Jump to content


Photo

Protests In Hong Kong


  • Please log in to reply
343 replies to this topic

#341 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,630 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko yarou
  • Interests:sleeping

Posted Yesterday, 09:39 PM

During the 1980s, China was having its first "opening up" ever since the long run of the heavy handed personality cult of Mao. I think there was some optimism in many countries that China was going to transform itself. The economy opened up some in following the examples of Hong Kong and Singapore. Leaders at that time probably aware of the trends towards democracy in South Korea and Taiwan as well. South Korea achieved it in 1988. Taiwan achieved it in 1996. Sentiment in Japan towards China was also actually quite good and China wasn't playing the anti-Japan 'causes history propaganda so heavily. Among these factors, the US surely would have been keen to see China drift further away from the SU and draw closer to what is to be a "Western Country". But comes along 1989 and the start of those demonstration in China in April and going on for 2 months before the crackdown on June 4th. Within the CCP at that time, there was the PRC president Zhao Ziyang at the time who favored political reform. He wasn't alone, there were other high ranking PRC CCP politicians that wanted political reform such as Wan Li. However in 1989, there was also a staunch side in the CCP whom did not want political reform and wanted the demonstrations crushed. It is interesting to know that before the PLA was ordered to crush the demonstrations on June 4th, there was an earlier order to do so, sometime in May IIRC, but the PLA did not comply on the grounds of being the Army for the people and so crushing the people would violate that thinking. The staunch side included  people such as Li Peng and Yao Yilin. They worked against Zhao Ziyang. Ultimately, Deng Xiaoping would back the existence of the CCP thus being against political reform, felt changes were happening too quickly, and gave the final OK to crush the 1989 demonstrations.

 

So I think during that phase of opening up throughout the 1980s was a timing that fared quite well with the lease on HK and so in the mid 1980s, the UK and others probably could have felt that at that time, they were not necessarily dooming HK to ChiCom hell.

 

After the 1989 crackdown at Tiananmen Square (and other locations apparently) and into the early and mid 1990s was probably the moment for reconsidering into backing out of the returning of HK to the PRC. And to not hastily back the PRC in joining the WTO.

 

 

But well, here we are now. China's reputation has surely been shot up and trade dependency between the US and China looks to be going to reduced levels. And defense relations between Japan and other Asia-Pacific nations has developed, something important for whenever the US goes through an isolationists phase or exhausted and drained from high tempo training and maintenance wear down.

 

As for what to do with HK more specifically, maybe sometime later.


Edited by JasonJ, Yesterday, 09:41 PM.

  • 0

#342 Leo Niehorster

Leo Niehorster

    Meow

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,630 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hannover, Germany
  • Interests:Military History

Posted 18 minutes ago

 

 

:rolleyes:

 

I thought it was just me.

 

 

One only has to compare this attitude with the British stance on Gibraltar. I suppose they will evolve the "not east of Suez" policy, probably the major reason to give HK to the PRC, to a "not south of Jersey" one in order to realize an isolated Gibraltar is an intolerable drain on HM Treasury, turn a blind eye on those Gib freeloaders, and end the history of the last Colony in Continental Europe.

 

Pot — Kettel.

Ceuta and Melilla, of which Morocco probably has a similar view. Just as Gibraltar is British by right of conquest, quite a while ago.

Spain acquired Gibraltar in 149... (?) and lost it in 1713. A bit over 200 years. So, it's been British for a bit over 300 years. And the locals seem to prefer British rule.

 

Would mentioning the Spanish Basque in this context be rude ...? :ph34r:

 

There are many bits and pieces of land which were conquered/occupied/annexed by some nation at some time in the past which now are part of that nation.  If you start rolling these up, where do you start (and end)?

 

Sorry, spelling


Edited by Leo Niehorster, 16 minutes ago.

  • 0

#343 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 11 minutes ago


Does anyone here think having a US style armed populace in Hong Kong start to light up the security forces there would actually end well?  There's a place for self-serving fantasy, but I don't think playing Red Dawn in a city of 7 million people has a lot to commend it.

I'm reminded of the Venezuela coup attempt.  Media talking heads were exclaiming that the coup had no chance because the populace had essentially been disarmed by the Venezuelan government.  Of course as soon as they figured out what they were saying they quickly dropped that line of thinking.
 
But yeah, better Red than Dead.  Better to submit and be led into captivity than fight for freedom.  That's historically worked well for population groups, hasn't it?
Actually, almost always, it has. Most communist countries moved away from communism with very little if any bloodshed. Some. Like China, retain it as little more than a token concept. None, that I can think of, shot themselves out of communism.
  • 0

#344 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,460 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted A minute ago

During the 1980s, China was having its first "opening up" ever since the long run of the heavy handed personality cult of Mao. I think there was some optimism in many countries that China was going to transform itself. The economy opened up some in following the examples of Hong Kong and Singapore. Leaders at that time probably aware of the trends towards democracy in South Korea and Taiwan as well. South Korea achieved it in 1988. Taiwan achieved it in 1996. Sentiment in Japan towards China was also actually quite good and China wasn't playing the anti-Japan 'causes history propaganda so heavily. Among these factors, the US surely would have been keen to see China drift further away from the SU and draw closer to what is to be a "Western Country". But comes along 1989 and the start of those demonstration in China in April and going on for 2 months before the crackdown on June 4th. Within the CCP at that time, there was the PRC president Zhao Ziyang at the time who favored political reform. He wasn't alone, there were other high ranking PRC CCP politicians that wanted political reform such as Wan Li. However in 1989, there was also a staunch side in the CCP whom did not want political reform and wanted the demonstrations crushed. It is interesting to know that before the PLA was ordered to crush the demonstrations on June 4th, there was an earlier order to do so, sometime in May IIRC, but the PLA did not comply on the grounds of being the Army for the people and so crushing the people would violate that thinking. The staunch side included  people such as Li Peng and Yao Yilin. They worked against Zhao Ziyang. Ultimately, Deng Xiaoping would back the existence of the CCP thus being against political reform, felt changes were happening too quickly, and gave the final OK to crush the 1989 demonstrations.

 

So I think during that phase of opening up throughout the 1980s was a timing that fared quite well with the lease on HK and so in the mid 1980s, the UK and others probably could have felt that at that time, they were not necessarily dooming HK to ChiCom hell.

 

After the 1989 crackdown at Tiananmen Square (and other locations apparently) and into the early and mid 1990s was probably the moment for reconsidering into backing out of the returning of HK to the PRC. And to not hastily back the PRC in joining the WTO.

 

 

But well, here we are now. China's reputation has surely been shot up and trade dependency between the US and China looks to be going to reduced levels. And defense relations between Japan and other Asia-Pacific nations has developed, something important for whenever the US goes through an isolationists phase or exhausted and drained from high tempo training and maintenance wear down.

 

As for what to do with HK more specifically, maybe sometime later.

 

There was a great belief among Western Political leaders that economic liberalism would lead to political liberalism. Which was always complete nonsense. You only have to look at the Kaisers Germany to realise you can be an economic powerhouse, and still be a stranger to any Democratic values.

 

We basically reinforced the Communist regime by trading with it. Which was 180 degrees from what we did with the Soviet Communists. I still dont get it.


  • 0




3 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Stuart Galbraith