>If Hong Kong protestors just followed the path of non violence without attacking China's sovereignty or accepting that they are first Chinese citizen and showing their discontent, it would have been different.
I don't think it's clear that the protestors started the violence. Most reports seem to indicate otherwise.
I also don't know that it's reasonable to expect people who were born and raised in HK when the governance was different and without mainland influence to accept that they should just allow the PRC to change their way of life and rule of law.
And of course there is an economic aspect to it. But much of that is due to industries such as finance beginning to withdraw from HK - there is too much uncertainty there. Beijing has begun exerting influence long before they agreed to with the handover treaty, and there is a general fear that they will continue to accelerate this.
I don't see any way that the PRC loses this, however. International observers aren't going to step in, and the rich in powerful in HK will simply leave, as they have been.
> I don't think it's clear that the protestors started the violence. Most reports seem to indicate otherwise.
Its clear from the videos of protest supporters and media outlet without China's influence like BBC, CNN, The Guardian that there was violence in the protest (not small enough to be ignored). This is just deflecting the reality to create confusion.
Hong Kong is China according to handover and follows "Chinese Nationality Law" except for the provisions defined in "Basic Law" which differentiate part of two systems for 50 years. So people who accepted it stayed back and those who couldn't went to either Canada, UK or some other destination. The funny part is many returned back [1][2][3], when it didn't work out for them economically or culturally in those places.
Now the situation is very different, the long term prospect of cities like Shanghai, Shenzhen, Beijing, Guangzhou looked better than Hong Kong which largely moved to worse especially in housing. This discontent when there is no visible better future prospects descended into protests conflating many issues. If protests only targeting the real primary reason of economics and future prospects, it might not have divided society.
Hong Kong has always been about trade, economics and money. British kept it the same without granting freedom or democracy, China to fulfill the provisions of Basic Law granted autonomy (indeed more autonomy in policy making compared to when it was a British colony), but not outright democracy which is not part of the Basic Law or Handover.
> British kept it the same without granting freedom or democracy
Well they tried. Shortly after the Chinese revolution, HK was receiving an influx of refugees from China. Mostly well educated and skilled people. Britain was moving to bring in democratic reforms in the 1950s. China threatened to invade to "liberate" the territory if such reforms continued.
> Well they tried. Shortly after the Chinese revolution, HK was receiving an influx of refugees from China. Mostly well educated and skilled people. Britain was moving to bring in democratic reforms in the 1950s. China threatened to invade to "liberate" the territory if such reforms continued.
They didn't try but abandoned any efforts due to self interest of profits and economic extraction from a colony. The article put this in a better context, I just put excerpts from the link you shared:
Brits wanted to make sure they’d protected their economic interests before they departed, much the way they did in Singapore and Malaysia.
Another one:
In fact, in 1982, when negotiations began, the Hang Seng Index was already shaky due to fears that if China took over, the Communist Party would gut Hong Kong’s rule of law or nationalize wealth, causing the market to crash and capital to flee. The Brits needed to calm markets and ensure financial stability. That meant making sure the handover agreement protected British financial interests.
The consequence of continuing would have been far worse than abandoning. The fact remains that they were moving to put in place democratic reforms. Prior to the Chinese revolution HK was an economic backwater - most of its population being related to the transhipment port and military presence. Kowloon and New Territories were only added as buffer zone for the port. Growth was nearly all post Chinese revolution.
In the post-war decolonisation period GB had a policy of no independence before majority rule. They were putting in place democratic reforms elsewhere, and ensuring minority rule (ie South Africa) didn't continue after independence.
Except that is simply not true, and there's no evidence for it.
British corporations that existed in the HK market may have extracted revenue, as might any corporation, of any nationality with their overseas operations. The Hang Seng is a major stock market in its own right, so the majority of money was staying as HK money. The British government, on the other hand, was not receiving billions into the treasury as a consequence of holding Hong Kong.
"Liao Chengzhi, a senior Chinese official in charge of Hong Kong affairs, said in 1960 that China "shall not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories liberated" should the status quo (i.e. colonial administration) be changed."
seems rather clear on that matter. Naturally the UK also had additional other interests but democratic reform was off the table.
> Its clear from the videos of protest supporters and media outlet without China's influence like BBC, CNN, The Guardian that there was violence in the protest (not small enough to be ignored). This is just deflecting the reality to create confusion.
That's not a fair characterization at all. The distrust for police goes deeper[1] and even just looking at this year's protest it's not clear cut.
> British kept it the same without granting freedom or democracy
That's again wrong. British did give HK some democracy and definitely more freedom than what's currently given (at least in reality if not on paper)
> China to fulfill the provisions of Basic Law granted autonomy (indeed more autonomy in policy making compared to when it was a British colony), but not outright democracy which is not part of the Basic Law or Handover.
The recent protest started because China is not fulfilling the provisions of Basic Law
> That's again wrong. British did give HK some democracy and definitely more freedom than what's currently given (at least in reality if not on paper)
British were in Hong Kong for 150 years and only granted enough freedom to Hong Kong to align with their own interest of generating profits and economic dividends for Britain. This is how they treated all their colony including Hong Kong. This is not freedom, its like instead of a caged zoo, they gave an open zoo with a bit larger area and decides what freedoms to give.
Hong Kong never had democracy including during British time. If you have any written evidence in law or regulation on the contrary let me know. So far I couldn't find any evidence except the "Basic Law" which guarantees certain freedom.
In civil societies we have institution of marriage with regulations and laws. It exists on paper, although many will say love doesn't need a certificate. If there is a commitment it's not a problem to put it on paper, not granting Hong Kong freedom and democracy on paper shows Britain's treatment of Hong Kong as a colony.
> The recent protest started because China is not fulfilling the provisions of Basic Law
If China broke any provisions of Basic Law a case can be filed in courts of Hong Kong.
Indeed Hong Kong asked China to re-interpret Basic Law which contravenes basic human rights in 1999. No one protested at that time because although it was against basic human rights, it benefits Hong Kong people economically.
"On 26 June 1999, in line with the request of the HKSAR Government, the NPCSC issued its interpretation which makes it clear that children born outside Hong Kong will be eligible for the right of abode only if at least one of their parents has already acquired permanent residence status at the time of their birth. Also, those eligible for ROA need to comply with Article 22 of the Basic Law, i.e. they need to apply for the necessary approval from the relevant Mainland authorities before entry into Hong Kong.
The Chief Executive, Tung Chee Hwa, announced measures to be taken by the Government. Later rulings of the Court of Final Appeal confirmed that the Government had acted entirely constitutionally and legally.
Differences in opinion remain as to whether Hong Kong's judicial independence and the rule of law have been undermined. Criticism of the interpretation has originated largely from the legal sector."
> British were in Hong Kong for 150 years and only granted enough freedom to Hong Kong to align with their own interest
I don't want to speculate why the British did what they did, and that's not the point
> Hong Kong never had democracy including during British time. If you have any written evidence in law or regulation on the contrary let me know. So far I couldn't find any evidence except the "Basic Law" which guarantees certain freedom.
There's a difference between freedom and democracy and I will answer separately. On democracy, HK had long had some sort of election for the legislature (sure not the entire 150 years). I was there and my parents voted. It's dishonest to say you can't find any evidence of it.
On freedom. Basic Law may well (I am not sure) be the first local constitution, but the HK court system followed British precedence and people in HK generally enjoyed the same freedom guarantees that British living in UK do. Also, in practice there's increasing levels of self-censorship so having the Basic Law doesn't mean much.
> If China broke any provisions of Basic Law a case can be filed in courts of Hong Kong. Indeed Hong Kong asked China to re-interpret Basic Law... No one protested at that time
Actually plenty of people protested, but I see you cherrypicked examples. More recently China re-interpreted Basic Law to disqualified democratically elected legislature members. China also sent agents to HK and kidnapped an HK resident into China for political crime. You said British only granted freedom to HK base on self-interest, and you are very eager to be very generous towards China's motivations and skipped over examples that are very easy to find. Either you are not able to find them because they are blocked by the GFW, or that's something are more intentional on your part.
>Its clear from the videos of protest supporters and media outlet without China's influence like BBC, CNN, The Guardian that there was violence in the protest (not small enough to be ignored). This is just deflecting the reality to create confusion.
Only if you ignore the fact that government encouraged (and rewarded) counter-protestors were attacking them in the subways on the way to and from the initial peaceful protests.
I don't think it's clear that the protestors started the violence. Most reports seem to indicate otherwise.
I also don't know that it's reasonable to expect people who were born and raised in HK when the governance was different and without mainland influence to accept that they should just allow the PRC to change their way of life and rule of law.
And of course there is an economic aspect to it. But much of that is due to industries such as finance beginning to withdraw from HK - there is too much uncertainty there. Beijing has begun exerting influence long before they agreed to with the handover treaty, and there is a general fear that they will continue to accelerate this.
I don't see any way that the PRC loses this, however. International observers aren't going to step in, and the rich in powerful in HK will simply leave, as they have been.