The protests in Hong Kong, explained in 2 minutes

[TheDemSocialist]

Pro-democracy protests are common in Hong Kong, but they've never been met with the kind of police response that came down on demonstrators in recent days. Vox's Max Fisher explains why the people of Hong Kong have taken to the streets and what's at stake in the protests.

The protests in Hong Kong, explained in 2 minutes

Confused about whats going on in Hong Kong?

 

[joG]

[/FONT][/COLOR]The protests in Hong Kong, explained in 2 minutes

Confused about whats going on in Hong Kong?

It is always hard to tell, when a situation will get out of hand. One thing that must worry the party autocracy is the growing number of occurrences of popular unrest and politically motivated killings that seem to be happening in the past few years.

 

[Demon of Light]

Should be titled "The protests in Hong Kong, two minutes of bull****." China reneged? No, they didn't. Nothing more than Sinophobic propaganda.

 

[gunner]

Should be titled "The protests in Hong Kong, two minutes of bull****." China reneged? No, they didn't. Nothing more than Sinophobic propaganda.

So China didn't say Hong Kong could have free elections by 2017?

Paul

 

[donsutherland1]

So China didn't say Hong Kong could have free elections by 2017?

Paul

I'm not aware of such a guarantee. The Joint Declaration and Constitution are both somewhat ambiguous on that point and that's part of the problem, though the Basic Law is clearer in terms of specifics and it seems to rule out such an outcome in its present form.

Article 45 of the Basic Law declares:

The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People’s Government.
The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.

The Joint Declaration states:

The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be composed of local inhabitants. The chief executive will be appointed by the Central People's Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally.

The Hong Kong Constitution states:

The government and legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be composed of local inhabitants. The chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government.

In the protesters' view, the Joint Declaration and Constitution, which omit references to a nominating Committee, allow for direct nominations. In part, the protesters believe that the Chinese government is in a position to influence the electoral process beyond the intent of the Joint Declaration through the nominating committee process, hence they want no part of such a committee role. Instead, they want direct democratic elections.

The Chinese government views the nominating committee as fully consistent with all of Hong Kong's laws. Given that the committee is dominated by pro-Beijing members, the Chinese government is unwilling to change a situation that gives it some degree of ability to shape Hong Kong's leadership outcome. The Chinese government is very reluctant to grant any greater degree of autonomy to Hong Kong than it currently possesses, hence it will likely maintain a firm position.

Whether or not there is a pragmatic middle course i.e., broader nominating committee membership, a meaningful share of the nominating committee's members ultimately being elected by Hong Kong's residents in the future, etc., to accommodate both parties remains to be seen.

 

[gunner]

I'm not aware of such a guarantee. The Joint Declaration and Constitution are both somewhat ambiguous on that point and that's part of the problem, though the Basic Law is clearer in terms of specifics and it seems to rule out such an outcome in its present form.

Article 45 of the Basic Law declares:

The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People’s Government.
The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.

The Joint Declaration states:

The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be composed of local inhabitants. The chief executive will be appointed by the Central People's Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally.

The Hong Kong Constitution states:

The government and legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be composed of local inhabitants. The chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government.

In the protesters' view, the Joint Declaration and Constitution, which omit references to a nominating Committee, allow for direct nominations. In part, the protesters believe that the Chinese government is in a position to influence the electoral process beyond the intent of the Joint Declaration through the nominating committee process, hence they want no part of such a committee role. Instead, they want direct democratic elections.

The Chinese government views the nominating committee as fully consistent with all of Hong Kong's laws. Given that the committee is dominated by pro-Beijing members, the Chinese government is unwilling to change a situation that gives it some degree of ability to shape Hong Kong's leadership outcome. The Chinese government is very reluctant to grant any greater degree of autonomy to Hong Kong than it currently possesses, hence it will likely maintain a firm position.

Whether or not there is a pragmatic middle course i.e., broader nominating committee membership, a meaningful share of the nominating committee's members ultimately being elected by Hong Kong's residents in the future, etc., to accommodate both parties remains to be seen.

Thanks for the comprehensive reply, Don

But I was simply illuminating DOL total assuredness, that China was not guilty of some foul play, which, as you've shown there is at least a dispute to be had. But lets not kid ourselves here, the likelihood of 'middle ground' is highly improbable.

Paul

 

[donsutherland1]

But lets not kid ourselves here, the likelihood of 'middle ground' is highly improbable.

Paul

There legitimately is a difference. The Joint Declaration and constitution allow greater flexibility on how to carry out the electoral process than the current Basic Law does. The protesters want to use that greater flexibility for more direct elections. Beijing and the Hong Kong Chief Executive essentially maintain the Basic Law. The protesters' believed that things would evolve toward more direct democracy. The current Chinese government may have differing views than its predecessor governments. The result is a large expectations gap between the parties.

I don't disagree with respect to the low probability of substantive compromise or a middle ground. The current Chinese leadership has been consolidating power not decentralizing it. A middle course would run counter to that trend. Therefore, I believe that larger trend very likely rules out substantive concessions. Cosmetic or symbolic gestures may still be possible.

However, I'm not clear about the absolute minimum the protesters' would accept given their somewhat fragmented leadership so far, so I'm not sure if a symbolic gesture would be acceptable. I'm not sure a promise to review the process, but not a guarantee of any changes, would allow the issue to be pushed into the future. I suspect that the current minimum is more than what Beijing or Hong Kong's Chief Executive would provide in a cosmetic gesture. Whether this remains the case weeks or longer from now if the student protesters wind up missing substantial amounts of school, an adverse economic situation develops turing parts of Hong Kong society against them (probably China's current bet leading to a near-term strategy of "waiting out" the protesters), etc. is uncertain.

At the same time, how China and Hong Kong react should the protests be sustained or grow in coming weeks is also a wildcard. Will China and the Hong Kong Chief Executive continue to hold to a common position or will their views begin to diverge? Beijing probably would be more inclined to toughen its position. Hong Kong's Chief Executive would find himself in a more difficult position caught between Beijing's hardening attitude (and he is a pro-Beijing leader and can't materially distance himself from the Chinese position) and the growing pressures of Hong Kong's residents. At a minimum, the risk of a miscalculation could increase, especially if it becomes clear that the possible strategy of "waiting out" the protests isn't effective.

I'm not sure how events will evolve, but my guess is that the most likely scenario is that the end result will be a situation that is not too different from the status quo (whether the protests fizzle over time, protests are cleared but not in Tiananmen Square fashion, cosmetic changes are made, a promise to review the process is made even as it's not a guarantee of any change, etc.). A lesser probability is that Hong Kong's Chief Executive would resign under pressure (Beijing would probably impose intense pressure on him not to abandon office). An even lesser probability is a Tiananmen Square-type event (extremely to very unlikely, as both China and Hong Kong would have too much to lose).

 

[Demon of Light]

So China didn't say Hong Kong could have free elections by 2017?

Paul

As Don illustrated, the Basic Law always mentioned a nominating committee and the other documents Don mentioned always stipulated that the Basic Law drafted by Beijing would serve as the basis for Hong Kong's political development. You may also notice that those documents did not say there was even a requirement to have the Chief Executive be an elected position. It said elections or "consultations" so Beijing had considerable leeway to not pursue elections at all. Nowhere did China renege on its agreement. It should be noted that the general understanding is that after the Chief Executive is elected in 2017 the next Legislative Council election in 2020 will have completely free elections with no functional constituencies i.e. it will be based entirely on a popular vote. Right now only half of the LegCo is popularly elected, though this still gives the democrats a significant share of the assembly. The British did not have any elections in Hong Kong until right at the end of their time in control of the city and that was more of a stunt to pressure the Chinese.

 

[donsutherland1]

As Don illustrated, the Basic Law always mentioned a nominating committee and the other documents Don mentioned always stipulated that the Basic Law drafted by Beijing would serve as the basis for Hong Kong's political development. You may also notice that those documents did not say there was even a requirement to have the Chief Executive be an elected position. It said elections or "consultations" so Beijing had considerable leeway to not pursue elections at all.

The understanding was that all these things would be carried out by Hong Kong, though there was no clarity as to whether elections or consultations would be the ultimate outcome. Former Governor Chris Patten, who served during the negotiations and handover, has indicated that the rules set forth in the Basic Law were to be determined by Hong Kong.

From the BBC:

Lord Patten said dialogue "must replace tear gas and pepper spray" and that the current situation represented "a breach of what the Chinese government have promised Hong Kong".

"They said these matters were within the autonomy of the Hong Kong government and they are now reneging on that."

BBC News - Hong Kong stages huge National Day democracy protests

 

[donsutherland1]

Quick note: Patten served during the handover as Governor. Edward Youde was Governor of Hong Kong when the British-Chinese Joint Declaration was negotiated. I regret the error.

 

[blarg]

Should be titled "The protests in Hong Kong, two minutes of bull****." China reneged? No, they didn't. Nothing more than Sinophobic propaganda.

not any one else's fault that china is picking who can run

 

[Demon of Light]

The understanding was that all these things would be carried out by Hong Kong, though there was no clarity as to whether elections or consultations would be the ultimate outcome. Former Governor Chris Patten, who served during the negotiations and handover, has indicated that the rules set forth in the Basic Law were to be determined by Hong Kong.

From the BBC:

Lord Patten said dialogue "must replace tear gas and pepper spray" and that the current situation represented "a breach of what the Chinese government have promised Hong Kong".

"They said these matters were within the autonomy of the Hong Kong government and they are now reneging on that."

BBC News - Hong Kong stages huge National Day democracy protests

Not true. China was explicitly empowered in the Joint Declaration to regulate these affairs under the Basic Law.

 

[donsutherland1]

Not true. China was explicitly empowered in the Joint Declaration to regulate these affairs under the Basic Law.

The position is more complex. Both the Joint Declaration and Constitution do not expressly empower the Chinese central government to choose Hong Kong's Chief Executive. They state that the Chinese Government will appoint the person based on the outcome in Hong Kong (elections or consultations).

The Joint Declaration states:

The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be composed of local inhabitants. The chief executive will be appointed by the Central People's Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally.

The Hong Kong Constitution states:

The government and legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be composed of local inhabitants. The chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government.

That's the overall end goal and that's what Governor Patten felt is being 'reneged' upon. The pro-democracy protesters believe that such provisions require free democratic elections. That's not fully correct. Instead, they can allow for such elections. An alternative of consultations is also permissible.

The Basic Law has not yet reached the point of fulfilling those conditions and the arrangement adopted for 2017 is just the latest step in the evolution. The protesters, though, believe that sufficient time (20 years) has passed for full implementation of what the Joint Declaration called for and believe the policy adopted by the Chinese government is proof that Beijing has no intention of ever implementing the terms of the Joint Declaration. The result is a significant expectations gap between Beijing/current Chief Executive of Hong Kong and the protesters.

My guess remains that Beijing will, at most, only accept some cosmetic changes if Hong Kong's present government agrees with them. It won't accept substantive or material changes. It also won't offer any concessions of any kind on its own.

 

[SayMyName]

I think Lord Powell of the House of Lords of the UK summed it up pretty accurately just a few days ago.

"Hong Kong has always been part of China," Lord Powell added.

"We rented it for a while and we didn't introduce democracy... and one reason we didn't is because we knew it was eventually going back to China and it would have been far worse to introduce full democracy and then taken it away from them."

Meanwhile, I suspect the Chinese authorities will let the grandma faction settle this. They want prosperity for their businesses, and care little for the disruptions these protests are causing. The opinion of parents and grandparents still goes a long way here.

BBC News - Hong Kong protests 'won't change things' - Lord Powell

 

[SayMyName]

As of yesterday, the barriers constructed by the protestors are beginning to be taken down, as taxi and truck drivers, businessmen, and "reportedly" even the Triad have had enough. The real Democracy as we taught the Chinese is working, or at least as they see in what we mean, and it is the vote of the dollar, not the ballot.

 

[Rainman05]

[/FONT][/COLOR]The protests in Hong Kong, explained in 2 minutes

Confused about whats going on in Hong Kong?

I don't need some stupid silly vox leftist crappy video to give me a readers digest version of what they think is happening in Hong Kong.

Because I am a man of principles and value, I find time and energy to go and inform myself in depth about what is happening. It doesn't matter if what that guy says is true or not, because of the brevity and the simplicity of the video, it loses perspective and depth and that makes it wrong.

In depth.
By looking at these videos.



You, TheDemSocialist, have a knack for publishing crap on the forum. I got your number and I'll be keeping an eye on you. Just like you publish non-sense about other topics all the time, like columbus and whatever.
I know your tools, like all good leftist/progressives who know nothing, is lack of information. if you can only educate people just as little as possible to make your point seem true, it's great.

Now again, this is not to say that what that rubbish media site, vox, is saying about this topic isn't true. I'm not saying that. I'm just attacking the fact that you, and them, think that everything can be explained into 2min and gain a good understanding of the situation. No, you can't. Be informed. Spend time if you care to understand if not, sod off.

Not true. China was explicitly empowered in the Joint Declaration to regulate these affairs under the Basic Law.

You are the 2nd worst person to comment on this thing since you are a commie.

Better dead than red you 50 ruble army grunt. Putin isn't paying you to spray chinesse propaganda on this forum, know your duties tovarish, go spread more lies about Ukraine, pardon me, novorossyia as your master orders you to call it nowadays.

 

[Rainman05]

Thanks for the comprehensive reply, Don

But I was simply illuminating DOL total assuredness, that China was not guilty of some foul play, which, as you've shown there is at least a dispute to be had. But lets not kid ourselves here, the likelihood of 'middle ground' is highly improbable.

Paul

China is guilty of foul play.

If you watch the video I posted above, the one from DW Agenda talk you'll see, in the final 20min I think when Hong Kong is discussed, that they state there that the Chinesse are the ones who would take no other wording of the statement. They like to keep things fuzzy and open to interpretations, no matter what the british tried. And the british basically had to accept to whatever it was that the chinesse wanted them to accept. Sure, you could say that the UK could put up more of a fight, but the days of gunboat politics was over. Just like Portugal had to accept to surrender Macau under whatever conditions the chinesse wanted, so did the British. The pressure was on britain to surrender Hong Kong, not on China to accept it.

And when they did, as the video above tells you, Hong Kong was 1/3rd of the total Chinesse gdp back then. Yes, 3mil-4mil people produced 1/3rd of what 1bil people did in all of china. That's why it was a blessing for Hong Kong to be part of the west, to be part of the British empire. Now that it's under china... it's horror. That's why they hate it.
But they have very little aces on their hands. China had grown huge, now hong kong is barely 2% of the total chinesse economy because of China's immense growth and the chinesse have shown themselves to not be above using military to suppress civil unrest. China would prefer not to lose what Hong Kong is, this hypercapitalist core, but if it has to in order to keep the peace, it will.

 

[Rainman05]

What did I say? China won't tolerate dissent. For all the reasons I produced above, the fact that it is now just less than 2% of the total economy vs about 35% in 1997...

Police brutality video brings Hong Kong police under fire | News | DW.DE | 15.10.2014

 

[MrFirst]

US ‘destabilising’ Hong Kong through National Endowment for Democracy?

 

[blarg]

US ‘destabilising’ Hong Kong through National Endowment for Democracy?

peapole in Hong Kong wanting to control their own government?