The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
Pray tell me, how exactly do you see international law intervening in Chinese crimes, so that it won't look like ops in Venezuela (at minimum)? Issuing a strongly worded letter and Xi would comply?
That's just what they told you to justify taking their oil
That's what Trump told you to sound badass and edgy. His advisors might have a more complicated rationale that's harder to explain to the public than a single 3-letter word.
"There was a lot of death on the other side, unfortunately. But a lot of Cubans were killed yesterday trying to protect him," Trump said.[0]
[0]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-officials-reveal-new-detail...
My original point is very much meant to counter absurd hypotheticals like these. No other sovereign nation on Earth at the current point in time would ever dare to "liberate" China, because this is no longer the 19th century, and so China is no longer weak.
Soft power may buy you hearts and minds; Japan and South Korea are good examples of that in Asia. But hard power is what truly matters at the end of the day when it comes to asserting your geopolitical interests, and that's clearly the philosophy China has decided to operate under.
The U.S. is clearly not oblivious to this reality either. Even if we grant your moral arguments that Maduro was a horrible dictator deserving his fate, the fact that Trump and his administration chose to act when it was geopolitically and domestically convenient strongly suggests that "taking out the big bad Latino dictator for the sake of humanity" was not the primary motivation.
Even if it hadn't violated a ratified treaty (it did violate several, starting with the UN Charter and OAS Charter), it would still violate international law; the US has recognized (among other places, in the London Charter of 1945 establishing the International Military Tribunal) that the crime of aggressive war exists independently of the crime of waging war in violation of international treaties.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/v...
E.g. at least 2 children were executed by Maduro for protesting against him, along with at least hundreds of adults. Mass political arrests by masked men have been common since Chavez came to power, there have been executions of entire families. Torture of prisoners. It goes on and on and on and on, and all of it violates the core of international law: the Geneva convention.
Maduro's violations of international treaties include attacks on neighboring states (Maduro's "war on terror" (yes, really) included raids on Columbian territory, plus his promise to attack Guyana). Maduro's violations of international treaties includes, ironically, abducting foreign nationals.
And before you say "but ICE". First, this started more than a decade before ICE, it is actually about far more people than ICE, and with ICE there is at least the allegation that those people violated US law (immigration law). So no, it is not the same. ICE comes disturbingly close, true, but this is still a LOT worse.
So what is your point? Obviously Venezuela since more than a decade did not respect international law. Is your point that since international law exists, Venezuela should have been attacked way sooner, in fact as soon as it became clear what Chavez was doing? Or do you argue that US/Trump's attack is fine since international law can be ignored anyway?
Including Maduro's abduction I think it's very easy to argue that the US behavior is much more in line with international law than Venezuela's. So what is your point?
I mean, what reasoning, exactly, leads to your conclusion that Venezuela/Maduro is the victim here? Or should I put it differently and state the obvious: that your reasoning only makes sense if it defends the idea that Maduro's regime is allowed to kill and attack, and the US is not.
It's all horrible and shocking to say the least. And it makes people question whether our actions are justified or the outright thuggery of a wanna-be dictator.
Next time Putin will kidnap Zelenskyy with the exact same reasoning.
Don’t forget that the US don’t put him on trial for what he did to the people of Venezuela but some bogus crimes.
Putin DID do that. He ordered him kidnapped. And it wasn't international law stopping him, it was the Ukrainian army and apparently some regular Ukrainians.
Putin has tried to kidnap him at least twice, and sent out murder squads for him probably several dozen times now.
Putin did not face consequences for this, in fact a number of countries that profess to respect international law protected him against International law: South Africa, China, Mongolia, Belarus, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Azerbeidjan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and India.
Also, as I pointed out, "international law" didn't stop Maduro from committing warcrimes, he also sent out murder squads that even killed children, it didn't stop Putin from doing the same. Nothing at all changed for international law at all.
The only thing victimized is people's illusions about international law. Maduro is himself a war criminal! So using international law grounded arguments to protect him ... fuck that, even if you're technically right.
The point of international law isn’t protection but to distinguish wrong from right.
What do you think why even Putin made some bogus claims why his actions are justified?
In which war did Maduro commit war crimes?
> So using international law grounded arguments to protect him ... fuck that, even if you're technically right.
Law protects also criminals to a certain degree because the alternative is anarchy, chaos and global wars.
International war was a lesson learned from the world wars.
Seems like we need to learn again the hard way.
Tue right way of doing those things is rarely the glorious, it’s bureaucratic
> The point of international law isn’t protection but to distinguish wrong from right.
It is actually explicitly stated in almost all international law (mostly except human rights/Geneva convention, which would be the one Maduro violated and Trump didn't) that the ONLY point of international law is international cooperation. International law is completely voluntary for states and consists of individual treaties you can join ... or not join. Don't join or decide to leave? That bit of international law doesn't apply to you anymore.
> What do you think why even Putin made some bogus claims why his actions are justified?
Because Putin always does that. Even decades back, when he was backing gangsters, he did that. I'm sure at one point it was necessary, and now the guy is 73. His habits won't change anymore. Besides, his idol, the Soviet Union, also did that.
> In which war did Maduro commit war crimes?
No war required for that. Besides what even is a war? One of the older "international law" treaties which nobody remembers that a war is only a war when declared by at least one state. Very few declared wars in the last decades. Israel-Palestine? Not declared (according to hamas that's just how things are forever and Israel just defended I guess). Sudan? Not declared. The 123818th conflict between India and Pakistan? Not declared. Iran-Israel? Iran-Syria? Iran-Lebanon? (more like Iran-everyone) Turkey-Kurdistan? You get the picture. The only war that was declared was Russia attacking Ukraine.
> Law protects also criminals to a certain degree because the alternative is anarchy, chaos and global wars.
Unless you mean an extremely minimal degree law does not protect criminals against the state. And any amount of force that is required to get a criminal to stop is legally justified essentially everywhere. In fact, in the countries most humans alive live in, no law protects you against the state, criminal or innocent.
> International war was a lesson learned from the world wars.
Actually the history goes back quite a bit further than that. And if you consider international law is just treaties between countries/factions then ... The most famous bit of international law, the convention of Geneva, was a lesson learned in the holocaust.
> Seems like we need to learn again the hard way.
Why? "We"? Venezuela was not respecting international law before this happened. Neither was Russia. Neither was ...
> Tue right way of doing those things is rarely the glorious, it’s bureaucratic
I doubt Ukraine, or any other actual victims of war crimes will agree on that one. For instance, international law is clear that hamas must surrender to Israel. Could you explain how this can be achieved in a bureaucratic way?
The reason you've never seen anyone cite this is that it's pointless to cite, because the US foreign policy establishment does not care and will not be swayed by persuasive arguments about their treaty obligations.
Putin has one too.
Actually they killed whole bunch of people. And according to POTUS they're currently running the country so cut the bullshit please.
Clearly, a weasel take on the "two wrongs make a right" doctrine. According to that new take two wrongs can be good and bad simultaneously, there is no easy clear answer, so any additional wrongs mustn't be called "wrongs", they must be called "maybe-rights".
Very clever.../s
Homework assignment:
What is going to happen if Nazi-like propaganda (for example) can use colorful language but its detractors are only allowed to voice polite disagreement? What would the result of that be?
My comment on U.S. actions against Venezuela was not a condemnation, but rather just a factual example. Russia's military actions against Ukraine is no different. Nor China's actions towards Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet.
I'm all for an alien invasion uniting us but not sure when that will happen.
The US shifted from "China is an economic power we should worry about" to "China is a military power we should worry about", but to me it seems to be a recent mind shift serving the current administration narrative.
As a European, I don't think there is much hostility against China here. Sure, people don't like the overall humanitarian situation with Uyghurs; and there are the usual issues with lobbying, intelligence, and currency manipulation, but overall the general public sentiment is rather neutral I would say.
Nut sure about adversary. As for strategic competitor - this is normal state of affairs. Countries do compete and it is healthy
This is an existential issue. Health has nothing to do with it.
I think any country that does not agree that the US should rule the world and is able to challenge it is considered an adversary.
youll get cheaper EVs though I guess
You’ll get cheaper oil though I guess?
It's just the US that's publicly wary of china, heck, it's just Trump
That depends on how cowardly the rest of the world acts if/when the time comes.
- War is logistics and you're talking about trying to get involved in a war, that would necessitate supply lines thousands of miles long, between two countries that are separated by 80 miles.
- China is extremely technologically advanced with the largest military in the world, by a wide margin.
- China is the at-scale manufacturing king of the world. In a shift to a war economy, nobody would be able to come even remotely close to competing. They parallel the US in WW2 in a number of ways.
- China is a nuclear power, meaning getting involved is going to be Ukraine style indirect aid to try to avoid direct conflict and nuclear escalation.
- Any attempt to engage in things like sanctions would likely hurt the sanctioners significantly more than China.
- The "rest of the world" you're referring to is the anglosphere, EU, and a few oddballs like Japan or South Korea. This makes up less than 15% of the world, and declining.
- War fatigue is real. The US really wanted to invade Syria, but no matter how hard we beat the war drums, people just weren't down with it. I think this is because people saw major echoes of Iraq at the time, and Taiwan will have a far louder echo of Ukraine. This isn't a show many people will be enthusiastic about rerunning.
I think this one is particularly important. IIRC, it's usually phrased something like "if the USA sends aircraft carriers across the pacific, then China has an unsinkable aircraft carrier 80 miles away: the mainland". It's a huge home turf advantage.
The USA seems to have a very low appetite for helping allies against bullies at present too. And no appetite for taking US soldier casualties.
* Being close to the front lines is as much of a liability as an asset. China's ports and shipbuilding facilities will be bombed out, the US' will not.
* This will be a naval and air war. You can't march troops across the strait, and as we've seen in Ukraine, flying them is a no-go either.
* China hasn't fought a war within the living memory of anyone of fighting age.
* You have a weird way of trying to diminish what represents most of the economic power of the world. Let's also add the Philippines and Vietnam to those "oddballs". China will be alone. And don't forget that China's population is shrinking.
* War fatigue is not an issue here when it comes to Taiwan. Adventurism in Venezuela was emboldening. We'll see what happens with Iran. I live in the generally pacifist part of the US, and I think most folks would demand that we intervene.
The most likely start to hostilities will be if China declares a blockade. Someone in the US will call their bluff - with warships. If China starts shooting, we're in a war. Moral outrage is an (often unfortunate) American trait.
CONUS targets are on the menu, there's a reason China Military Report from last month included US west coast under PRC conventional fire, which TBH was years out of date, i.e. most of CONUS will be vulnerable, and PRC has more harden targets to attrite and more ability to deny US fires in the first place, i.e. PRC taking out exquisitely vulnerable CSG/unrep/tankers logistics tail drops US ability to deliver fires to PRC to zero, vs PRC global strikes complex chilling in hardened tunnels is extremely survivable.
You can aggregate everyone in 1IC and PRC still out manpower and out produce by magnitude. Hence most will stay neutral for the simple reason they're within PRC logistics backyard which US don't have remote capability to defend against. PRC simply that big in scale, i.e. their acquisition of 1m loitering munitions on top of 1m drones and cruise missile Gigafactory that can churn 1000 components (likely floor) per day makes any US posture in 1/2IC not survivable outside of cope war games. PRC has the fire power to literally fight everyone simultaneously, with domestic resources (no imports) to maintain war economy basically indefinitely.
Ultimately, if PRC starts TW blockading, US will likely look at ledger/force balance and bail because PRC sees through US bluff. Doesn't matter if pacifist muricans demand intervention if PRC throws every TWnese in torment nexus, ultimately US unlikely to out attrite PRC in backyard, and more fundamentally, cannot out reconstitute faster than PRC after the fact. US isn't gambling shipyards, energy infra, semi fabs, hyperscalers, payment processors, boeing/lockheed plants over TW. Now 10 years ago, when US could theoretically asymmetrically hit PRC without CONUS vulnerability, US intervention strategically likely, but this 2026, we see the new national security strategy. Much more sensible for US planners to retreat to hemisphere and accept spheres of influence arrangement. Americans being powerless to US foreign policy is an (often unfortunate) American trait.
That 15% no longer has the majority of the economic power in the world, or anywhere near it. There's a great visualization of the G7 vs BRICS here. [1] That's obviously not all countries, but those omitted aren't going to change the result nor trend. Just as important is what "economy" means. When we speak of war we're referring to the ability to go from ploughshares to swords, but most of the 15% have neglected their core manufacturing competencies and transitioned to service economies where these large numbers don't really translate into economic might of the sort we might imagine. Again, yet another lesson from Ukraine.
[1] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1412425/gdp-ppp-share-wo...
You think a hot war won't happen over Taiwan? I mean, I hope you are right. But if China wants to invade, it's going to turn into a hot war including the US and probably a number of other regional neighbors.
My guess is that MAD will keep the war conventional even though people have nukes. After all, Russia has nukes and they haven't used them despite their failure on the battlefield.
I'm curious where you are from? You don't sound like you understand the mentality of Americans. Your reasoning sounds quite a lot like the theories of victory circulating among Japanese leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
And if you think Russia is failing, then I'm not sure you know what victory looks like when fighting a competent adversary. The Ukrainian army is being fueled by endless and increasingly brutal forced conscription, and backed by Western weapons, tech, hardware, and intelligence. But instead of the present, let's go 4 years back after the invasion and when the West decided to get overtly involved. Imagine I came to you and said 'hey stickfigure not only with this war last for years, but in 4 years Russia will have the strategic initiative, control a massive chunk of Ukraine, and be continuing to push forward' -- what do you think you would have said? 'Russia must be failing' wouldn't really be a logical response then, or now.
> Imagine I came to you and said 'hey stickfigure not only with this war last for years, but in 4 years Russia will have the strategic initiative, control a massive chunk of Ukraine, and be continuing to push forward' -- what do you think you would have said? 'Russia must be failing' wouldn't really be a logical response then, or now.
If four years ago anyone had said that Russia would invade Ukraine with everything it got and that four years later it would still stuck fighting for the first eastern provinces, with casualties exceeding a million and no end in sight, they would've been dismissed as an insane doomer. And yet here we are.
By now, the war against Ukraine is among the worst disasters in the entire military history of Russia, far worse than the 1979 invasion Afghanistan and the 1904 Russo-Japanese war, which until recently were regarded as the worst catastrophies of the modern era. Notable Russian fascist Maxim Kalashnikov goes much further. He says that Russia tried to subjugate Ukrainians, but failed, and Ukrainians will return for revenge. He calls it a "cultural and civilizational defeat": https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1985270960321130516
That adage about being doomed to repeat history would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Part of the reason people are doomed to repeat history is precisely this effect. By the time Hitler was greenlighting the Volkssturm, he certainly knew it was over. But he refused to step outside of his cognitive dissonance, to the net result that vast numbers of Germans ended up dying for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
China would enforce a blockade against Taiwan. The US might or might not be able to break it. But China would have a very hard time breaking a US blockade down there.
Or how weary of not having access to TSMC the rest of the world is.
The choice is between possible nuclear war, or, the 5090s are more expensive and sometimes Americans can't buy them when the PRC is punishing the west for something.
I get set off specifically by wumao/little pinks (the Mandarin term for PRC based nationalist netizens, not necessarily an insult), something about their arrogance while wishing death on me and my family is very personal and hard to resist engaging with.
I accept I broke the rules and will try to avoid doing so again in the future, but for perspective, just imagine if you were Ukrainian, it's 2018, and someone from Russia was posting about how they can't wait for their country to invade yours.
But, I like the site the way it is, and the rules make it that way, so I understand.
so is taiwan.
> The other players will be Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and Australia so the
i can ensure you Vietnam and SK wont. and we want Japan to join so much. Aus is like a bonus maybe
In the end, if a war happens, it will be idiotic again, from an economical point of view and from a humanitarian point of view. Economically, of course it will cost huge amount of resources to conquer Taiwan, and it will only disturb trade and what is already established on Taiwan. From a humanitarian point of view, of course many people will die.
The smartest China could do, would be to return to a soft power approach, and continue to develop mainland China, to continue to rival and even surpass Taiwan/Taipei. There are many young people, who don't have the walls in their minds, that the older population has. They don't want war, they want their freedom, and they want a high living standard. All this would be theoretically possible, if China didn't let ideology rule, but instead went for the economically best route, which is most certainly not an invasion.
Well, go figure, if you run military "exercises" at the doorstep of your neighbor, people are not gonna like you very much, duh. But there was a time before more recent escalations, when lots of young Taiwanese people did not think too badly about being part of China. That's why I said that the smartest move would be (or would have been) to continue an approach of soft power and development, to rival life in Taiwan. Give the people comfort and high living standard, and they are less likely to dislike you.
Macau seems to be doing one country, two systems just fine.
Every one gets that far away countries across the world can’t put military bases right next to Europe or the US. However when it comes to China, that is not only acceptable but it’s the anti-cowardly move to support outsider aggressors.
Indeed, Japan and Korea and the Philippines have American military bases on them.
You mentioned Taiwan, curious why? It has no American military bases. Perhaps of all the countries in the region, it's the most sovereign in that sense.
What's with this Americentric geopolitical analysis?
Anyway take up your grievances with the KMT, don't worry, they're about to come crying back into the CPC's arms begging for a shred of political power now that their regime has been overthrown for 30 years, and their efforts to sell Taiwan to the CPC in exchange for a teaspoon of political legitimacy are failing spectacularly.
Does Macau prove one country two systems is a success?
They are finally off the terrorist list a few years ago, but for a long time the US policy was to feign outrage but then declare anyone using any teeth to push back against China as a terrorist.
I'm pretty confident that most women in Xinjiang are pretty happy that that group was smeared out. You can think Xinjiang and Uyghurs shouldn't be oppressed without supporting actual, unironic terrorist groups who want total theocratic control and full on jihad. I'm more amazed they're removed from the terrorist list. Seems like a weird political decision.
That still doesn't establish it as the distinguishing factor as to why the US declared them as terrorist. I fought in the YPG in the Syrian Civil War, an ally of the USA. Guess what, there were those who looked 13,14,15 usually because the Syrian government or ISIS had incapacitated their parents somehow. Mostly they were way back as token guards at training outposts but I also saw some near the front. The YPG also had to ally with a bunch of nasty theocratic arab militias to survive, in fact, that's why the SDF/YPG just got largely wiped out because the consolidation of the rebels in Damascus resulted in their arab allies turning their back. (In fact, Wikipedia page says IS is opponent of Uyghur militia). And I won't even get into the fact that the YPG and PKK are ideologically and pragmatically incredibly similar, yet PKK is magically a terrorist and the YPG is a brave US ally, one gets the blame anytime a Kurdish person does something horrible against innocent people and one doesn't.
As sister poster alludes, the US has never had an issue allying with "terrorists" when it suits their goals. Especially when fighting against USSR.
So knowing that this isn't the distinguishing factor, can you point to any other present-day armed group in or of China that has credible potential for an armed political uprising that hasn't been declared a terrorist? There might be one, I just don't know who they are, but I am very interested to read about them.
To me it looks like the difference is that they were a credible threat of violence against China, not that they have slaughtered innocent people which the USA and China has done as have many of US allies.
And considering the Syrian civil war ended with a guy from Al Qaeda (famous terrorist group) becoming president and the country now having massacres under his watch, yeah, I think it's correct for groups that support armed uprising to be considered terrorist groups. Because they are. That armed uprising in Syria led to hundreds of thousands being killed, millions displaced, for what? A guy no better than the predecessor took his place, and he ruined countless lives to get there.
But that's different than what the US uses for listed terrorist organizations.
And that's what I'm pointing out. The US is happy to support these groups when they're actually on board with eliminating tyrants. I think they publicly shit-talk China but low-key they are happy to list as terrorists any group that can credibly threaten them, because it buys them political points in dealing with China. I'm judging them with their value system in mind, which provides a better assessment of the motivations behind their actions than judging them with your value system in mind. That is, by the value system of the US government, if they actually support the overthrow of the government they will also not usually list as terrorists those who are tactically in a position to weaken the government in question, even though by your value system you might.
And I don't agree with your assessment that even if it ends with another tyrant in power, it was for nothing. The Kurds had a slice of relative freedom for a decade. In their estimation it was worth the violence. Obviously I agree with that, otherwise I wouldn't have fought for them. I always knew there was a good chance it ends with everyone slaughtered and I saw my share of artillery and rounds come at me, so I'm not just speaking as a hypothetical on behalf of someone else. Sometimes it's better to be alive for a moment than a slave for a lifetime. (The Chechens, also came to a similar conclusion, with similar ends and a period of relative freedom between the two Chechen wars; I find them to be a less palatable example though I don't blame them for the general idea behind their actions).
> or the small pockets of territory ISIS sometimes controls so you can see how great and friendly they are for opposing the oppressive governments that opposed them.
This is hilarious to hear you lecture me about, considering I've been shot at by ISIS, and been to both Iraq and Syria, so please lecture me more with your experience what it's like to be in these regions. Yes I am free to go to areas that have been in conflict with ISIS, and I have.
Of course, hilariously, you fail to note the Uyghurs were opponents of ISIS in Afghanistan, another words, working to eliminate ISIS. So even if one engaged in your little dare about going to Afghanistan, they'd find it your little tale earlier was false. The Uyghurs are not bringing ISIS to China, why would they fly their enemies flag?
>As bad as Saddam was, I don't think anyone enjoyed the time that ISIS dominated Iraq more than his reign.
The KRG did (Kurdish Iraq), because ISIS was defeated much more easily. Same with many other factions in Iraq that defeated ISIS. ISIS was just part of the power vacuum that emerged after Saddam, but eliminating Saddam was the first step in breaking up the pieces, ISIS was a natural next adversary but a divided piece. You can't expect to overthrow a tyrant and not end up with fragmented other tyrants to also have to deal with.
You keep trying to dominate the discussion with all the bad things various groups have done while acknowledging the US doesn't give a single shit about it, proving it's a total side show to our discussion. It's not clear why you keep re-iterating it other than it gives you a sense of moral superiority over the US government and value signal your position, which we all know you probably genuinely have.
>think anyone outside of extremists who just want to keep women as property support Uyghur militants who blow up buses.
I'm pretty sure the PKK blew up a bus at one point... so we're not allowed to support Kurds who want independence? The Turks take your same approach. Your argument here is patently absurd. Of course no one wants to support people that blow up buses of civilians. But you've fallen for the extremist Chinese propaganda that because one group of Uyghurs at one point blew up a bus, that we can't look positively on other Uyghurs who might fight against tyranny. And despite your, and even my own, disagreements with Islam -- the Uyghurs are virtually 100% muslim so of course any society they form is likely to be based by their own choice around some form of shariah law and less than libertarian role for women (to pretend like it is just militia that wants this in opposite to the Uyghurs in general is just fraud)
I personally also just don't buy into your system that if some people did bad thing X at one point, then it's also bad if they go after tyrants at some other point -- and it is possible even if they are even more tyrannical than the tyrants that their mutual self destruction with the tyrants works towards liberty as a form of tactical benefit. The US massacred a bunch of people in Vietnam, that doesn't mean I damn them for eliminating Bin Laden, in fact I quite agreed with them for doing so despite the fact the US military themselves have engaged in "terrorism" by your definition at other times. That is, the US military themselves are "terrorists" that I tactically acknowledge the benefit of when it suits the goal of liberty -- and in fact acknowledging the tactical benefit of evil people is sadly often necessary (as I've pointed out, the loss of alliance with several theocratic arab militias is responsible for the downfall of fairly libertarian Rojava). Listing these entities formally as terrorists in those instances erodes their tactical benefit and erodes the pursuit of liberty.
You might disagree on whether HKers' freedoms are truly being abridged or whether you care, but the questions you posed weren't complete enough on their own.
UK “taking back” HK is also very imaginative , like white people dreaming of recolonizing Asia in 21st century? Good luck.
These words are thought-terminating cliches. Relevant link for HN today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...
What does that have to do with "wokeness"?
The US government lies and does a lot of bad stuff, but we must believe everything they say about big bad chyna, the one entity big enough to hold the USG accountable.
And on both topics, it is the same group of anti-American traitors openly trashing our values, both domestically and internationally, while abusing the cloak of "conservatism" to obscure what they actually stand for. So no, there is really no conflict when criticizing both.
(you are of course free to prioritize other values like non-intervention and come to a different answer for yourself on this topic. the point is there is no conflict for the two positions you contrast. and this used to be a pretty popular stance, actually)
If a good outcome is to happen - it needs to be driven and supported domestically.
Trump takes out manduro
“He’s hitler”
The woke mob has never been so confused
People can say that the Western world should do more to promote democracy in China (or not financially enable China to suppress its people) while at the same time saying that invading a country and kidnapping its leader is not the way to solve a similar problem.
The problem of democracy indeed. Many of these people now yearn to be peasants too. A simpler life for a simpler mind. Perhaps they should be given what they want.
> The woke mob has never been so confused
I'm confused what you mean by "woke" here. Is opposing violation of international law "woke"?
We can agree on the treatment of HK being far from ideal, and I would go as far as saying, that even economically for China itself, it was not good to handle the matter as they did. That is where their ideology shows. HK was an economical hub. In recent times though many businesses left and more are unwilling to invest. This is the economical downside, that could simply have been avoided by not doing what they did. The question should be asked "Why not just leave it as it is, since it is working well, economically?" But they had to mess with it. Another downside is international reputation damage of course. China has achieved many great things in the past decades and now has cities more modern and convenient than most of what you find in Europe. Their one problem remains ideology. That they sometimes feel the need to do things, that are not economically sound, for the sake of ideology.
However, I can't agree with anyone arguing, that HK should not be part of China, like some people do in the comments here. It's a separate matter from policies implemented. Of course I wish for HKers to keep their freedoms. Who doesn't. Of course I wish China would not implement policies, that endanger the freedom of its people. But territorial? Nope, HK always was bound to become a part of China.
What I can say more from visiting HK twice is, that they still got Internet (uncensored), in contrast to other parts of China. Every week I am speaking with someone from HK, using Signal, which is not practical for anyone from (most?) other parts of China. When traveling in China, I used a HK eSIM, to have reliable and uncensored Internet. I hope that these aspects still remain intact for a long time, or that the rest of China will open up. At some point they should have the confidence in their own economy to compete on global scale.
Why so? Do you think Monaco should be part of France? Do you think Singapore should be part of Malaysia? A lot of big countries respect the sovereignty of neighboring smaller countries, although that is unfortunately becoming less true now.
It isn't about colonialism. I have never seen anyone seriously argue it should go back to the British. It is about a framework to ensure they maintain their rights. It would be great if that looked like expanded rights for all of China but it can also look like some degree of sovereignty, which was in place for quite some time.
Monaco is already 90% part of France. There was an agreement until recently that Monaco would become French if the Princeship went extinct. By law the Prime Minister and the Police has to be French. France also handles their defense etc. It's very conditional sovereignty, the deal being that they can be a tax heaven if they want to, but not to France and Italy.
> Do you think Singapore should be part of Malaysia?
AFAIK they've been expelled from Malaysia after independence.
I'm not trying to disprove your point, just that it's fluid and fragile. Sovereignty itself has only been conceptually defined with the Treaties of Westphalia, it's recent and quintessentially Western.
I think the Westphalia thing is somewhat overblown there were lots of sovereignty analogs throughout human history all over the world before that.
I'm sure you understand there's a deep qualitative difference between a thing existing and the same thing being described, formalized and conceptualized. The latter allows us to use it with intent.
For example rationalism, which is a favoured subject on HN (I'm picking this because I've had a similar discussion recently with a friend of mine who uses to teach Philosophy, especially Epistemology, at UCSB) : it's obvious reason and structured rational thought existed before Descartes and Leibniz. But it's also undeniable there's been an extreme change is Human society after they defined it.
Conceptualizing ends up bringing changes at the cognitive level to the entire species. It's not a very deeply researched subject because of the lag time between the written material and observable anthropological effects, but at this point it's common knowledge, even if intuitively.
I'll digress for a bit and say that in my opinion there's a superior quality of knowledge, above Cartesianism, that'll I call informed intuitional. And I credit Srinivasa Ramanujan for forcefully bringing it back into Western Thought. [1]
In any case regarding Sovereignty, once we're sophisticated enough we'll accept multiple sovereignty as the rule. I don't see why, for example, Monaco couldn't be all at the same time the Sovereign State of Monaco, part of French Department of Alpes Maritimes, part of the Italian Province of Imperia and part of the European Federation. The specific conditions can be decided ad hoc with contract law, we've got the tools, we invented them.
[1]: https://www.quantamagazine.org/srinivasa-ramanujan-was-a-gen...
Then you should read more of the comments here, and you will have that completely new experience.
I am genuinely lost in your argument. You start against colonialism then justify Hong-Kong being reintegrated to China because they would have taken it by force anyway which is pretty much the same thing as colonialism.
You then pivot to arguing HK was always going to be part of China for a reason I find unclear. Hong-Kong was never part of the PRC before the handover so I don't really see the appeal to continuity.
Have you considered that people are not arguing for colonialism but actually against any form of coercitive control?
Giving back HK might have been the only sensible move back then, and it might have bought HKers time and avoided a more open conflict, that wouldn't have ended well for HK.
At least Wikipedia disagrees with your sentiment, that HK was never part of China. Well, technically you said "PRC", maybe even intentionally, and you could take some weird position of claiming, that nothing inside China is part of China, because it was a different entity before PRC. But then so do many countries all over the world lose any claim to their territory. Germany, after second world war, France after French revolution, most prominently the US, after its founding ... Historically, HK was a grab of land by the UK. Granted, they built something nice up there, but only after the despicable acts they committed historically in the region. If we get into what the UK did historically in the region, it will not lead to a moral high ground.
Demand its return based on what principles ? How did the UK gain control of Hong Kong
Would the UK be able to go to war with China over HK ?
in the words of Dave Chappell - hello UN, if you got problems, bring ya army! oh you ain't no army
It was easy to turn the blind eye on Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc. because for most people in western hemisphere it's a different culture and it's somewhere else.
It was heart breaking when Russia invaded Ukraine and western media were doing lengthy coverage on every single civilian casualty when thousands of people were silently dying in Gaza without a single mention.
And the initial reaction to the invasion was that the Ukraine should simply surrender. It's like calling police about home invasion only to hear "oh, just give them what they want and stop calling us already".
And now US is doing exactly the same. The attack on Venezuela was a carbon copy of what Putin did, only difference was that the US succeeded. And now Greenland.
It's time to stop pretending there are good and evil forces out there. There's no difference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration