Hong Kong protests thread

Status
Closed
Aug 2009
5,431
Londinium
The idea that the HK protest is an independence movement is the stance both PRC and the west tries to portray. For the former, it helps the government gain the support of the Chinese masses and maybe crush the protest if it ever came to that. For the later, its the typical attempt at portraying China as repressive and fragile, ready to break apart. The same type of narrative is going on with places like Xinjiang and Tibet, most protests have nothing to do with an independence movement; a few extremists do not represent the entire population.
You say that the west seeks to represents China as an repressive regime then also state that China wants to "crush the protests"...perhaps the west isn't so wrong ;)
 
Likes: Isleifson

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,576
The idea that the HK protest is an independence movement is the stance both PRC and the west tries to portray. For the former, it helps the government gain the support of the Chinese masses and maybe crush the protest if it ever came to that. For the later, its the typical attempt at portraying China as repressive and fragile, ready to break apart. The same type of narrative is going on with places like Xinjiang and Tibet, most protests have nothing to do with an independence movement; a few extremists do not represent the entire population.
The Chinese narratives about "extremism" all need be taken with shovels of salt.
 
Likes: f0ma
Feb 2011
6,454
National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a mouthpiece of the government. Founded in 1983 by ex-CIA agents (about the same time we got all these negative relevations about the CIA's skeletons in the closet) to operate against Russia and the Middle East, now funded mainly by the American Congress. So instead of cleaning house they shifted these covert operations into a separate organization with a better sounding name.

NED president Carl Gershman in 1986 said: It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the C.I.A. We saw that in the 60’s, and that’s why it has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that’s why the endowment was created.

NED's own website admit that in 2018 they granted $155,000 to SC and $200,000 to NDI (to facilitate international advocacy for Hong Kong scholars, legal practitioners, and civil society leaders ), $90,000 to HKHRM (adminitedly a non-Ned branch to work with civil society networks and political leaders to improve compliance with international standards for human rights, and will seek to increase the international community’s awareness of human rights abuses in Hong Kong ): HONG KONG (CHINA) 2018 – NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY

Hong Kong's Civil Rights front, ie organizations of the Hong Kong protests, admits in its own website that NED-funded HKHRM is a part of its coalition, as well as the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (which received funding from the SC branch of NED): 成員團體名單及鏈接 | 民間人權陣線 Civil Human Right Front

Hong Kong’s opposition leaders receiving US support include:

Benny Tai: a law professor at the University of Hong Kong and a regular collaborator with the US NED and NDI-funded Centre for Comparative and Public Law (CCPL) also of the University of Hong Kong.

In the CCPL’s 2006-2007 annual report, (PDF, since deleted) he was named as a board member – a position he has held until at least as recently as last year. In CCPL’s 2011-2013 annual report (PDF, since deleted), NED subsidiary, the National Democratic Institute (NDI) is listed as having provided funding to the organization to “design and implement an online Models of Universal Suffrage portal where the general public can discuss and provide feedback and ideas on which method of universal suffrage is most suitable for Hong Kong.”

In CCPL’s annual report for 2013-2014 (PDF, since deleted), Tai is not listed as a board member but is listed as participating in at least 3 conferences organized by CCPL, and as heading at least one of CCPL’s projects. At least one conference has him speaking side-by-side another prominent “Occupy Central” figure, Audrey Eu. The 2013-2014 annual report also lists NDI as funding CCPL’s “Design Democracy Hong Kong” website.

Joshua Wong: “Occupy Central” leader and secretary general of the “Demosisto” party. While Wong and other have attempted to deny any links to Washington, Wong would literally travel to Washington once the protests concluded to pick up an award for his efforts from NED subsidiary, Freedom House.

Audrey Eu Yuet-mee: the Civic Party chairwoman, who in addition to speaking at CCPL-NDI functions side-by-side with Benny Tai, is entwined with the US State Department and its NDI elsewhere. She regularly attends forums sponsored by NED and its subsidiary NDI. In 2009 she was a featured speaker at an NDI sponsored public policy forum hosted by “SynergyNet,” also funded by NDI. In 2012 she was a guest speaker at the NDI-funded Women’s Centre “International Women’s Day” event, hosted by the Hong Kong Council of Women (HKCW) which is also annually funded by the NDI.

Martin Lee: a senior leader of the Occupy Central movement. Lee organized and physically led protest marches. He also regularly delivered speeches according to the South China Morning Post. But before leading the Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong, he and Anson Chan were in Washington D.C. before the NED soliciting US assistance (video).

During a talk in Washington titled, “Why Democracy in Hong Kong Matters,” Lee and Chan would lay out the entire “Occupy Central” narrative about independence from Beijing and a desire for self-governance before an American audience representing a foreign government Lee, Chan, and their entire opposition are ironically very much dependent on. NED would eventually release a statement claiming that it has never aided Lee or Chan, nor were Lee or Chan leaders of the “Occupy Central” movement.

But by 2015, after “Occupy Central” was over, NED subsidiary Freedom House would not only invite Benny Tai and Joshua Wong to Washington, but also Martin Lee in an event acknowledging the three as “Hong Kong democracy leaders.” All three would take to the stage with their signature yellow umbrellas, representing their roles in the “Occupy Central” protests, and of course – exposing NED’s lie denying Lee’s leadership role in the protests. Additionally, multiple leaked US diplomatic cables (here, here, and here) indicate that Martin Lee has been in close contact with the US government for years, and regularly asked for and received various forms of aid.

Other opposition leaders have been literally caught meeting secretly with US diplomats including Hong Kong opposition leaders Edward Leung and Ray Wong in 2016.
Problems Arise with Washington's Latest 'Color Revolution' in Hong Kong - 21st Century Wire

^Video of Guo Wengui having connections with Steven Bannon (which is no secret, his own channel shows this) and promising aid (in the form of money and American protection, not sure how much of this is just hot air though) to a HK protestor. Guo was a mutli-billionaire accused of corruption in China, but before he went to jail he skipped town to the US and became a whistle blower. It's the same backdrop as what's in Guo's own channel:

So yeah, there is a foreign hand in the protest. Not enough to be the sole cause of the protest, but it's not nonexistent either (ergo the truth is somewhere in between). Mainstream news only reported China's accusation, but none of the evidence for said accusation, which makes the accusation appear completely speculative.
 
Last edited:

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,076
Lisbon, Portugal
The idea that the HK protest is an independence movement is the stance both PRC and the west tries to portray. For the former, it helps the government gain the support of the Chinese masses and maybe crush the protest if it ever came to that. For the later, its the typical attempt at portraying China as repressive and fragile, ready to break apart. The same type of narrative is going on with places like Xinjiang and Tibet, most protests have nothing to do with an independence movement; a few extremists do not represent the entire population.
Most protesters in Hong Kong, IHMO, want just more transparency and universal suffrage in the local politics, not exactly total independence from China. And also, they want Carrie Lam to leave the office and make early elections. I don't see those positions as radical in any way, shape or form.
 
Last edited:

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
26,622
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Most protesters in Hong Kong, IHMO, want just more transparency and universal suffrage in the local politics, not exactly total independence from China. And also, they want Carrie Lam to leave the office and make early elections. I don't see those positions as radical in any way or form.
If Carrie Lam leaved the office things will be better ... This is sure.

All the rest is a different matter.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,576
Found this an interesting take on what seems to be going on:
Beijing’s game plan for crushing the Hong Kong protests is now clear | Sebastian Veg
Both:
The Hong Kong police have been given the task of suppressing demonstrations at any cost. [...]

Next, patriotic forces will be mobilised to reunify the extremely disunited pro-establishment camp: businesses will face disproportionate retaliation or boycotts if they do not actively oppose the protests; universities and public institutions in Hong Kong will be brought back under control through internal discipline. This will raise the cost of sympathising with and participating in the anti-government movement for ordinary protesters. Indeed, pro-establishment politicians immediately lined up behind Beijing’s wording, putting an end to calls for Lam’s resignation or an independent inquiry into police violence.

Finally, Beijing has engaged in a battle to turn public opinion in Hong Kong against the movement and to isolate the “violent extremists” from the “patriotic silent majority”, especially by highlighting the economic impact of protests. Depictions of the protests as instigated by “foreign forces” were stepped up.
And:
The protesters’ challenge will be to steer clear of responding to police provocations with violence – a pitfall they did not avoid during the airport occupation of recent days – and to keep public opinion on their side. Recent surveys show that the wider public is indeed concerned about the escalating conflict.

While the leaderless “be water” strategy has served the growth of the protest movement well, it has also emerged as a liability, because there is no forum to coordinate a return to non-violent tactics or possible negotiations with authorities. Finding an exit strategy is almost always the most difficult part of anti-government mobilisation, and it remains unclear how the spiral of violence can be halted now.
The protests are effectively leaderless. There are no individuals who have stepped forward and accepted an obvious leadership role. Which makes sense since such figures involved in the 2014 protests certainly have been punished by China. That itself is an indictment against China. Everyone now knows the stakes of becoming individually discernible to the Chinese government. Because there is simply no angle where the Chinese state can accept anyone who might even begin to represent a political alternative it might need, or indeed want, to negotiate anything with.

The Chinese government's strategy, if correct as outlined in here, certainly isn't bad and can certainly succeed, avoiding escalation up to an including military means. But an interesting aftermath is going to be to what extent it can co-opt the Hongkong courts for political processes for the punishment of protesters as suggested? Exactly the kind of thing that led to the protests...
 
Mar 2012
4,405
You say that the west seeks to represents China as an repressive regime then also state that China wants to "crush the protests"...perhaps the west isn't so wrong ;)
By distorting a social protest as an independence movement is not correct and misses the point. That's frankly because the media care more about giving China a bad name than the issue itself; as repressive as the CCP might be at times, protests are heard and sometimes acted upon; the regime at least lifts people out of poverty; both in China and abroad, which is more than can be said about most western countries when they deal with developing countries.
 
Mar 2012
4,405
The Chinese narratives about "extremism" all need be taken with shovels of salt.
Are you telling me that violent events such as the stabbing of 2008 in Xinjiang did not happen? Because no Uighur I've talked to or even the western media denied that. Or is that not extremism to you?
I also take western media on such issues with an equal grain of salt for the obvious reasons Hackneyedscribe mentioned.
 
Status
Closed