentration camps, tries to silents their people's discussion about the true nature of the CPC, and tries to keep secret its leader's lust to be a new Mao.

Sunshine on the CPC's true nature is the best disinfectant.

Not sure what all that sunshine has done so far about those concentration camps in Xinjiang and possibly elsewhere too. I'd say just about nothing. The communist party seems rather immune to criticism.

Franky, HK's struggle looks hopeless to me.

It is an unpopular opinion, but actually this is right answer. Look at Syria and other examples. We should stop pretending, we are supporting people by posting,liking stuff online. They will be all alone when things gets serious. So, let's stop giving these people false sense of hope for help from anywhere else.

I'm probably a bigger fan of self-determination than you: if the people of HK, Catalonia or California wish to follow their own road, I support them, but they need to work that out on their own. When those movements are even partly the product of foreign intervention and are given uncritical coverage in the western press, that is a giant warning sign. We've been there before many times yet we never learn.

>When those movements are even partly the product of foreign intervention

Do you think that is the case in HK?

Yes, I think that that is the case, based on the following elements.

1. Contacts between US consular staff and HK opposition leaders.

2. Funding by the US 'National Endowment for Democracy' of several Hong Kong groups.

3. My observations of the western media coverage of the events in the province of Xianjiang.

4. My observations of the similarities between the events in Hong Kong and other 'colour revolutions' that have the fingerprints of Washington all over them.

Would any contact with locals or funding of any organization of any kind that might be sympathetic to the protesters cause be "foreign intervention"?

It seems like this is such a low bar that it would mean that nobody else could associate with people in HK without it declared "foreign intervention".

Let alone that you could declare just about anything "foreign intervention".

I agree partially. The limits of 'acceptable' foreign intervention are not black and white. My feeling, based on what I observe, is that western intelligence services are all over this. Foreign intervention in Syria and Lybia started quietly enough alright through unofficial meetings with opposition groups. It's obvious that many Hongkongese are legitimately concerned about their political and economic future. Foreign money and promises at just the right moment can be wielded to manipulate people that are more or less well intentioned initially.

It's strange the differences in perspective here as with Syria and Libya ... IIRC there was little in the way of any mystery as far as who sided with who and their involvement, yet some folks portray those events as some sort of semi secret war.

Those events have also become the poster child for some regimes to use to warn people about opposing them.

A semi-secret war? Surely a very mysterious war, at least to me because conventional reasoning does not allow me to understand why western governments encouraged putches that destroyed stable governments (imperfect but far, far superior to the alternative) and subsequently armed 'moderate' groups whose morbid ideology differed little from the ideology that we're all supposed to combat ('...right?').

Unfortunately, our press doesn't ask the hard questions. No one is held accountable for the death and destruction that these policies have created. So western governments go on and try to apply the magic formula again. I believe that they are doing the same in HK.

> When those movements are even partly the product of foreign intervention

I feel this is a cop out. We live in a global economy and so all these things are highly connected. Your statement implies that our reporting of these events is intervention. May be influence, but I'm not sure that would be intervention.

To clarify.

A free press writes what it likes and the act of writing a newspaper article of any sort is not an act of 'foreign intervention'. We probably agree on that.

I have a problem with the fairly homogeneous discourse that I observe in the western press about certain subjects that prepare the domestic public opinion for political and armed intervention in other countries. I know that it's happening because I remember the day when I could read a lot more opposing opions in the newspapers of my language.

But preparing the domestic public opinion for intervention is not intervention itself. I am resolutely opposed to the intervention that is desired by the powers that be.

The difference is, of course, that the people of Catalonia and California get to vote on who represents them.

The people of Catalonia and California have the rule of law and actual representation. China, as a whole, does not due to the CPC. As the CPC does not have the rule of law in China, they stand against Basic Law. CPC deliberately stands against law and human rights.

Spain and California have human rights and the rule of law, but CPC ruled China does not. The CPC is the difference and forms a fundamental difference in the examples you list.

Just like Kosovo belongs to Serbia?

Is easy to imagine. People go all over the place and people love interfering. History would be dramatically different otherwise. And probably a lot shorter.