Hong Kong is a pressure cooker – every day huge pressures come from work, from school. In the summer heat, even breathing is hard. With this protest gets more violent, in addition to everyday pressures Hong Kong people faces a greater threat – to their livelihoods.
As the protesters target Hong Kong’s best institutions - train stations and airport; hotels and food service industries are crashing. As for retail, what is usually called the “Golden Week” - the week long holiday when Chinese tourists come to Hong Kong to spend, is no more. Business in every sector is drying up, and fast.
With economy tanking, there is anger from all sides spreading like wildfire over social media and tearing the community apart. It is now the protestors against the police, the young against the old, the have-nots against the haves, the Fujian clan against the non-Fujian and so on.
What started out as a peaceful protest for democracy is metastasizing into fist fights among people who used to live together without any conflict.
Many of the older generation see the most immediate threat comes not from China but the young protesters. They see train stations trashed, streets burnt, and livelihood being destroyed while protesters celebrate with American flags, pledging their allegiance to another country.
“Sorry for the inconvenience. We are fighting for the future of our home” – how can anyone fighting the for-the-home do so by destroying the home one is supposed to fight for?
20
Having just returned from China and engaged in dialogue
with mostly young educated people in their 20s I witnessed
no fear of dissent or the need for dissent. They are totally aware
of the cameras and other forms of surveillance which they find
benign and not something out of a dystopian society as viewed
by the West.
They are ,for the most part, satisfied with economic conditions
as they exist and saw no outcry for regime change or the
privilege of voting. What outsiders see as repression most young Chinese view it as a need to maintain order.
8
@J Stavros
Yeah, big brothers are here to protect you.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. — George Orwell
Communist China is not the same as Hong Kong. HK uses the basic law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Basic_Law
6
I agree with the Friedman's central point, but... compromise is not the only possible outcome. Tienanmen Square is another. To date China's hand has been stayed by the knowledge that if they did that to Hong Kong the effect on their relationship with the rest of the world would be disastrous. In today's atmosphere they are probably starting to wonder whether such a move would draw anything more than a verbal rebuke, delivered with a wink.
6
Excellent observations and analysis Mr Friedman. I hope the message gets out: Twitter and Facebook are OK as megaphones, but you still need to ORGANIZE!
Before sermonising on the topic, perhaps Mr Friedman might want to read up on some other stories in NYT that provide a better perspective on the protests and Beijing’s propaganda wars to demonise them.
Here is a very illuminating one in today’s edition - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/18/world/asia/hk-twitter.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage
Regarding 2014 'compromise': apparently Mr. Friedman has much more faith in a "President for Life' to keep his word then Honk Kongers.
The main lesson of the latest episode of riots in Hong Kong is to understand what drives terrorism. The behavior of the mobs of masked thugs is secondary, although businesses & infrastructures suffered significant damages.
The prime driver of terrorists is still "Ideology", which brainwashes the minds, especially of the young, make them converts, shape their identity. Education is synonymous to brainwashing. Same as how jihadists are groomed at madrassas or self-radicalized fighters buy into online propaganda.
Since Britain returned its colonial opium trophy back to China, the latent virus left behind is the one-country two-system agreement. Left intact are colonial government administrators, school system overwhelmingly ran by Christian churches with links to USA & UK, safe place for foreign agents, and a high court almost entirely void of Chinese judges, etc.
And the ideology? Universal Suffrage Democracy. Also western Christian faith. All taught at the schools. For those who watched how such ideology yielded Brexit in UK & Trump-GOP in USA, it's all delusional and wrongheaded of course. But to anyone already sold on such ideology & under the influence of Confirmation Bias, including Tom Friedman, Hong Kong is trashed for just cause.
Luckily China already decided that Universal Suffrage Democracy is a terrible idea, correctly. So no deal. 2047 is not that far away. Yes, it's another social media revolution that'll end in failure.
The HKers or their supporters in the comments seem to have forgotten the one China part in the one China two systems design, and don't seem to think "one China" has consequences. HKers should think hard what one China means to them. It's common sense any political freedom should be paired with stronger recognition of one China. Mainland Chinese might or might not support more political freedom for HK residents, they sure would not stomach HK independence. Beijing is on the right side of Chinese people on this.
Of course perhaps you don't accept the one China premise. Fine. Then it's everything goes. China certainly then has the right to forcefully take back HK.
But the HKers want to have it both ways, subverting the one China principle while clamouring about mainland's foul play on two systems. If Hikers want autonomy, then they have the responsibility to find a way to consolidate one China principle. With that, two systems would then naturally come to fruition.
It's not like it's mission impossible. It's not like HKers will have to submit to CCP indoctrination either. One nonpolitical way to embrace and acknowledge the one China principle is to open the border and allow mainlanders free settlement in HK. If the HKers have the courage to implement this, any system they want will be supported by Chinese people.
However I'm sure the pro-dem HKers would not support this proposal. Of course this only shows that they are paying lip service but don't really support 1C2S.
Which would you choose? Trump, Pence, or McConnell? I imagine it would have been a similar choice for Hong Kongers if they agreed to the 2014 deal. I would not ask that of you, and therefore, virtually meaningless choice for them as well.
21
@Maria -- If I had to choose between those three I would choose ... emigration. Which I did.
4
Anyone who knows China and HK first hand and understand what is really going on in HK hopes dearly that the the rioters, the bandits, and the vandals are beaten into the ground one way or another. The suggestion that is a grounds-up poetic liberal democratic revolution is ludicrous. Check out the NED credentials and trace out the CIA funding behind the scenes. Oh, sure, the kids are buying the riot gear with their pocked money from their parents. Yes, we believe that. The best that can happen to HK is the Armored Police parked in Shenzhen get off their posteriors on October 2nd and move it. It requires the HK government to take charged and call them in; but to stop anarchy, that is what it takes. A few years of martial law is what Kers need now. Too bad, they selfishly ruined their chances under the overly generous One Country Two Systems and opted for burning down their own city. What a bunch of dupes and low lifes who can only bust ticket machines and gang assault government supporters (you would not know what this is about if you only read the biased NYT). Anyway, the end is coming soon, finally! HK needs a break from civil war!
1
Hong Kong is a city-state and this is a movement. Neither will go away, yet now are both being sublimated to the powers that be although that pendulum will soon swing the other way for a much longer period of time. Better to observe it from a more proper perspective than a sap decision based on the here and now. We're not even in the fourth inning here ...
The Umbrella Revolt did have leaders, who were unwilling to compromise. I explain that by the religious underpinnings of their protest. It also can be explained, as it also true today, that you can only compromise with someone willing to compromise. The Chinese government has shown no willingness anywhere to compromise. Look at the South China Sea, for example.
When the fact is the leadership in Hong Kong or China has never compromised, why HKers are asked to compromise in every step?
When the names on the ballot are only Mosslinnis and Hilters, why would you call it a "better" system, when you merely given a choice of the same things?
When protesters are not touching Facebook with a 10 foot pole, why do you insist in living before Dec 19, 2016, the date the Americans have found out they have been sold out by Facebook?
When there are public opinion polls, how can you say the citizens cannot reach a "common ground" if there is no leadership in the movement. The leadership is THE PEOPLE, and their opinion is clearly reflected in the polls, and the approval ratings of this government has reached the lowest point in history, and dropping, it is a clear and loud indication of the people's will. Instead of reflecting, the government has attempted many times to shut down these polling organizations, they purposely blind and distance themselves to any common ground.
The people of HK are never a free people, at least in political terms, they are just asking very basic fairness in how the governing body conducts itself, do not call a sheep a dog that kind of things. And this very basic quest is being trampled on day after day, how could you ask the people to compromise further, when they barely have any ground to stand.
1
Very clear objective
5 demands, not 1 less
2
Change doesn't occur through street protests, it occurs through strategic community organization.
3
This is an arrogant article slyly supporting one side. Guess which side? Protestors are not stupid. They know they were not equals under the British. That doesn't mean they want to be the same as mainland China now, or less than. Most don't want to break from China...they just want a two system in one country that was part of the transfer agreement. Hong Kong was more diverse and more cosmopolitan than Mainland China. It was easier for South Asians, Anglos and Southeast Asians to become Hobg Kongers. Try that in Mainland China. You are always a foreigner under surveillance.
1
interesting you said HK wants one China. So how does the One China look in your head? Do you think it is one China when there is no right for mainland Chinese to freely settle in HK? To be honest, no free settlement => no 1 China => no 2 systems.
This is an arrogant article slyly supporting one side. Guess which side? Protestors are not stupid. They know they were not equals under the British. That doesn't mean they want to be the same as mainland China now, or less than. Most don't want to break from China...they just want a two system in one country that was part of the transfer agreement. Hong Kong was more diverse and more cosmopolitan than Mainland China. It was easier for South Asians, Anglos and Southeast Asians to become Hobg Kongers. Try that in Mainland China. You are always a foreigner under surveillance. Friedman lives in one of the most oligarchical cities in the world.
*Highly* recommended reading on the characteristics and difficulties of social movements launched through social media: Zeynep Tufecki's Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest.
https://www.twitterandteargas.org/
This "revolt' is a color revolution, promoted by the US government, just like in Ukraine.
Donald Trump's silence on the Hong Kong protesters speaks volumes.
1
At times like this, I can only lament : Where have you gone, Barack Obama ? A nation turns its lonely eyes, and hearts, to you.
Thanks, GOP. One word : Karma.
@Phyliss Dalmatian
Obama is busy collecting his millions. And no, he never much cared for democracy - in US or elsewhere.
Since you have been wrong about everything you ever said about mainland China, why not offer up your view on Hong Kong. They aren’t doing it correctly. Yawn.
1
I love Friedman, but the argument that Hong Kong should settle for a less than full freedom compromise would have made Jefferson’s message to England watered down to nothing more than a wimpy complaint, not a Declaration, and we would still be Loyalists.
1
An inability to compromise in a movement that is leaderless. Interestingly similar to the Democratic party in America. Just as is the case in Hong Kong, the D party should be focusing on one issue- defeat Trump. It has been unable to do so because its voters are unwilling to compromise on matters they consider most significant. The history of America is flush with compromise. Many of the most critical issues the nation has faced have been resolved by compromise, albeit not all being praiseworthy. America, and the world, no longer recognize compromise as a solution, in fact, many consider it capitulation.
7
@Disillusioned
This is rich. This D voter remembers when Obama ran on the principle of compromise and working with Republicans, whose SOLE governing principle was to prevent any Obama legislation from seeing the light of day. D's would have been happy for hearings to reveal or challenge the merits of the Garland nomination and, through the voting process see Republicans force Obama to compromise on a different choice. Name the issue and there is plenty of evidence that D's are willing to compromise on it. Republicans? Never.
7
@Disillusioned
“Many consider it capitulation”. Perhaps because that is what is being “offered”. It is impossible to compromise with yourself. Democratic congressional leadership offers legislative alternatives regarding health care, immigration, environment, infrastructure, etc. What potential compromise does Moscow Mitch offer? Destroy and maybe rebuild with no specifics regarding the rebuild and no input from Democrats. Is that the definition of capitulation? Yes, yes it is!
2
@James
Disagree. Describe the compromises made recently by Warren, Sanders, AOC....to their plans to "transform" America. If anything, they are anti-compromisers.
2
There is no official leadership because there is no democratic system for representation. And the deal you favor as "not awful" is designed actually to ensure they would continue to have no representation - that's why it was rejected.
Leaderless movement turns into anarchy which foments the rise of dictatorship headed by an autocrat to restore law and order. This happened during the French revolution and it also causes the rise of Vladimir Putin. A stable democracy requires the support of social order and it is exactly why there is a division in HK between those who want social order to make a living and those who demand democracy while maximizing the chaos. NYt generally slang their reporting on the side of the rebellious young people and ignore the stories from the opposite side in order to serve the interest of the US.
The Media often overlooks the cynical manipulation of mobs by various Governmental Agencies from various naitons.
Was Arab Spring a truly spontaneous sudden uprising of oppressed people willing to throw off the chains(after pretty much encouraging those chains for the past 70 years, 235 days, 43 minutes, and 5 seconds???).....or was it a CIA social media induced event?
What do the Russians think of a seemingly spontaneous eruption of protests in Ukraine over the election of a President that was pro-Russian? After all, many Ukranians do believe they are also russian....Nikita Kruschev for example...and Kiev was once capital of Mother Russia......Or was the CIA involved? experimenting with the new Internet capabilities for crowd manipulation?
We now tout stories of China and its Gargantuan Internet Security Structures that pull in MetaData on every soul on planet Earth. Hong Kong? is it spontaneous? or is it a Clash of Internet Titans? China's Peoples Army versus the CIA>??
"It was not an awful compromise because even if Beijing controlled what names would be on the ballot, whoever would win the voting would likely be candidates who promised Hong Kongers the most democracy."
Is the author serious? None of the pan-dems would have been permitted to run, not even the moderates. We would have been left to choose between the likes of progovernment stooges such as Regina Ip and Henry Tang. I suggest taking a look at the current cabinet of Cary Lam before determining that this would not have been an awful compromise.
1
Protests only work in a democracy.
...“the hot molten lava of this volcano is that many Hong Kongers self-identify as free men and women and they viscerally reject the ruling bargain the Communist Party has imposed”...
There are 24 million democracy-loving people in Taiwan that have enjoyed basic human rights and rule of law for a few generations. Their per capita income is 4x that of China. They did not give their rights away to achieve that prosperity. Think about that again.
Communist China has never ruled Taiwan, not for one fast Shanghai second over several millennia. ‘Reunification’ is impossible if there was never any unity. Pieces of rope never tied can’t be retied.
So what important lessons are all parties gaining from the Hong Kong ‘reunification’ experience?
2
Now that the immortal and beloved Cokie Roberts is done with things HERE, perhaps Heaven will loan her out to the warring factions in SE China.
THEN, because we're talking supernatural things, she can have them meet her in the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia to argue and fuss.
With Heaven, weirder things have happened.
Friedman, most of the media, corporations, Obama, Bush, Trump, Both parties, and the made a deal with the devil in saying how wonderful capitalist China was because of all the cheap goods we imported and ignored ( no, it wasn’t just 5 years ago) the quasi fascist society they have had the last 35 years only made worse with XI and its now fully fascist. We ignored human rights for the almighty dollar.
1
This is a very well-thought-out article. The fact is, Hong Kong is a part of China. There is nothing that anyone can do to change that. Anybody who thinks that HK should or can be fully independent of Beijing is kidding themselves. Remember why Hong Kong was founded in the first place. It was so the British could gain a logistics base to facilitate trade with China. There is no world outside of China for Hong Kong. That has always been the case.
I cannot help but note that only the westerners think Hong Kongers stand the moral high ground and are worthy of support. Please. Firstly, territorial integrity is everything to us Chinese. That is our moral high ground. That is also, geopolitically speaking, our strategic high ground. Secondly, the economy of Hong Kong would basically cease to exist if ties with the mainland were ever severed. The pro-Beijing faction is not stupid. They aren't supporting the capital for nothing.
Lastly. Are the so-called leaders of the HK "movement" proposing anything constructive beyond meaningless platitudes? I have yet to see anything concrete in terms of policy. They haven't even managed to draw up anything close to Woodrow Wilson's 14 points. They are the equivalent of Donald Trump's big talk. It's time the western media does its processed job, and do some real reporting that reflects this.
3
Communism is so much more than health care for all, a steeply progressive tax rate or public spending on transit and education.
In the end it is control over the entire society by a small group of adherents, at the end of a gun barrel or torture chamber.
Just look at what is going on in our own country when everyone has to pledge fealty to one person in control and you get a tiny idea of how quickly most people buckle in fear, dishonesty and alternative facts.
America made a deal with the devil in thinking they were going to move Chinese Communists along the path of freedom, just as it is nonsense to think todays Republican Party cares a whit about engaging in any compromise while they hold the Presidency, Senate and the Supreme Court.
Communists may want a better deal for all people, but in the end, it is a corrupt system of control and power that only benefits the sycophants and has little use for truth, ethicals or free expression.
Being a “child” of the 60’s, I witnessed first hand a true revolution that was done without the Internet or cell phones. Why was it so successful? It had one clear cut goal, and that goal was PEACE!
There were all kinds of factions and leaders, but the message was so clear that it was easy to join and support. Add to that the musical groups that carried the message directly to our souls.
You can never be successful using the “shot gun” approach to anything. This goes for Hong Kong as well as our upcoming election in 2020.
Focus on one or two things and then put all your energy into that and you’ll be successful.
Want to beat Donald Trump? Focus on one Candidate. Who is that Candidate that can beat Trump. You already know!
1
Any deals will probably be made by financial leaders in Hong Kong. China needs their cooperation to assimilate Hong Kong constructively.
These aren't really revolutions, just self-indulgent big talk with no real objective.
For all his glib words, Mr Friedman doesn’t really understand the situation on the ground in HK or for that matter anywhere else. For one, the protests in HK are not a social media revolution. They do use social media as a tool but that is no different from civil disobedience protests of past which relied on prevailing media channels of the time - print, radio and word of mouth.
Second, the lack of leadership of the protest movement evolved as a necessity after Beijing and its HK based stooges resorted to repeated prosecution of leaders of 2014 umbrella movement and started using judiciary and police as tools to harass and threaten the opposition leaders. Student leaders like Joshua Wong have been jailed multiple times over past 4 years and more than once for the same flimsy ‘crimes’.
Third, Beijing backed establishment leaders like Carrie Lam and CY Leung have never shown any willingness to compromise and more often than not have resorted to direct and indirect threats in their dealings with the opposition. Any compromise requires two willing parties but with Beijing telling its stooges not to give an inch, a compromise has never even been on cards.
NYT’s coverage of HK protests has been fairly balanced overall but sadly that can’t be said of the likes Friedman. He has a facility with words but often uses his pieces defending thugs and crooks like MBS and Huawei’s Ren who are only to happy to use celebrity columnists to spin their own side of story. Time to cut him lose.
1
I agree with Mr. Freidman's point that social media-driven protests are not the same as movements that will ultimately make a difference. I fully disagree with his tendency to then completely eviscerate the movement (or "comprimise") to the status of ineffectual. It is a liberal fallacy that to work out a resolution means to "compromise" a little here and there. Real change involves real change. Period. It means a closer attention to the interests of both parties, to be sure, but when there is an underlying power imbalance and zero sum game, as in Beijing retains control to call the shots, there is no "compromise."
2
This approach assumes the other side can be reasoned with, but what do you do when they refuse to recognize that you have power?
There's a relatively large body of literature on insurrections of the kind that Gandhi led that looks at how leaders aggregate and increase power and prestige. In brief, they pop their heads up, win minor ground battles, disappear back into the woodwork, gain adherents from their small victories, and then come back again for another skirmish, always keep the conflict from the kind of head-to-head, full out battle that conventional powers win. Think Minutemen at Lexington retreating to Concord, only to disappear into the countryside, regroup, and then fight somewhere else unexpectedly. This kind of approach does require both leadership and strategy, and that can't be developed from people talking to one another on the net. For one thing, that gives away plans. The secret is a progression of small victories that grow in scope and scale. The Hong Kong people can't win with street protests. They need some other way to show that Beijing is not in constant and total control.
...just like the Arab Spring in Egypt.
Technology is a tool...not the master.
People must get into a room together to connect, converse, collaborate and create together in any endeavor.
People in the streets is a wonderful thing...that's the least we could do here in the U.S. based on the state of our nation right now!
But people "in a room together" is just as critical...so real leadership, alliances, loyalties and the connection of our shared humanity happens.
Revolution...is the evolution of people "working together in community;" people claiming their power together...not via cyber space.
We are physical beings in a physical body, in a physical world...for a reason.
Like the planet, the people of the planet are in a fever. And even if the fever of some of those people can be reduced or at least hidden (China), my guess is that even that "remedy" is temporary and may very well end up causing a greater sickness.
In other words, we're doomed, one way or another.
Mainland China and Hong Kong may have differences in political culture, but the march toward greater freedom and democracy is inevitable for both. See how much of eastern Europe has embraced democracy after centuries of autocratic rule under Kings, Emperors, Czars, various dictators, Fascist and Communists.
With so much emphasis on education, small families, influences from the outside world (study abroad, travel outside of the country, migration, international business and tourists) and economic growth; there will be demands on Beijing to open up more and more.
Several years ago I spent my summer hammock time reading about China. I am a fast reader and consumed many books. This is one take away. China is obsessive about their traditional boundaries. That is why they could not compromise about the cultural differences of Tibet. If it is China, then it will act like China. Hong Kong is also part of traditional China, so it will act like China. Eventually, this concept will reach Taiwan. Places that are outside of China do not matter, which is why Korea has never been assimilated. This is an impossible concept for the Chinese, since they are seen as "the other." Hong Kong is China and its assimilation is mandatory for the future, according to their concept of self.
1
@Kuhlsue
"China is obsessive about their traditional boundaries."
The CCP is obsessive more about money and thought control. Beijing will not compromise because of money. The CCP doesn't care traditional boundaries. Have you read about the Big Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution?
The CCP is only 70 years old that is representing China at this moment. Before the CCP, KMT was in charge of China. KMT still exists in Taiwan. A party is not the same as a country. Hong Kong is 178 years old. These are good links to learn about the history, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fMriboCeUs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hong_Kong
As for Tibet, Jangling Li wrote a good book; she has articles on NY Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/world/asia/china-tibet-lhasa-jianglin-li.html
1
A major problem, too, is that Hong Kong is a mouse sitting at the very lips of the lion. The lion's tolerance for it has unpredictable limits.
2
Mr. Friedman, don’t you think that the people of America should be doing what these brave people are doing, before we lose the freedoms to protest. I certainly see this on our horizon, like in Russia, like on mainline China?
God help and be kind to us if this thing is re-elected! Amen
1
@George: What these people are saying is they do not want to be tied to Bejing and under its control.
That sort of sentiment periodically arises in the US - something to do with not wanting the central government interfering in their affairs.
1
The HK protests have already been partially successful with the regime rescinding the bill that ignited the protests. The protesters are trying to get the other points.
2. that Lam resigns
3. that the rulers stop calling them "rioters" or worse.
4. universal voting for the council and executive (If you believe in the voting, this may sound reasonable. Do you believe?)
5. an independent inquiry into the police violence against protesters; freeing protesters captured by the regime (Wouldn't that involve holding top regime officials responsible?)
These are not maximalist. E.G., the regime rules 1.4 billion people without consent. The person growing up finds this regime ruling them. Thus, the conditions necessary for consent to be even possible do not obtain.
Yet, ending the regime is not one of the points. Furthermore, the regime stated it won't give in on any other point. Thus, any negotiations under such conditions are unavailing.
Friedman cites the failure of Egypt's 2011 revolution. It was not spontaneous, nor leaderless. It ousted Mubarak. A year later Kerry gave El-Sisi the green light for his coup d'etat, with Kerry pontificating that El-Sisi, now Pres. Trump's favorite dictator, was "restoring democracy."Thomas Friedman's example doesn't support his argument.
(As an aside, somebody might wish to inform columnist Paul Krugman that Democrats don't believe in democracy any more than Republicans, but why rain on his partisan parade?)
5
@JA Brown: "Friedman cites the failure of Egypt's 2011 revolution. It was not spontaneous, nor leaderless. It ousted Mubarak. A year later Kerry gave El-Sisi the green light for his coup d'etat, with Kerry pontificating that El-Sisi, now Pres. Trump's favorite dictator,"
Right, Egypt should have stuck with the Muslim Brotherhood. That was the ticket to democracy alright...
Egypt dodged that bullet and even hinting Egypt should have continued following that path is insane.
I find the "culture of compromise" and its close ally, the "culture of centrism" in politics, to be false idols, since they are easily distorted and usually end with only frustration. If the Hong Kongers were to compromise, they would go back to being loyal subjects of Xi Jinping -- not what they want.
We had no compromise with the Brits in America in 1776, and yet we gained independence. In a compromise, King George might have lowered the taxes on tea for us, in return for our remaining loyal British subjects. I'm sure glad we didn't have Ben Franklin cut a deal.
The modern tools of technology, supposedly empowering to the masses, have enabled security/surveillance states to control information, troll people and ideas they don't like, and identify anyone who leads or participates in protests. It has become more risky and difficult for anyone to oppose a regime.
My heart is with those Hong Kongers yearning to be free, but Beijing has too much power and control to allow that to happen. Big Brother is watching Hong Kong.
3
A HKexit is a scary thought!
Easy for people to say HK should be independent.
But when all your income comes from doing business in the mainland, and all your food supply and water supply comes from the mainland, tax revenue comes from tourism from the mainland and selling houses to the mainlanders. Not to mention that mainlanders use HK to get their money out of China.
Then suddenly HKexit looks a lot worse than Brexit and a total nightmare. Caveat Emptor!
3
I could foresee this moment years ago, when inequality and living conditions for the majority of Hongkongers were deteriorating. Whereas people in HK used to look down on Mainlanders, it is quite the reverse now. They pity our tiny living space and our slave like existence of long working hours and stress. People in HK on the other hand blame the rich mainlanders for pushing up housing prices, and the poor mainland immigrants for draining the welfare system. Whereas mainland residents have seen a massive improvement in their standards of living in the past 40 years, HK residents have seen the reverse. The glory days of HK was 30 years ago, when the British was still in charge. No wonder people here have more allegiance to the British than to the CCP. But the situation is really of our own making. Allowing the tycoons to dominate the local industries has created the inequality while stifling competition and innovation. The Chinese government understands this and is hardly likely to allow more political freedom because of this lack of allegiance.
"When Hong Kong was directly ruled by Britain, a democracy, we knew their political system and that they were just not sharing it with us." I guess this implies HK is better off under the British, because Britain is a democracy. But Britain was a democracy when it was the biggest slave trader, drug trafficker and imperialist in the world. Democracy does not imbue one with morality or righteousness.
4
@Adrian This hit home about what's causing the chaos.
All people want democracy, the right to think and act for themselves without the heavy hand of authoritarian rule hanging over their heads.
And in this age of instant communications and awareness, this ‘want’ is more global than ever.
Hong Kongers want self determination. Women in Saudi Arabia want to drive, self-expression, and the poor people of Venezuela simply want to survive with their dignity. But they all want what they do not have.
Authoritarian leaders who are acting according to yesterday’s paradigms are sorely mistaken. They may hold down their people for a while but their actions are ultimately doomed to fail.
And the longer these leaders hold their people down, the more peril these leaders lives are in. At some point, something will snap and these leaders will find themselves hanging upside down in the town square.
The human spirit and resolve is just too powerful.
People of Hong Kong, keep your resolve. Oppressed people everywhere, there is hope. Never give up.
5
I knew from day one this movement in Hong Kong was doomed for the reasons outlined in this column. There are others like the resistance movement in Syria and Occupy Wall St. with as many goals it seemed as there were people camping out. To celebrate leaderlessness shines the way toward a dead end. And lets hope people don't end up dead. Don't people ever look to history's failures to organize a way forward? Oh I forgot...no leaders no organizers either.
4
"The only possible outcome is a compromise."
I disagree. The only possible outcome is eventual independence for Hong Kong.
I lived in mainland China for seven years and visited Hong Kong many times, and know many people from both sides. It's not economics or democracy, though those play a part, but culture that's driving the protests. In 155 years of British rule Hong Kongers have become a culturally different kind of people with different value systems than mainland Chinese.
The closest analogy I can think of in the West is Germany. East Germany was under a communist regime for a mere 45 years; for nearly 30 years now they have been reunited but still cannot erase their differences caused by those 45 years. They are still, in effect, two countries. And that's only 45 years; for Hong Kong we are talking 155 years
Although independence for Hong Kong is an impossible dream right now, for Beijing it's unthinkable. Compromise all you want, but these differences will keep simmering, perhaps for decades, until it finally happens.
88
@Bob H
I agree with you. Hongkongers are NOT going to be better if they compromise their values. The CCP will use this example to chip away their rights more and more, until there is nothing left.
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." —Thomas Jefferson
Germany is a good example. I went to Germany last year. I lived in Hong Kong over two decades.
6
@Bob H
Mainland Chinese outnumbers Hong Kongers 200 to 1. When 1C2S comes to an end and immigration restrictions are lifted, the diffusion of people will remove any culture differences within a generation.
14
@Bob H
Were full democracy on the table, would you still favor separation, or integration? That's a good place to start. In my understanding, Thomas's compromise is the way to get there. We deal with necessary evil in this world.
I don't know about Germany, but I think the Civil War and Civil Rights Act of 65 made America better, and that's a moral argument, not a pragmatic one. Sometimes we know the right thing to do before we have a plan.
-J
2
This is putting the cart before the horse. If there had indeed been "leaders" not only would the spirit of this revolt been different, with much less emotional staying power, but the leaders would have been quickly silenced, probably by being jailed. And then the people, not used to what's turned into their spontaneous, slippery nature ("Be water") would have floundered. They have not floundered. Yes, there's been too much violence. But keep in mind how utterly unique this situation is. In any other country led by dictators or autocrats the people would have been erased on Day One or Day Two.
64
I have been in Hong Kong since the beginning of the Movement in June. All violence was caused by the Police, and their power of using violence was all handed down by the Bejing Communist Chinese Party. The Police perpetrated themselves to be Protestors and did all kinds of destructions on the streets, aiming to mislead the Public and let them think that it was the Protesters who did them. The Police were also attacking ALL passengers inside the MTR. Lots of them got beaten up bloody Mary, few missing after got beaten up and cannot be found without a trace. Because the Police ordered the MTR company not to release the CCTV. We suspected that the corpse have already been removed from Hong Kong territory secretly. The CCP then use their owned- state media, social media, and Newsapers to spread the fake news to their own Mainland Chinese citizens in China that Hong Kong Protestors were "on riots." The Mainland Chinese in China basically being lied for bluntly when all Hong Kongers knew what the whole truth were. Sadly, the Mainland Chinese never had a chance to know the Truth ever since they were children because their govt. would either alterate or erase History in their curriculum and they want the citizens to GLORIFY the Chinese highest Officials. The CCP 's great fear is letting their people to know the Truth of what is Actually going on regarding how the World perceive their own government. The CCP wants to cover up their evil acts. Hong Kongers has had enough.
6
My wife and I visited Hong Kong this past February, and a cab driver told my wife that Hong Kong was under grave threat from Beijing. In the context of experiencing this magnificent city-state, I had the sense that he must have meant some time in the future. I was shocked to see things come to a head so quickly. There is only one Hong Kong, Mr. Friedman, and it is not the apparatchiks doing the bidding of the Communist Central Committee. Hong Kong has fewer people than New York City, yet literally millions have taken to the streets. It is appalling that Hong Kong has no champions of consequence in the West. Every leader in the world who claims to value human rights and human dignity should be unequivocally on the side of the Hong Kongers, insisting that if China will not honor the rights and freedoms that the Hong Kongers have carved out for themselves then the only option is to recognize Hong Kong independence.
105
@Charles
Hong Kong independence?
Good luck with that.
3
@Charles. They will never be independent. Why would China give them up?
2
@Jackson
Mr. Friedman said "... the great mistake that autocrats regularly make is thinking that they can thrive indefinitely..." Hongkongers are waiting for this moment.
Do you remember what happened to the Berlin Wall in 1989?
2
The article misses a huge reason as to why the new protests are so chaotic and leaderless. In 2014 we had the largely peaceful Occupy Central/Umbrella Movement protests which led by several mild mannered academics and religious leaders who explicitly modeled their movement on Gandi and MLK. Over the past several years the government has jailed these leaders on absurd trumped-up charges like "inciting others to incite others to cause public nuisance". So this time around protesters have explicitly avoided appointing leadership. The lack of leadership isn't about Facebook, it's a response to repression.
219
@RichardW
I agree. In 1957 Mao said,"Let a hundred flowers blossom, let a hundred schools of thought contend," and 6 weeks later had "enticed the snakes out of their lairs", hundreds of thousands of people were arrested and executed or sent for "re-education". Any apparent leader of the current unrest would, soon after meeting with Ms Lam, find themselves, and probably their families also, similarly treated.
Unfortunately, the UK / China Basic Law agreement was drawn up to explicitly exclude full democracy for HK, so like it or not China rules.
16
@RichardW
The Occupy Wall Street movement attempted the same. There are several academic studies of that approach by now. As this article suggests, the impact of social media and traditional media has evolved to take the 'bite' out of street protests, even when destruction of property is added to the tool bag.
Count the number of letters to this articles compared to two months ago.
The world is yawning and moving on to the latest buffoonery of democratically elected leaders. If you elected one yourself, do you really think anything would change?
5
@Alun Hughes -- not exactly. It is true that the British system excluded full democracy -- Legco was just a staff function of Exco -- but one third of the seats in the legislature were reserved for democratically elected officials. The Brits tried to expand this prior to the handover, but the Chinese caught them in their own trap -- by insisting on a continuation of the status quo. As a result, there is still a large element of democracy in HK. China does not rule absolutely. Yet. Of course, they are trying to snuff out that one third of members who are democratically elected.
6
As many responses point out here leaders can indeed be jailed. However they can leave behind a set of goals with priorities on pursuing them. I suppose that may sound like compromise but using media to flood the streets with people demanding very broad and general demands or dozens of smaller complaints is sort of Friedman’s point—it is unlikely to result in any real progress in this political and power context and reality.
11
The decision to not have leaders or structure reminds me of the 99% movement. That movement had a very rational platform, but ultimately it collapsed because the social media is only a tool for building momentum. It takes a structure to survive a slump and endure. An interesting observation for me over the post 99% movement is that there has been an effort to make sure that the working class does not unite again to challenge the elite. We can see this not only within the racial jargon within the Trump movement, but also within the liberal media and the not-so-enlightened educational institutions which have been promoting terms like "white privilege" and "white fragility," which on average make working class whites less sympathetic toward racial injustice and are a gift to the Trump movement. Yes, there are advantages to being white in our society, but it is hard to see this if you are hopelessly in debt with a dead end job. The term "white privilege" is actually just as racist as stereotypes that infuriate racial minorities. So racism is being promoted on both sides. The word privilege should be reserved for those who are born wealthy and can get into an elite school because they have connections. Xi Jinping does not need to use overwhelming force to outlast the Hong Kong democracy movement. He has time and his ability to control propaganda on his side. If he is wise he will continue to be patient and kill the movement the same way movements are killed here.
26
@Robert Scull,
Thing one: "Yes, there are advantages to being white in our society, but it is hard to see this if you are hopelessly in debt with a dead end job."
It is hard to see, until you realize that as a white person, you don't have to continually justify your right to exist in any context, whereas if you are not white, you normally are compelled to. This, no matter what social or economic stratum you belong to.
Thing two: The word "privilege" should be used according to its accepted definition, which in this case, it is.
4
This article misses the dynamic evolution of the periodic outbursts of opposition in HK since the 1997 return to Chinese sovereignty. At every turn, the population has been able to halt specific measures that would have eroded their freedoms, but have failed to achieve any systemic political reform. As a result, alienation increased and each succeeding round of demonstrations has been larger and more broadly based. In 2014, HK followed the classic mainland playback of waiting out the demos, then neutralizing the leaders by sending them to jail, or disqualifying them from elected office, or forcing them into exile. The government won each battle but is losing the war. The current round is the largest since 2003. Participants hide their identity their identity to the extent possible and operate without a defined leardership. This is a specific response to the 2014 experience and its aftermath. Friedman is correct that it's difficult to negotiate without public leaders, but it is not difficult to imagine measures the HK government could take to meet enough of the demands to resolve the situation peacefully. Beijing is not giving them Lam the political room to act and will have to live with the result.
3
There are three powers that rule human existence, in any irder or combination: religion, the military, and the corporate conglomerate that sustains them. Every “revolution” in human history has ultimately failed to break their chokehold.
3
Americans in particular are big on democracy and human rights, by default I should say, because you don't have history. And I don't mean history in a book. I mean history in your blood.
1
"When Hong Kong was directly ruled by Britain, a democracy, “we knew their political system and that they were just not sharing it with us."
This should be drummed into the heads of those ignorant Americans who comment on these articles/essays on the Hong Kong protests and claim that "Hong Kongers" are protesting because they had lived in a democracy before 1997.
Wrong. The Chinese Hong Kongers were subjects of the British and second class at that. So stop it.
5
@Mimi. Then I guess they aren’t giving up democracy because they never had it - and never will.
@Jackson
Their protests are not rooted in a desire for democracy. The source of their despair is economic, cultural, and feeling abandoned by Britain. That's what you should glean from learning more about Hong Kong's history than the superficial media coverage.
Subjects indeed. However, an analogy. Life is better as a dog in the US , than a human in Yemen or Congo. A HKer considers himself as better suited as a ‘second class’ citizen in a first rate political and social system (British) than an anachronistic resident of HK city under a limited term 1 country, 2 systems regime.
You are wrong in your assertions about there being 3 systems. In HK there is supposed to be the HK system. The "conservative pro-Beijing Hong Kongers, who dominate the local administration and accept the limited democracy rules inherited from Britain" you are referring to do not exist. There are Beijing puppets dominating the administration, and they are trying to erode the system that HK inherited from its colonial days, that these Beijing puppets are trying everyday to undermine, and that the protesters are trying to preserve. "Two systems" is supposed to refer to the system across the border in China, and the system in HK that China is not supposed to interfere with. Just like they would tell you Carrie Lam has full autonomy and makes her own decision so they can wash their hands of whatever atrocities Carrie Lam's police thugs commit, as she herself has confessed from her leaked tape, she is nothing but a puppet.
3
Apparently you have not studied the history of the CCP. To compromise with it is to surrender. That was what happened with the KMT resulting in the subsequent disastrous loss that plunged tens of millions into untold suffering (with no cameras watching, unlike at the Tiananmen Square) from 1949 until Mao’s death made possible the opening of China in the 1980’s that finally removed the chains and released the energies of the Chinese people. However, without the rule of law, the practice of crony capitalism has rendered the country morally corrupt, with people distrustful of each other, constantly weary of scams and fake products while pursuing wealth at all cost. Is it any wonder that the people of Hong Kong and Taiwan reject this kind of uncivil society ? Xi is now attempting to emulate Mao, going back to the time of the Cultural Revolution, striking fear in the hearts of Hong Kongers. I am disappointed in you acting as a naysayer.
4
“Social Media” does exactly what it was designed to do: it opens human interaction to monitoring and manipulation. It doesn’t enable a grassroots movement. It may help a movement develop more rapidly & spontaneously, but it also makes it more vulnerable, superficial & ephemeral.
4
Finally an honest review of the 2014 NPC decision. Unfortunately, so many hkers have been blinded by their own misinformation, by their hatred of China, of which HK is a part.
2
It's not at all clear if democracy would work in a large diverse nation of 1.3 billion people. The "silent majority" in China (and Hong Kong) seem to be content with accepting less freedom for more prosperity. Young protesters seldom have a sense of history, but there are still Chinese alive today who remember the 1930s when China was divided by rival governments and war lords. Nobody wants the death and destruction that came with that chaos again.
1
This article blames social media for the protest movement not producing any leaders - what a baffling statement! The movement has leaders, for example Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow - and they were arrested by the authorities at the beginning of this month.
Let's be clear, the issue not an absence of leaders in the protest movement, it's the implacable nature of authoritarians in Beijing.
5
"To get rich is glorious, but to speak your mind is dangerous."
beautifully said
3
@gabriel
Jack Ma is a good example. He loves the CCP so much that he gave up his fortune to the party. Now, he just wants to go back to teaching. Let's see if he can even moving out of China.
It's a universal feature of social media, including platforms like NYT comments. Each platform, or each area of each platform, becomes a realm of group think. The Times itself tries to fight this, when it promotes an 'opposition' view to the main dynamic. But that actually shows how these things work.
Sometimes group think has the right idea. It almost never has things figured out.
I suspect the inherent anonymity of social media promotes the rise of angry mobs. If platforms invested in efforts that made users identify themselves, it might help. Of course, under some regimes that might cause self-censorship. But it would also separate the brave from the cowardly. I, and many others, believe that many online shouters are cowards.
Of course we're all groping for answers.
1
Most of us in the West long to see democracy and justice spread, and certainly we view China as the first target of these wishes,
But we need to be far more realistic and pragmatic, Hong Kong will not achieve the goals it wants to achieve, certainly not now, The consolidation of power under Xi, the trade war with the US, yes, it's a war, and the rise of Chinese power and influence around the world all preclude any real change,
There will come a time for progress and we hope sooner rather than later, but this was an idea born at the wrong time,
3
@Ira Cohen We don't even have democracy in the US, we have a corporate oligarchy. Lets start with fixing this country before we start telling other countries what they should do.
5
We can barely hold together a republic at 350 million, what makes you think a billion people plus can handle democracy?
1
@MDM. Really? I didn’t know you couldn’t vote. You don’t even know what corporate oligarchy means.
"These modern movements are crowdsourced but also crowd-enforced, and that’s intimidating for anyone who wants to make a deal."
There is nobody offering a deal.
There is nothing to consider, nothing to compromise on.
We don't know they couldn't, because they've had no chance to try.
2
The observations of Thomas Friedman about the value, the limitations and the dangers of social media are clearly true.
At its best, social media is like a large vessel into which ideas and expressions of freedom are poured, but the flow into the vessel is so uncontrolled that it spills over, turning freedom into anarchy.
At its worst, social media is vehicle for providing propaganda in the guise of information or news. It is a useful tool for tyrants.
Hong Kong is a slow-motion tragedy in which we are watching democracy die. The remarkable progress of China towards a form of democracy and then the rapid regression under Xi Jinping is expressed in the microcosm of Hong Kong.
In our commercial dealings with the Chinese leadership, as vacillating and illogical as those dealings are under Donald Trump, we certainly can find time to make the precarious lives of the Hong Kong citizenry a topic of discussion with and pressure on China.
1
Mr. Friedman misses the point. Social media is imperfect in that although it's an effective tool for inciting and directing demonstrations, it doesn't do much in terms of negotiating an end.
However, that doesn't militate against its use in fomenting revolution any more than handbills during the runup to the American Revolution.
If and when the Chinese government decides to negotiate in good faith, [a naive proposition I suspect], a group of leaders/organizers will likely emerge.
Even then, for reasons of safety and continuity, they'll need to negotiate, perhaps anonymously, on neutral soil, and be prepared to live in exile for the rest of their lives.
2
When tens of thousands gather in the street, it is easy to overestimate your representativeness. In Egypt, the liberals, who started the 2011 revolution, got only 4 percent of the votes in the only free election ever held in that country.
In Hong Kong, many middle class people are hurt by the fall in revenues from tourism and closed shops while the youth fight in the streets. These are the same people who need to be on board in order to make lasting change.
Alliances have to be built with the merchants, civil servants vendors and laborers. Goals have to be few and realistic. With the majority of the Hong Kong population taking action, simple strikes will force the demands through. A bunch of idealistic, selfie-taking students will regrettably be too easy to crush.
2
@Jon Erland Madsen
These middle class people seem not even to exist if we are to take what we see in the US press as "coverage" of the the disorder in Hong Kong. It's all about the disrupters.
@Jon Erland Madsen You are assuming the elections were free.
Wait, so are you saying that Hong Kongers should have taken the deal offered in 2014 because they could have used it as a springboard for incremental progress later on? Or if they had taken the deal at least they would have SOME semblance of a vote? Really? Since when has that been the way the CCP operates? Since when has the CCP’s long game approach ever been anything but a one-sided strategy?
Can’t wait for next weeks column explaining why the one country two systems approach is really the best thing for Taiwan.
11
A good article indeed. Whenever any new policy is proposed anywhere, the right question to ask is whether it is an improvement from the status quo. The wrong question to ask is if it is as good as some hypothetical pie-in-the-sky perfect solution which will not be achieved anytime in the foreseeable future.
5
The 2014 offer was not an increase in democracy, it was a reduction. All the candidates are picked by Beijing. Who cares if more people can choose which one. Whoever is chosen is already vetted as loyal to Beijing. Tough to argue taking that deal would have furthered any cause toward a real say in who leads Hong Kong.
12
Can't agree more.
What more, for those who knows anything about how CCP works, it's clear that the 2014 deal would have been the Final version of the "democratic" election system Hong Kong people would have had to keep until 2047.
1
@ABE
Their vetting committee would have picked one favoured candidate and an unelectable loser to run against him. It would not have even been a real choice on their own terms.
I recently ordered a pricey pair of eyeglass frames from a company in Hong Kong.
They arrived three days later, at significant cost saving to me, compared to the price I would have paid here.
I conclude from this transaction that, whatever else the demonstrators are currently doing over there, they are not abandoning their quest for a buck by giving Xi Jinping any further holds on them.
1
Very balanced and nuanced- one of the best analyses I ever read on the Hong Kong protests
7
A more balanced analysis on what is happening in HK than we have seen from the NYT. The 2014 proposal allowing universal sufferage with candidates vetted by Beijing would have been a great step forward. At that time Beijing's vetting would have consisted of ensuring the candidates embraced the one country two systems policy and would not advocate independence - pretty mild stuff in agreement with at least 85% of the HK population. (BTW, America's two party as opposed to China's one party system uses the DEM and GOP primaries to achieve essentially the same result and control over what kind of candidate with a realistic chance of winning people actually get to vote for see the torpedoing of Sanders in 2016 during the DEM vetting process.) Ideally, HK can walk back the vitriol of the last months and get back to the 2014 opportunity and move forward.
The whole goal of the two system approach is to allow both HK and the rest of China to benefit from the best of each system. China's leaders are nothing if not practical. HK's rule of law and freedoms are part of what HK brings to the table. China brings a rapidly developing extremely well educated population bounding along in technological, education, infrastructure, quality of life and enthusiasm. But it is still,despite claims to the contrary, a developing country. Something we have never seen before a developing country superpower. That's why it unnerves so many and that is why its relationship with HK is so important.
12
@Belasco "At that time Beijing's vetting would have consisted of ensuring the candidates embraced the one country two systems policy and would not advocate independence - pretty mild stuff in agreement with at least 85% of the HK population."
No. This was simply not the case. Beijing would have had the right to reject any candidate it didn't like. None of the Pan-dems would have been accepted and they weren't and still are not asking for independence (and neither is Joshua Wong for that matter). Many of the pan-dems still can't even travel to the mainland, let alone be accepted by Beijing as a candidate for CE!
7
@Belasco
How was Bernie Sanders ‘torpedoed’? Comparing the Chinese system to the U.S. system is a bit of a stretch. Otherwise your comment seems well balanced.
1
Hongkongers support for the 2014 proposal was at best lukewarm. And don't confuse it with primary system in the US where people exercise their free choice in choosing the finalists. In my opinion there'd be a better chance the reform proposal won confiance, had the previous CE elections not been severely rigged. People already knew who will win, as Chinese leaders arrive in Shenzhen to "advise" how the committee member should vote. Had they been exercising their free will, resulting in less definitive results, Hong Kong people might have trusted them with the job of vetting. The reform proposal lets each vetting committee member to vote for as many candidates as there will be on the final ballot, and candidates will have to win 50% of all votes. What that means is that the bloc voting in our past and current CE will dominate the process and you bet you will find the finalists have same number of votes as they are voted by the same committee members. tactical voting will be encouraged and the choice in our layman ballots will be Carrie Lam and two far right candidates. It doesn't take much to realize this is bad, possibly worse than what we already have in place, with the unpopular candidate legitimized by the polling process. In short, a poor design remains a poor design and with compromise a system becomes a compromised system
6
This image of Hong Kong protesters is astonishing. The colors, the expressions, the determination. I wish more Americans would march against the White House kleptocracy. And the protesters face tear gas and hoses. They are an inspiration to those of us who mainly whine about our broken democracy.
15
@Kate Kline May We have an opportunity to march against the kleptocracy on 9/20, specifically as it relates to our government continuing to subsidize the fossil fuel industry as it destroys our climate. I doubt the numbers will be as astonishing as the HK protests, but its a start.
Never compromise, my friends in Hong Kong.
Freedom is not free, but we cannot give it up at all costs. An inch of retreat can put you one hundred year imprisonments generation after generation. Find hope from what happened in America and France more than two hundred years ago and South Korea in recent history. In 1980, lots of innocent protesters were murdered by military dictators in a southern city of South Korea. Incessant fights against those dictators by young Korean people earned free election in 1987 eventually and a truly liberal government representing those fighters won the national election first time in 1997.
Chinese people have honorable history of resistance against communist dictators at the center of its capital in 1989. We have great Hong Kong protestors in 2019. Never stop fighting! Today’s blood of yours but anything else can give freedom to your sons and daughters.
12
Social media is emboldening rebellious movements against radical governments, and that they are doomed to fail, as in the Arab spring. However, I don’t agree on the the brexit, and other movements in democratic societies. Nobody should compromise with corrupted leaders of democratic systems. Friedman still doesn’t understand that the brexit and others are movements for democracy against economic oppression by the wealthy.
It remains evident most of these protesters possess an intrinsic desire for an independently elected administration.
Questions of sovereignty apart ; the international spirit of the younger generation remains key to a stabilizing compromise .
Here again we witness , the common good within human nature
determined by a recurring protest movement the likes of which
will be seen again.
Freedom at what cost?
1
It isn't entirely clear how protesters might compromise with an authoritarian regime bent on total domination both within and outside its borders. If the CCP has the capability to disrupt the internal politics of a firmly democratic country like Australia, which is thousands of miles away, how much easier is it for that draconian government to urge its unreasonable will on Hong Kong? It is a truism that reasonableness is the best option in a situation in which both parties are reasonable; but where differences are irreconcilable or where one party acts in bad faith, reasonableness may amount to political suicide. It remains to be seen if the success of the movement in Hong Kong is indeed comparable to the short-lived Arab Spring, or if the Hong Kong protests possess greater traction. And it seems unwarranted to assume that just because both movements employ(ed) social media that they will use this resource and be constrained by this resource in similar ways.
3
It ain't over. Let things play out. Community over acclaim
3
The Occupy Wall Street movement was an international progressive socio-political movement that expressed opposition to social and economic inequality, political corruption, and to the lack of "real democracy" around the world. It aimed primarily to advance social and economic justice and new forms of democracy.
And it failed. Now your country is run by gangsters and their stooges: Trump, McConnell...William Barr. And never was that more apparent than today when Corey Lewandowski testified (defied) before a panel of naive Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Rogers versus Dutch Schultz...
4
If they all fail, maybe they aren't really social media revolutions...just self-indulgent, wishful thinking.
5
@Raz
And maybe they are not what you say.
It's a tragedy what's happening in Hong Kong. It seems the Chinese government and its Hong Kong affiliates have wised up to the futility of Tiananmen circa 1989.
These authoritarians are more likely to look to the United States (circa 1968) for inspiration. There will be no Kent/Jackson State/Tiananmen-type massacres. But the movement will be heavily infiltrated by informers and agents provocateurs. There may be an occasional assassination like what the Chicago Police did to Black Panther leader Fred Hampton. Some people will disappear; others lose their jobs and be blacklisted. The soft power of the state will come down hard.
Violence will be fomented by people working for the government. And people who are identified as movement leaders will be arrested and face decades in prison - a la the New York 21 and Leonard Peltier.
J. Edgar Hoover was masterful in implementing his Cointelpro program. He stifled, discredited and splintered a popular national civil rights/anti-war movement. The corporations, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, the white patriarchy. the banksters, the national security apparatus -- what C. Wright Mills called the Power Elite -- retained power. The post-WWII North Atlantic empire was sustained, despite the mistakes it made and the barbarism it inflicted on Vietnam and in the streets of America.
China and its allies must have studied what happened here in great detail. If they succeed they will have learned from masters.
4
"It’s because anyone who visited China over the last 30 years knows that it is so much more open today than it was three decades ago — and it is so much more closed today than it was five years ago." Ultimately Xi Jinping holds a good deal of responsibility for the unrest in Hong Kong. His rollback of freedoms on the mainland along with his actions to undermine the term limits set by Deng Xiaoping and thereby set the stage for lifetime rule, I believe, has multiplied concerns in Hong Kong about coming under CCP rule. The extradition law that sparked the protests was the straw that broke the camels back.
13
As others have noted, the subtleties of the local situation, the use of prison that have resulted in a "leaderless" movement are far more significant than Facebook. Take, for instance, the new "Glory to Hong Kong" anthem, which was put forward without an author. People are hiding their identities but showing their bodies, their voices, and their spirit because to do so in a way that the local authorities can identify you can result in arrest, harassment, or a lengthy prison sentence (particularly for anything deemed connected to a "riot" which is related to one of the demands).
Here's the other thing missing from this column: in many ways, the protests seem to be working. The protestors do not seem anywhere near exhausted, the local government is getting pressure from Beijing and from the local businesses whose bottom line continues to be impacted, and the local government's responses have seemed wholly inept. If I were a local protestor, I'd feel pretty good about how things are going (for now, of course).
Any attention for Hong Kong right now is welcome, but Mr. Friedman will hopefully read these comments and reflect a bit more about the key contextual aspects that are very important to Hong Kongers.
27
Or just “another” freedom struggle that prominent media commentators in the US denigrate, undercut with their “realism” arguments and otherwise belittle with their focus on stuff that “really matters?”
Having brought us the path to peace in the Middle East, transformative regime change in Iraq, it’s good to see Friedman tackle other global matters.
7
It's not about wanting more democracy. It's more about protecting the Basic Law which guarantees Hong Kong citizens human rights available in other democracies from China's attempt to peel away those rights along with the city's autonomy. They also wanted to preserve their British-Cantonese cultural identity from being absorbed by the Mandarin-speaking Communist culture of the mainland.
There are people in Hong Kong who still missed the British. Although they didn't have much freedom back then compared to now, they nevertheless believed their city was better governed at a time when it was much more prosperous than the mainland. They've formed a movement seeking reunification with the UK and are the driving force behind the protest. https://twitter.com/hkukreunite?lang=en . Contrary to how it's portrayed in the Western media, the Hong Kong protest is actually a reactionary and not a progressive movement.
3
@JM So HK did not have much freedom under the British as compared to now and HK is more prosperous now than it was; it's irrelevant that HK was much more prosperous than the Mainland. While I support protecting HK's basic freedoms, why do people in HK miss the British?
@Patricia No, Hong Kong had all the freedoms given to any UK citizen except no right to vote.
Three points:
1) Mr. Friedman perpetuates the myth that Communist rule offers a path to prosperity ("To get rich is glorious, but to speak your mind is dangerous"). Mainland China remains vastly less wealthy than Taiwan and Hong Kong. China is rich only by comparison with its own dismal situation in the 1970's, which was entirely the Communist Party's fault. In fact, poverty and corruption are endemic in China, but domestic and foreign journalists are not allowed to investigate these problems to any meaningful degree.
2) Contrary to Mr. Friedman's assertion, Hong Kongers had an excellent reason to reject the Chinese government's 2014 proposal that they vote on candidates approved by Beijing: they refused to legitimize a sham process imposed by a regime they despise.
3) The protest movement is leaderless for an obvious reason: leaders have invariably been arrested by the Hong Kong authorities, acting at Beijing's behest.
I might add that it is particularly galling to hear Mr. Friedman, who enjoys the liberty to do and to speak entirely as he pleases, lecture those who, through no fault of their own, have witnessed the erosion of their own freedom and cling desperately to what remains.
130
@John Corey
The PRC economy from 1980 to 2010 lifted 400 million people out of poverty creating what is currently the world's largest consumer market and the largest middle class. An economic miracle unmatched in human history.
Mao didn't not inherit a wealthy economy; most of the wealth fled to Taiwan with the Kuomintang.
Were mistakes made by the CCP? Yes. But miracles too.
In the U.S. my son cannot now afford to buy the house my father purchased in 1960 for his 5 kids while mom stayed home, despite my son's superior education and better job. Dad worked for Ma Bell.
Capitalism with American characteristics. Our miracle.
13
Not true. China is still poor, yes. but it's GDP per capita ranking had risen faster and the most than any other countries. An especially revealing contrast is India.
6
@john
Between the CCP takeover in 1949 and 1980, Mao inflicted untold suffering on tens of millions via wrong headed policies, thought control, physical and mental torture..Tiananmen in 1989 was but a tiny blip, compared to the astrocities committed in previous years including the Cultural Revolution, without CNN cameras running. It was against this very low benchmark that the opening of China initiated by Deng Xiao Ping succeeded in releasing the pent up energies of the Chinese populace that resulted in the economic miracle. However, Crony Capitalism and the arbitrary application of law has resulted in a morally corrupt country, where people are not only distrustful of government but also with each other, where the pursuit of wealth by any means is a matter of course. Not surprising that the Hong Kongers reject this.
7
Real democracy demands the election of government through the free vote of its citizens, not the selection of candidates imposed by political, economic, religious or from any other interest.
This type of "democracy" largely explains the crisis of many governments in the West.
Freedom is not negotiable.
6
Mr. Friedman,
You make a good point about the lack of leadership of the current Hong Kong protests and how that effectively closes off the ability of the protestor to compromise.
But I would like to point out that after the 2014 Umbrella Movement ended, its leaders were all arrested and successfully prosecuted. The most severe were for legal scholar Benny Tai and retired sociology professor Chan Kin-man were each sentenced to a total of two years. Reverend Chu Yiu-ming, 16 months. Joshua Wong, Alex Chow, and Nathan Law were also sent to jail. The current "leaderless" tactic is really born out of the necessity of avoiding prosecution. Had Beijing had the foresight to sit down and negotiate and compromise with the 2014 Umbrella Movement leaders, it would not be unreasonable to say the current violent protests would have never occurred.
43
Every tactics has it's pros and cons. I agree that it's harder to make compromises in a leaderless movement, but also it's harder for the government (or CCP) to target the leader in a movement like this. Also, we all know that almost nothing good has came out negotiating with the government (or CCP) because fundamentally they DO NOT respect it. They declear the Sino-British Joint Declaration as historical document, they do not respect "One Country Two System", the stole intellectual property and copycat everything good etc.
So please, Mr. Friedman, in what faith that you trust the government, effectively CCP, will keep their words to the Hongkongers who they think they rule and own, in the so call democracy they offer in 2014?
Compromises with a demoncracy government is the way to go, but not compromising with a authoritarian regime is what we should do for now. If you're dealing with a bully, the only way to win, is to show him that you're not afraid of failure since you already have nothing to lose.
19
@Michelle Ku
Exactly, thank you! The CCP is the deal breaker.
I like what Mr. Friedman said "... the great mistake that autocrats regularly make is thinking that they can thrive indefinitely..." I hope it'll be over soon.
There is nothing to lose. Hang in there!
1
Beijing will not compromise because Hong Kong is not important. HK represents less than 3% of China's GDP. HK government does not pay any tax to the central government. HK has no technology, no manufacturing industry, and no talent that China cannot find on the mainland. HK's only advantage in finance is being replaced, now at a faster rate, by Singapore and Shanghai. Why would Beijing want to "negotiate" with teenagers throwing Molotov cocktails in their own city?
10
@Jason
Follow the Money, 70% of investment in China is done through HK. Hong Kong is indispensable to the continuing economic growth of mainland Communist China. Additionally, HK is the paradise for mainland Chinese and the Communist Party to get their money out from mainland China to Hong Kong and then to America, Canada, Australia and Europe.
"Aug 8, 2019 - About 70% of the capital raised on it is for Chinese firms, but strikingly the ... Most Chinese foreign direct investment flows through Hong Kong."
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/08/08/hong-kong-remains-crucially-important-to-mainland-china
Additionally, please read about the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992. It'll tell you the reason that Shanghai or Shenzhen can't replace HK.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/we-stand-with-hong-kong-11566341474
https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-mcconnell-china-review-1992-hong-kong-policy-act-2019-8
@Jason
If HK has no value to Beijing then Hong Kong people will be better. Beijing will not compromise because of money. HK is EXTREMELY important to the continuing economic growth of mainland China.
HK is the paradise for mainland Chinese and the Communist Party to get their money out from mainland China to Hong Kong and then to America, Canada, Australia and Europe. 70% of investment in China is done through HK. https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/08/08/hong-kong-remains-crucially-important-to-mainland-china
Additionally, please read about the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992. It'll tell you the real reason that Shanghai or Shenzhen can't replace HK.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/we-stand-with-hong-kong-11566341474
it's wishful thinking. As Donald trump would tell you, the powerful rules. HK can be easily replaced.
The young protesters in Hong Kong are risking their lives because they feel hopeless about their future. No middle class, no affordable housing, no spouse and kids. The system was set up by the British so as to enrich the rich further, just like we’re doing here in America. My hope is that President Xi will set up policies to improve the lives of Hong Kong citizens, such as government funded affordable housing and job opportunities throughout mainland China. To the protestors in Hong Kong, please protest peacefully or you will not persuade anyone in China that you feel you are better than them.
2
You misunderstand the situation, Mr. Friedman. Hong Kong has for 30 years had moderate pro-democracy politicians who would have been willing to cut a deal, had Beijing been willing to speak to them. But Beijing recognized no power but its own and froze them out. The 2014 protest movement had leaders and they ended up in jail. The current protest movement's lack of leaders is a self-protective tactic. Beijing brought this on itself.
36
Mr. Friedman:
Let’s not forget that universal suffrage was promised to HK people in the Basic Law. If China is sincere about holding their end of the bargain, they can still make it happen. They hold all the cards.
11
The compromised option in 2014 would end up Hong Kong people had fake choices to choose all three candidates similar to the existing CE and the world might think Hong Kong had real democracy but in reality it had none.
5
And they can’t even complain about it as it is their choice.
The most sensible article yet to appear in the Western media. Thank you.
3
"It was not an awful compromise because even if Beijing controlled what names would be on the ballot, whoever would win the voting would likely be candidates who promised Hong Kongers the most democracy."
This is incredibly naïve, Thomas.
Beijing would either
(i) nominate no one whose (covert) allegiance it was not absolutely sure of, even if niceties about "more local democracy" were spouted during the "democratic" show-campaign.
(HKers are not so easily deceived, btw. They *know* PRC, its MO; they simply do not want that as their future.)
Or,
(ii) Beijing would bring to bear all the pressures they are so adept at on the successful candidate, after election, were that candidate to prove too intractable.
Either way, the result, the same: a paste-on sticker
'democracy'.
CCP would commit collective suicide before it would allow genuine enfranchisement. The reason is simple: such would almost surely spell the party's own doom.
8
If a leader emerges from this movement, the people of Hong Kong understand how it could end, hint: Occupy Wall Street ‘s demise in NYC - yes in an already Democratic country!. Former Mayor Bloomberg sent spies to infiltrate the movement and was able to close it fast. Imagine what China would do. Just ask Ai Wei The people of Hong Kong can’t afford that.
A compromise will be reached that includes democratic elections. President Xi can’t afford a global public confrontation, not with a trade war in his hands, the sensitive global rejection of Huawei’s 5G Technologies and plan to open more military basis across the world, to follow the Horn of Africa's Djibouti military base established in 2017.
3
Mr Frieddman, would you yourself find it acceptable to only be allowed to vote on candidates handpicked by an authoritarian, oppressive regime? It is insulting that you suggest that the people of Hongkong make such a fruitless comprise that you yourself would surely find appalling. The idea that any of these candidates would deliver meaningful democracy to HK is markedly ignorant of history since the transfer from the British. HK people have no choice but to protest for a representative government if they want to live under a legal system that offers fair protections and freedom from political reprisal. No one should be asked to compromise on that front.
11
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
That is the most important and most beautiful line of our Declaration of Independence, a document historically and logically prior to our Constitution.
Do you see one word about compromise? It says that facing tyranny, you have the right to overthrow it.
In fact, rather than celebrating compromise with a satanic force, it says that it's not just your right, it is your DUTY to stand firm, not give an inch, and overthrow the abomination.
Hong Kong doesn't have the power to overthrow the thugs in Beijing. Gdansk (Solidarnosc) didn't have the power to overthrow its thugs in Moscow. But, Hong Kong can set the spark that will bring down the tyranny, just as Gdansk did.
China is quiet. It reminds me of the 50s, when Americans turned their backs on the radicalism of the 30s and 40s to wallow in the goodies of the postwar boom.
With the coming of the 60s that changed. More and more people wanted more than just to eat, get a pool, etc. There is more to life, and people aren't as stupid as regimes always assume.
The PRC will be overthrown. Sooner or later isn't important. And Chinese will remember the holy city where it began.
Glory to Hong Kong
10
The mistake HK demonstrators made was believing America was interested in supporting the 'spreading of democracy' where there is no oil.
14
The problem with "splitting the difference" with strong authoritarian regimes whose very existrnce depends on never allowing anything near a true democracy is that ... you never get anything near a true democracy.
Just Sisyphean cycles of a few hard earned small changes followed by a vicious crack down that push you back to the start if you get near close enough to see self-determination on the horizon.
3
It's way too early to be talking about compromise.
And whatever happens in the coming weeks or months, it is impossible for this movement to "end in failure"--as some have predicted--for the simple reason that these people aren't going away and they are not going to forget. The dynamics in Hong Kong have been forever changed.
6
To me - I fail to understand why PRC doesnt just wait patiently until 2047. Trying to mandate patriotic education (2014) and now extradition (2019) is a violation of the spirit of the Handover Agreement - one country two systems. In less than 30 years, HK will be swallowed whole by PRC without a second thought or commentary from around the world. Why would PRC risk trying to encroach early is beyond me unless they simply thought they'd meet with limited resistance.
3
@nsv
Do you even understand what it means by one country? Seems that these folks in HK only want the two systems while conveniently ignoring the one country part.
I don't how having patriotic education violates the agreement when HK is a part of China. i.e. One Country
Similarly, because an extradition bill was mooted because of the respect for "two systems", if not why even bother with a bill.
4
@Tom Patriotic education, in your mind, of course, would not include promoting the Communist Party of China and its accomplishments, just like it does not include promoting any particular party in the USA. Party leaders can claim the mantle of patriot all they want, but we don't teach in American schools, whether in South Carolina or Oregon, I hope, that Grover Cleveland was a better president than Abraham Lincoln because he was a Democrat. You would agree that that's not patriotism; it's partisan allegiance, something that a) should be decided by individuals, not inculcated into them by the government, and b) can change as one's views of the successes or failures in governance change, just like in Singapore, where the ruling party over the years has changed, according to the fully free, no holds barred, honest political discourse and democratic elections back and forth from the PAP to ...oops. I guess I was thinking of somewhere else, not Singapore. Sorry.
1
@nsv
Follow the Money! Hong Kong is indispensable to the continuing economic growth of mainland Communist China. Additionally, HK is the paradise for mainland Chinese and the Communist Party to get their money out from mainland China to Hong Kong and then to America, Canada, Australia and Europe. This is what they said: loving the Chinese Communist Party is a job, but living overseas is the goal.
"Aug 8, 2019 - About 70% of the capital raised on it is for Chinese firms, but strikingly the ... Most Chinese foreign direct investment flows through Hong Kong."
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/08/08/hong-kong-remains-crucially-important-to-mainland-china
I think the Hong Kong citizens are doing it just right and you are living in the past. This form of "protest", albeit new, and has demonstrated limited success "around the world", it is the only model that really has any chance of success.
The Chinese government will gobble up and compromise all known "leaders of the opposition" as they have done, like clockwork, for decades.
Furthermore, any so-called "deal" is 2014 was no more guaranteed then that any deal made today. That's why oppositions like Hong Kong, fighting against tyranny, can't cut "deals" with so-called leaders. The Chinese government will know they have a deal when Hong Kong citizens go home and resume the enjoyment of their lives, until the next time someone steps on their autonomy.
That's the new paradigm of protest.
15
I agree the protest movement, at the very best, would only get a compromise from their five demands that by the way are beyond the local authority's pay grade. On the other hand they cannot possibly propose a compromise at this point because to whom can they present that compromise, even if they have a leader? The will be negotiating with themselves, not a good place to start.
At the end of the day I am afraid the protesters will get nothing except possibly a bloody end without the explicit interference of the mainland military. The way they are leaderless (as they claim but I don't believe that) and the way the local authority is powerless to negotiate every one knows it will become a stalemate and no city can have that for long.
The protesters certainly have my heart but I fear for them.
2
Tom worries about who will lead the protesters to compromise?
If Carrie Lam offers compromise, the dialogue will begin -- not now when Lam has delivered virtually nothing.
The Problem is Lam/Beijing not respecting the people -- and Tom has become an armchair critic of the only tactic the people have - Reasonable people would stay home or leave HK -- The people in the streets LOVE their city and their way of life. Revolutions are not fought for by reasonable people.
17
Having a leader suggests the other side has a leader that can negotiate. The Hong Kong government has no such leader.
17
At this point, anyone in Hong Kong who wants political freedom needs to emigrate to the West. There is no way that China will grant Hong Kong protesters the political freedoms they want. It does, however, look like China is open to economic reform, starting with housing in Hong Kong. This 1st step is a good start to giving a bigger stake to those who have been left behind by the capitalist system inherited from the British, a system that created a self-serving billionaire class and a huge underclass in Hong Kong.
4
@RichardW but Martin Luther King was assassinated. Gandhi was repeatedly jailed. Nelson Mandela spent many years in jail before emerging as his country's new President.
I think if the leaders of Hong Kong's protest movement want to model themselves after these past leaders, they have to assume the machinery of repression will fall on their heads - and amplify their message in the process. Perhaps the "mild mannered academics and religious leaders" of the umbrella movement were simply a little bit - too - mild mannered?
This opinion makes many good points, but the idea of allowing Hong Kongers to vote on all candidates after all are approved by Beijing isn't one of them. Beijing could vet them all for allegiance to authoritarianism and then of course for each vote they are responsible to whomever allowed them to be on the list of approved candidates.
Having separate houses, one directly elected in this case and the other more answerable to Beijing, solves a a lot of problems. It was used in the US system to compromise on a particular problem but that doesn't mean it can't be used to solve problems in other countries too. The executive could be vetted by Beijing for about 15 years and then directly elected for the remaining years prior to 2047, representing the desire of all of China to be more democratic as time goes by. I know the last part isn't discussed and definitely is not favored by the current leader but I would think most other people would think it offers the best hope for China and all of the world.
1
Hong Kong's problem does not come from social media or the lack of leaders. It comes from China. Mainland China, which rules Hong Kong, is a Marxist country--despite the fact that it has embraced capitalism. Marxist capitalism sounds like a contradiction, but it exists. It is a combination of free markets and thought control.
Marxism has produced leaders like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the Kim Dynasty. Xi Jinping is part of this tradition. Xi has managed, so far, to create a Hong Kong that cannot achieve liberty. Liberty means that people are free to disagree with each other. Marx, on the other hand, looked forward to a world where everyone would think alike. Marxist rulers, without exception, have suppressed free thought.
17
@George Jochnowitz You say, "Marx on the other hand, looked forward to a world where everyone would think alike." Not being an expert on Marx, I did a little research. I could find no evidence that this statement is true or even remotely so.
@George Jochnowitz
You're so articulate. Thank you for point out the heart of the problem!
Xi wants to be Mao again. As Mr. Friedman said "And the great mistake that autocrats regularly make is thinking that they can thrive indefinitely..." I hope it'll be over soon.
1
@George Jochnowitz
I'm no expert, but I doubt very much that you can find a quote in Marx's writing that says what you claim he says.
This is one of Mr. Friedman's most insightful pieces - exposing the double edge sword of crowd-social: It give people voice, which impedes leadership and organization - because every subsegment has the voice to comment, attack, condescend & vilify.
Politics is the craft of compromise. Micro-empowerment via social media is the death of compromise. Leadership is the craft of trade-offs. Social media polarizes to all of nothing. Pandora has opened her box. We can only watch with horror as what happens, just happens. I wish us all luck.
1
@s.s.c. The solution is to run everything dynamically just like how zillions of cells in my body coordinate to write this message. There are a lot of issues with how to actually implement something like this but it could be done I think. But it will require all humans to give up the concept of the nation state.
If they are afraid of reprisal, then the best course of action is to cease protesting.
These are the loud minority. No one paid any attention to the silent majority whose wishes for a return to peace and normalcy are largely ignored by the Western press.
Westerner governments would not have tolerated the desecration of their public subway stations and their parliament building. Why weren't there condemnation of these actions by the Western press?
4
Kudos to Mr Friedman to write a balanced article on the issue.
The protest movement is hopeless because it cannot compromise. Beijing’s bottom line is a hostile government in HK and no amount of protest will change that as it affects the trajectory of the entire country. It is then no longer a master of a few million HKers but a billion Chinese. Because one of the demands is an absolute no go there is no incentive to comprise on the others points as well. When you are not open to compromise, don’t expect the other side to be either.
2
I've lived in China full-time for a decade and for 4 months of the year the 8 years prior to that. I've been in HK dozens of times. What has changed in HK is not politics, not being 'open' (a particularly inexact word) but economics. Young men in the street is almost always about economics or 'the draft'. HK boys are not being sent to fight in Vietnam, they have few good jobs and cannot buy homes and cannot find wives.
This situation will not change by elections.
Ironically, the solution to HK's economic difficulties is less than 10 km away from the riots. Shenzhen.
Integration into the world's largest consumer economy has provided jobs and housing and wives (though an insufficient number) to the young men in Shenzhen.
Go North, young man.
27
@john I don't think the issue here is simply economics. It's also about identity.
23
@Joe Chan
I'm guessing you are a young male.
For the older HK residents, unable to send their children overseas for an education, the issue is food, housing and healthcare. Adult issues.
We all have a tendency to extrapolate and protect our own concerns. Unmarried male identity is the least of society's concerns, but the foremost source of civil unrest.
3
@john It's not about economy. People are clearly willing to suffer a loss in a fight for democracy and freedom. It's about a unique Hong Kong identity that values freedom, different from the mainland. Judging from your comment it is likely you've never lived in Hong Kong. Try living here for about a decade and you'll start to catch the drift.
9
This is not a problem of social media organized protest. It is the problem that afflict just about any mass demonstrations during the Vietnam War, and inmost other "crowd protest". The power that be let the people " win" by allowing them to occupy buildings, streets, etc. Successive leaders become more and more radicalized and hold harder and harder lines because anyone who dare to say: " It is time to declare victory and go home." could hope to stay in power. This is the same problem the protesters in HK face now. No one who hopes to stay as a leader of the movement would willing "sacrifice" himself or herself by asking the protesters declare victory and go home so that they may have the chance to fight another day.
3
Thank you Mr Friedman for writing a balanced article on the unrest in HK. The August 31, 2014 Limited Democracy proposal would have been a great start for bringing democracy to HK. Remember, US voters had no choice in picking their presidential candidates until the 1970s, when Republican and Democratic state primaries were introduced. Until then, presidential candidates were picked in smoked filled rooms by party bosses.
7
I thought Mr Friedman was all in for the "revolution" in Egypt, as was Barack Obama. Kinda late to accept the outcome of that and the others.
1
The compromise was a terrible deal. Hong Kongers will probably be asked to choose between Junius Ho, Regina Ip and random CCP hardline surrogate. Basically, the cadidates will range from bad to worst. All of them will try to ram through article 23, extradition treaty, and patriotic education. All remaining civil liberties will be further reined in.
22
@BK
You need to ask, is the deal better than the system now. And more importantly, CAN the deal be better than the system now. I think the answer is quite simple.
@Sean
The CCP is the deal breaker. It sounds like trusting the communist government to hold up the rule of law in China.
3
"It was not an awful compromise because even if Beijing controlled what names would be on the ballot, whoever would win the voting would likely be candidates who promised Hong Kongers the most democracy. "
Naive. HK people know about "promises" by PRC chosen candidates. Those words are as sincere and reliable as anything Trump has ever said.
93
Not another social media as the source of political protest piece. I had enough of how Facebook was bringing democracy to Egypt. Political protest actually did exist prior to social media. Try reading something about the founding of the US.
6
Giving treasonous marketing websites credit for protests is not just wrong and dubious, but dangerous. It allows them to do more things like declare unelected tyrants too "newsworthy" to ban for their hateful trolling or let THOSE SAME TYRANTS ban those centralized sites, because Where Else Would The People Go To Protest?
People MUST organize them OUTSIDE of the TMWs!