There have been plenty of successful, peaceful-ish secessions in history. Off the top of my head, the British Empire mostly dissolved semi-peacefully, which was basically a tonne of secessions. Norway essentially seceded from Sweden. Russia didn’t fight TOO hard against the fall of the USSR. You could argue Brexit is a secession of sorts. I’m sure there are more.

Not that there wasn’t plenty of protest, struggle and loss of life in things like the dissolving of the British Empire and USSR, but the more powerful actor did eventually give up, vs. simply saying “we have the bigger army, we’re gonna crush you.”

In most cases, there was extended protest, to the point where popular opinion shifted over time to heavily support secessionists, and the colony/whatever became an expensive inconvenience, that wasn’t worth the tax revenue. Hong Kong are probably hoping that eventually the same thing will happen with them.

I think the point of the OP is that HK is in a fairly bad situation to survive as an independent state with one potentially hostile neighbour. Nearly 80% of HK's water supply is imported from China [1]. Only about a quarter of food imports are from China [2], so the situation there is better. But what if China were to close the land borders and impose a maritime blockade? It wouldn't be pretty.

When Japan invaded Hong Kong [3] in 1941 during WW II, the city fell after a bit more than two weeks.

Lastly, China is for historical reasons extremely protective of its territorial integrity (because loss of land often presaged the demise of a dynasty and subsequent disarray, and the touchy "century of humiliation" during which many territories were conceded to foreign powers [3b]), as you can see in its attitude towards Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan (China promulgated a specific law in 2005 authorising "non-peaceful means" if Taiwan seceded [4]), and HK and Macao. (See [5] on the contrast of the CCP vs western attitudes - not only can Californians discuss secession if they so wish, but Scotland, Quebec, etc. could vote on secession. Unthinkable in China.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in...

[2] https://hkfoodworks.com/research/food-supply/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hong_Kong

[3b] https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/29/asia/china-separatism-ind...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Secession_Law

[5] https://www.chinalawblog.com/2020/06/on-secession.html

> Lastly, China is for historical reasons extremely protective of its territorial integrity (because loss of land often presaged the demise of a dynasty and subsequent disarray, and the touchy "century of humiliation" during which many territories were conceded to foreign powers [3b])

Worth noting that China quietly accepted losing territories, such as pulling back with India [1], and more importantly to Russia’s Vladivostok (Chinese [2] Google translate [3])--Russia is one of the foreign powers listed in the “Century of humiliation” propaganda, which China quietly accepts losing territorial integrity to.

China appears to be protective loudly, so that she could give up quietly. She cites “historical reasons” only when convenient. See what she does, not what she says.

[1]: https://thewire.in/security/chinese-pullback-at-galwan-comes...

[2]: https://www.rfi.fr/tw/中國/20200703-俄羅斯微博高調慶祝海參崴建城160周年-網民怒批-官...

[3]: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...

Yeah, HK independence is certainly not something that would happen SOON. But for decades, nobody thought the British Empire would give up India. After decades of protest and resistance, and shifting political landscapes, they finally did. HK protesters are likely hoping for something similar. It's a long shot, but if they stick with the resistance for long enough (like, literally decades most likely), there may finally come a point when China decides they're just not worth holding onto anymore.

except the British had no other option because their homeland was ravaged due to war and the INA was planning to use the Indian soldiers returning from war. and they extracted everything they could from India and the future was only trouble. It took a bloody global scale war for the colonies to get freedom as a side effect.

"Likely hoping for something similar"? Is this just naivete? As many other comments here point out, there are zero sources that suggest anything close to a majority of HK protesters want independence, let alone HKers overall.

There are plenty of HKers who want independence, though from polls I’ve seen it does seem to be a minority, more like 20% of HKers than 50%. Higher among protestors I’m sure.

One of the core demands of the protestors is sort-of “independence light”, though. They’re asking for their leaders, including the Chief Executive, to be democratically elected by HKers, without interference from China.

Regardless, the question I was responding to said nothing about a majority of HKers. It was just saying, for those who do want independence, how do they see it happening? And I was speculating that they could be looking to wage a long term battle of public opinion/annoyance, where China might eventually give up, vs. any sort of military conflict.

> Nearly 80% of HK's water supply is imported from China ... what if China were to close the land borders and impose a maritime blockade

This entirely misses the point that China is openly willing to invade militarily.

There is absolutely no way to achieve HK independence without central Chinese government consent. ...which is about as likely as finding an ice cube on the surface of the sun.

You're absolutely right. The hopeful "secession has often worked" idea founders on many many cliffs here.

Locally, Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia, being the only country in the history of the world to gain independence against its own will -- certainly the only one I know of. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_in_Malaysia

> Not that there wasn’t plenty of protest, struggle and loss of life in things like the dissolving of the British Empire and USSR, but the more powerful actor did eventually give up, vs. simply saying “we have the bigger army, we’re gonna crush you.”

It's quite possible for the larger power to be defeated by having to fight multiple smaller powers. Bigger army doesn't mean it's a fight you can win.

On a somewhat-related note, I read of an interesting case in Indian history involving a minor state that existed between two major powers. The situation was stable.

One of those major powers, feeling especially strong, conquered that minor state. It could do that -- it was much bigger! But this ended up directly exposing its (new) border to the other major power, which invaded. The first power fell apart.

British empire was over-extended over the whole of the world.

This is a small area bordering close a billion people area.

HK doesn't pay tax to central government, and is too close and too small to secede as long as mainland has some semblance of cohesive power, UK admitted China could roll over HK in the mid 80s if they wanted to + the lesson politburo learned from USSR's collapse is to not fragment at any cost. To the mainland, HK is not a unwieldy, far flung holding that takes commiserate projection to tame. It's a small city of 7million located less than 100km of Southern Theater Command.

Hong Kong will be paying an unrestricted amount as national security fee to central government (Chinese [1] Google translate [2]), and as an estimate, China is spending more on domestic security than military [3]--they perceive a greater threat from inside than from outside.

[1]: https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/ch/component/k2/1535055-20200701.h...

[2]: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...

[3]: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/China-People-s-Congress-20...

That's not a tax to the mainland, but new operation cost per national security commitments. Though technicalities aside, it could totally be exploited as a new tax that could be as onerous as politburo decides. HK autonomy is definitely over, though I surmise it's future is still indeterminate. There's good case to cultivate the city for another 1C2S model closer to Singapore, but it will take time, and indoctrination via patriotic education of new youth cohorts to produce a society that's more compatible with CCP 20 years from now. It's the last peaceful 1C2S gambit within reunification time frame.

I don't know how the article about PAP relates, though I was going to mention in the original comment that HK wouldn't take more few PAP detachments to tame even without "military" intervention. The key point, being that it's not a "frontier" territory and surrounded by so much CCP para/military/security that secession is not possible.

I'm not sure if you've seen a map of the region? I don't understand how you can have an understanding of the geography and claim HK independence is feasible. Even in this impossible scenario, economically it would be ruined beyond repair.

I’m not saying it’s LIKELY, or at all feasible in the short term. Just that, for those HKers who do want independence, they’re probably not envisioning gaining independence through military conflict, but more by shifting public opinion and causing annoyance/costs over a very long term, to the point where China eventually gives up.

It’s a long shot, but I imagine this is a more common dream among HKers who want independence than winning it in a war. Obviously they’ll never match China’s might.

Honestly- best case scenerio as measured by reduction of humor life loss, a great urban flight similar to what happened to Detroit is the best option.

Exhile

By doing so, the value of hk is lost (economic powerhouse loss and brain drain)

And the hk people can retain their freedom.

Along that train of thought, the UK offer for naturalization makes sense, and the US would greatly benefit from such a process.

Well, the US isn't interested in taking anyone from anywhere, so that's kinda definitely not going to happen.

It's much more likely they'll end up in the other four of the Five Eyes (The UK, CA, AU and NZ in rough order of how many people will land in each).

British parliament was recently discussing a plan to allow HKers to come to UK and transition into citizens. It had something like 70% agreement in the house, so I would say it has a high chance to become reality.

From what I heard, they intend to win the way France (de Gaulle really) won the World War II – by losing on the ground but siding with the victorious.

Many of the secessionists hope for or expect an immediate collapse of the Chinese central government, either due to internal economic, political, or ethnic problems, or to external pressures applied especially by US, at which point, with support from the Anglosphere, they could obtain and sustain sovereignty.

The Northern Ireland approach would work if China had any sense of shame. The UK rules of engagement were tied to the idea that some atrocities would be embarrassing if they were in the morning paper the next day.

It helps if the area to be governed is full of sympathetic, English-speaking westerners with a lot of family ties back to the oppressing nation. That’s why this would never work in Xinjiang. It’s slightly less unlikely in HK.

I don't think they plan to win militarily. I think either they don't have a plan, but their desperate. Or they hope to stir up enough diplomatic pressure/embarrassment to make China back down (they did before I think).

"I feel like their only hope would be if America deployed troops to HK and kept the city fed via air supply like with Berlin."

I think positioning 100,000 American troops would deter the CCP. Given the New Territories is connected to the mainland, I would position them all on Hong Kong Island to defend against any potential naval invasion.

When the invasion occurs, America would then mobilize its naval assets closer to Hong Kong and bombard any amphibious landings.

Given America's naval superiority, China would not want to engage in a decisive naval battle.

> I think positioning 100,000 American troops would deter the CCP. Given the New Territories is connected to the mainland, I would position them all on Hong Kong Island to defend against any potential naval invasion.

That's not positioning, that's an outright invasion and occupation of China. Now that they've become such a global power they'd never back down from that fight.