Table has turned and the American politicians are now singing a different tune.
In any case based on US real actions instead of their empty rhetoric. US lectures on respecting human rights are not credible in HK and many other countries.
OMG! This woman suffered the worst human rights crime possible according to Hong Kongers. Where's their vigil for her?
I think if you knew anything about Hong Kong, you'd know that there was a minority campaigning for independence long before any of the terrorism started. And really, the only way Beijing could have handled it better so that the thuggery would stop and no one would call for anything would be to emulate the American response and send in the military, start shooting at the very early stages. It thought that Hong Kong was civilized like other Chinese cities; it gave too much credit to those taught by the Brits.Also, the Hong Kong protests did not start out about independence. It was the extradition law. But because the Hong Kong authorities and Beijing handled it so badly, some protesters have gone as far as to campaign for independence. But the independence movement is still a minority in Hong Kong.
Final reminder, the UK robbed something from China and knew it could keep it for long with China growing and the UK waning. This is no Argentina, so it had to find some way out before it loses Hong Kong in a very embarrassing and far less voluntary way. There is no good faith given for returning stolen property. And they can be funny and call for anybody for anything, but it is China's responsibility to show them that Hong Kong is China, and nobody's word except China's has weight there.Final reminder, China signed a treaty with the UK for the return of the whole of Hong Kong (only the New Territories were originally to return in 1997). Rather than divide the city, the UK negotiated a treaty in good faith to give up control but for it to enjoy 50 years of autonomy. It's perfectly reasonable that Hong Kongese would call on the UK to intervene if Beijing is breaking the treaty by undermine said autonomy.
What you're describing is the very essence of a civil war in the 21st century. Civil wars in contemporary America aren't fought with serried ranks of soldiers standing in fields and firing muskets at each other like in the first one. The US has a president who sees it in his political interest to let his country burn and a half of its citizens riot so the other half votes for him. What term other than "civil war" better describes this dysfunction?In a perverse way, I think the current protests may actually work to Trump’s benefit. Let’s face reality here, these protesters don’t have the organisation, money, arms or foreign support (no matter what the White House and right wing media claims) to amount to anything. Talk of ‘civil war’ is pure fantasy as the vast majority of the protestors are peaceful and unarmed. Just Trump’s hardcore armed supporters alone would massacre them like bunnies if it really came down to it, never mind the might of the US law enforcement and military.
His administration is already branding them as foreign-influenced useful idiots, a charge being enthusiastically repeated by his media supporters; the rioters are also not helping the case of the protesters, as the violence and destruction is turning most Americans against their cause, much as has happened in HK even if the western MSM likes to pretend otherwise.
In the short run, these protests are energising Trump’s base, with many armed groups already responding to Trump’s twitter call to arms. In the medium to long run, these protestors represent the perfect scapegoat for Trump.
When the COVID19 second wave hits, as anyone with any understanding of the outbreak is expecting it; Trump can now point to the protestors and blame them for causing it through the very act gathering in large groups to protest.
I am actually now worried that Trump might see their personal political advantage these protests represents, and deliberately enact policies designed to fuel and pro-long the protests.
If he is clever, he can start with a near over-reaction in terms of the severity of the crack down, to further fuel the anger of the protesters, while provoking the inevitable condemnations and lawsuits from the Democrats.
He can then ‘back down’ by reining in both law enforcement and his supporters, and also placing heavy restrictions on police to the point of handicapping their ability to handle the protests. which will inevitably result in a return to massed protests and riots.
He can then spend the next 3-4 months blaming the democrats for tying his hands and laying the blame for both the riots and continued COVID19 outbreak at their feet. Maybe he can even give Putin a call to ask him to use Russia troll farms to support the protestors.
Trump just need to bide his time for a few months, all the while blaming the Democrats, and then a few weeks before election time, he can make a big show of him having enough and unleashing the full power of the US state and his supporters to crush the protestors.
At that point, most Americans will probably be so fed up that they will cheer police brutality against the protestors; Trump’s base will be fired up and massively boosted by the ‘triumph’; and a sizeable portion of democrat voters will be in lock up and/or hospitals, and in no position to cast their votes.
I"m disappointed that you think this way. I am strongly anti-colonialism and feel that the Goa "invasion" was 100% justified.
Take a hypothetical situation where China and the UK failed to negotiate a return of Hong Kong to China in 1997, and the UK just said "Nope, sorry, we're keeping it; nothing you can do about it" would you find it unjust if the PRC just said, "Okay fine, we'll take back what's ours by force" and invaded it?
To me this is just an irony. I don't believe any westerner would want communist China in their country.
What you're describing is the very essence of a civil war in the 21st century. Civil wars in contemporary America aren't fought with serried ranks of soldiers standing in fields and firing muskets at each other like in the first one. The US has a president who sees it in his political interest to let his country burn and a half of its citizens riot so the other half votes for him. What term other than "civil war" better describes this dysfunction?