Discussion in 'China' started by Ray, Sep 23, 2014.
Madam, What happens when India retaliates and prepares Nukes for crooks like China ??
Indians cant stand joke started by themselves.
We did not beg the British to return HK, anyone who have learned about history would understand that Chinese government forced British to give back what they have robbed from China.
The British iron lady almost fell on the downstairs of the people's great hall after she concluded an intense negotiation with deng xiaoping.
We promise to keep HK what is like before 1997 under the one nation two systems policy, and we have kept that promise, anything more than is not the deal we have reached with the British.
people who from a nation which begged its independence from the British know more than anyone else about kowtowing to the British.
Sent from my HUAWEI P7-L07 using Tapatalk 2
kid, you don't have the chance to retaliate.
Sent from my HUAWEI P7-L07 using Tapatalk 2
Madam, Have you heard of something called MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction ?? We will spoil your perceived century...
Very recently we saw the Chinese troops eye ball to eye ball... I am very unimpressed to find that way Chinese troops backed off... I at least hoped the China have the guts to stay on the same land which it claims as theirs...
The clause in the agreement seems not understood by the CCP.
Even one country two systems is not being implement there.
Regarding Indian independence movement , you have to know it before commenting. No one begged British !!
Conversely it is the chinese that are at the mercy of 200 politicians and are begging for civil rights and are oppressed.
First you people have to come out the oppression to comment about India, we can help you in this regard
Retaliation will be MASSIVE,no chinese city will be left functional. All the chini cities with GDP>10 billion$ will be vaporised in event of Chini strikes.
Mutually Assured Destruction.
Three Gorges Dam will be a nice target.
China denounces U.S. for sending 'wrong message' to Hong Kong protesters
(Reuters) - China criticised U.S. Congress on Friday for sending the wrong message to pro-democracy demonstrators in Hong Kong after a congressional report expressed concern about the Chinese-controlled city in a "deliberate attack" on China.
The former British colony of Hong Kong has witnessed almost two weeks of "Occupy Central" protests calling on the Beijing-backed government to keep its promise of introducing universal suffrage, underscoring the challenges China faces in imposing its will on the freewheeling FINANCIAL hub.
The annual report to U.S. Congress by the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, released on Thursday, said the United States should increase support for democracy in Hong Kong and push for universal suffrage.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said that the U.S. had no right to get involved on Hong Kong's affairs, which were an internal matter for China.
"The report by this U.S. body distorts the facts and is a deliberate attack on China. We express our extreme dissatisfaction about it," Hong told a daily news briefing.
"We demand that this committee stop this wrong interference in and damaging of Sino-U.S. relations. This body should speak and act cautiously, stop sending the wrong message to Occupy Central and other illegal activities or provide them support."
China's Communist Party leaders rule Hong Kong through a "one country, two systems" formula which allows wide-ranging autonomy and freedoms not enjoyed on the mainland and specifies universal suffrage as an eventual goal.
But Beijing ruled on Aug. 31 it would screen candidates who want to run for the city's election for a chief executive in 2017, which democracy activists said rendered the notion of universal suffrage meaningless.
(Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Additional reporting by Michael Martina; Editing by Nick Macfie)
China denounces U.S. for sending 'wrong message' to Hong Kong protesters | Reuters
Some Chinese Leaders Claim U.S. and Britain Are Behind Hong Kong Protests
HONG KONG â€” One of the young protesters directing traffic on Friday morning at a street barricade here was wearing a reproduction of British military fatigues, complete with a Union Jack on the shoulder. In any other city, the outfit might have been dismissed as hipster chic. But in Hong Kong, it caused a stir.
An older demonstrator approached and said the uniform was a bad idea because it might suggest foreign influence over the pro-democracy protests, especially given Hong Kongâ€™s status as a former British colony. Then a young woman wearing a blue dress to show support for the police strode by, stuck out her right arm and gave him a thumbs down.
â€œThey are the minority,â€ she said of the protesters. Declining to give her name, she added, â€œThey are motivated by some forces behind them. They have huge supplies, so many masks â€” I think it is American MONEY.â€
Some officials contend that the United States and Britain wield so much influence in Hong Kong that China cannot open the nomination process for candidates to succeed Hong Kongâ€™s chief executive, Leung Chun-ying, in 2017 as protesters have demanded. Doing so, they argue, risks allowing voters to be manipulated and a puppet of the West to take power.
â€œStrategically, there is an American pivot to Asia still going on, so can you imagine it will not make use of the current turmoil?â€ asked Lau Nai-keung, a member of a Hong Kong committee that advises Chinaâ€™s legislature. â€œThis is how the Beijing leadership views what is going on.â€
Those who sympathize with the democracy movement tend to dismiss such concerns as paranoia. But many who back the government insist these worries are justified given the 155 years Hong Kong spent as a British colony and the unique autonomy it enjoys in China, not to mention the mixed record of the United States in toppling governments overseas in the name of spreading democracy.
Demographics are a cause for concern, too. Three-fifths of the population in Hong Kong grew up and went to school while it was governed by Britain. Many resident, as much as a tenth, have sworn loyalty to another government and carry passports from Canada, Australia, the United States and elsewhere, many acquired in the years immediately before Hong Kongâ€™s return to Chinese rule in 1997.
The city also has one of Asiaâ€™s largest concentrations of foreign diplomats and is home to several nongovernmental organizations deemed hostile by China, like the Catholic Church, the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
The crowds at the main sit-in site in Hong Kong dwindled during the workweek, but on Friday night, thousands of residents rallied again near the governmentâ€™s offices. The demonstration was intended as a show of strength and resolve after a senior official abruptly canceled talks with student leaders the day before and said that the protests were waning. â€œItâ€™s like theyâ€™re treating us like foolish sheep, and people donâ€™t like that. I came to show weâ€™re still a big number,â€ said Philip Yue, a law student.
Chinese officials, in public and in private, have been quick to portray the protests as the latest in a series of Western-sponsored color revolutions after those in the former Soviet Union and the Middle East. They have seized on any hint that the demonstrators might be inspired by foreign powers, especially the United States and to a lesser extent Britain, to make their case.
â€œPeople will find that supporting color revolutions has already become a habit and mission of some people in the United States,â€ wrote Wu Sike, a longtime Chinese diplomat, in Liberation Daily, the official paper of the Communist Party in Shanghai.
There is no dispute that diplomats representing the United States and other Western governments have met on occasion with members of the pro-democracy camp, nor that American-funded nongovernmental organizations have invited Hong Kong citizens to conferences extolling the merits of democracy.
But in several dozen interviews with protesters and protest leaders over the last week, all emphatically denied that their movement had been directed or manipulated in any way by any foreign government. The United States has also denied playing any guiding role here.
A pro-democracy activist in Hong Kong on Friday wearing replica British military fatigues, an outfit that met with some disapproval. Credit Chris Mcgrath/Getty Images
â€œWhat is happening in Hong Kong is about the people of Hong Kong, and any assertion otherwise is an attempt to distract from the issue at hand, which is the people of Hong Kong expressing their desire for universal suffrage and an election that provides a meaningful choice of candidates representative of the votersâ€™ will,â€ said Scott Robinson, the spokesman for the United States Consulate in Hong Kong. He added that, â€œU.S. diplomats regularly meet with a broad cross-section of Hong Kong society both in Hong Kong and in Washington and do not support any particular political party or person.â€
Such statements, though, have been met with skepticism by many in government circles, and pro-Chinese lawmakers in Hong Kong have called for an investigation into how the protests have been FUNDED and organized.
â€œNobody is saying that they are on the front lines directing this or that, but they have been doing this concertedly for five or six years, grooming all of these activists, providing them with theories and tactics,â€ said one person involved in the governmentâ€™s decision-making on the protests who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
When pressed for names of activists who might fall into this category, this person demurred. But he went on to criticize the protesters for singing â€œHappy Birthdayâ€ to drown out pro-government hecklers, saying that this was a tactic borrowed from American-backed supporters of democracy in other countries. â€œItâ€™s peaceful, but itâ€™s a kind of violence,â€ in that it infringes on the free speech of the demonstratorsâ€™ critics, he said.
The protesters have offered a more innocent explanation: They adopted the tactic because some of the bullhorns they use are programmed to play the song.
According to its annual reports, the National Endowment for Democracy, a nonprofit directly supported by Washington, distributed $755,000 in grants in Hong Kong in 2012, and an additional $695,000 last year, to encourage the development of democratic institutions. Some of that MONEY was earmarked â€œto develop the capacity of citizens â€” particularly university students â€” to more effectively participate in the public debate on political reform.â€
The reference to university students has drawn particular attention from Chinaâ€™s supporters, because student groups have been at the forefront of the protests. But Jane Riley Jacobsen, a spokeswoman for the N.E.D., said the group had not financed civil disobedience training for Hong Kong residents.
The N.E.D. also hosted a briefing in Washington last April featuring two of Hong Kongâ€™s most influential advocates of democracy in recent decades, Martin Lee and Anson Chan, who angered Chinese leadership by lobbying American politicians to support the democracy movement, an act that critics likened to inviting foreign intervention. China has long portrayed Mr. Lee, 76, as a tool of Britain and the United States.
Another target of criticism for pro-China politicians and media in Hong Kong is the United States Consulate, which is often depicted as a base for conducting surveillance and espionage to target China, with more than 1,000 American employees. That image was reinforced by Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who briefly sought refuge in Hong Kong and told a local newspaper that the United States had hacked into Pacnet, a global telecommunications firm in Hong Kong with ties to mainland Chinaâ€™s top mobile operators.
In reality, said Mr. Robinson, the United States Consulate spokesman, the consulate employs fewer than 150 Americans.
Protest leaders said they had not received any FUNDING from the United States government or nonprofit groups affiliated with it. Chinese officials choose to blame hidden foreign forces, they argued, in part because they find it difficult to accept that so many ordinary people in Hong Kong want democracy.
â€œIt has always been Beijingâ€™s inner demon,â€ said Alex Chow, the secretary general of the Hong Kong Federation of Students, one of the main protest groups, â€œeasily falling into its own fears.â€
Give the dog a bad name and hang it... problem solved... all fascist powers across the world have resorted to it over time.
Hong Kong Island was British Territory in perpetuity as per the 1841â€“42 Treaty of Nanking. The Kowloon Peninsula and the Stonecutters Island were ceded by China under the Convention of Peking.
It is only the New Territories (comprising areas north of Kowloon along with 230 small islands) were leased from China for 99 years as a concession under the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory.
If the Chinese had not knowtowed then why concede to the British demand to maintain HK's status separately?
Since when has Communist China bothered to listen to world opinion or obey international norms? And yet, in this case, they buckled to the British demand and if that is not kowtowing, then what is? But then Chinese have no principles right? Remember Deng and his theory - "It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice."?
So, kowtow, get HK, play along for some time with one country and two system and slowly ensure it is one country one system and damn any commitment given.
Maybe you do not recall that in accordance with the One Country, Two Systems principle agreed between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China, the socialist system of People's Republic of China would not be practiced in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), and Hong Kong's previous capitalist system and its way of life would remain unchanged for a period of 50 years. The Joint Declaration provides that these basic policies shall be stipulated in the Hong Kong Basic Law.
India could not have kowtowed since kowtow is a Chinese word å©å¤´ or ç£•å¤´ and a form of activity that China has made into a fine art.
Everyone is saddened that China renegades on all commitments once their aim has been achieved with sweet talk and much soaping.
Therefore, it becomes so difficult to trust China when she makes any commitment since one does not know when China will go back on its word.
As a mainlander Iâ€™ll stand by Hong Kongâ€™s protesters till the dawn of democracy
Your courage and hope, solidarity and discipline are so precious â€“ and deeply inspiring. You have taught me the meaning of maturity
'In a city so busy and crowded, you donâ€™t give in to its burdens but keep your faith in democracy and liberty, in the power of the masses'
As a mainlander Iâ€™ll stand by Hong Kongâ€™s protesters till the dawn of democracy | Xu Yiaobo | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Interesting that our Chinese posters have stopped updating us with the Mainland view and thoughts, even the pathetic justification to the blatant renegading of earlier commitments given when they kowtowed to get their hands on HK.
The manner in which Mainland China is handling this indicates that they are caught in a bind and have no real answer. other than doing a Tienanmen Square repeat.
If they do it, then it iwll have serious repercussion in the world?
Yes, the whole show is not about that piddly bit of real estate called Hong Kong. It is far bigger ..... about the mainland and the struggles within the CCP itself... the tussle among exploiters of the people to determine who should corner more .... nothing to do with the poor, weary students of Hong Kong.
That is what I thought.
However, our Chinese posters think otherwise.
They feel the protestors are misguided students alone.
If that be so, the photo shows a huge number.
That many students in HK?
And there will also be many more who did not come out.
Appears that our Chinese posters are the ones who are misguided.
Does the UK Have a Responsibility to Hong Kong?
Those outside Hong Kong have a legitimate right to comment on recent events. But they also have a responsibility to base those comments on accurate and historically-informed analysis of the complex and emotive issues currently disputed in Hong Kong.
The world has been watching events unfold in Hong Kong in recent weeks, after tens of thousands of pro-democracy protesters took to the streets to occupy key locations in the heart of this financial hub.
Much of the international reaction has been supportive of the protesters' aims. Foreign governments, meanwhile, have been working out what to say publicly.
They should comment. Hong Kong is a global city, whose political development has wider implications, not least for international economic and commercial interests in Asia and beyond.
But comments by some politicians and media commentators in recent weeks demonstrated a worrying lack of understanding of the relevant historical agreements and Hong Kong's status as a Chinese territory - albeit with significant autonomy. This is unhelpful to the rebuilding of trust that is needed if any progress is to be made in Hong Kong.
For the UK, as the former colonial power until it handed control to China in 1997, the diplomatic challenges presented by the protests are that much sharper. The shadow of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration hangs over policy makers - this is the agreement under which Hong Kong maintains its own system as part of China, a 'one country, two systems' concept fleshed out in the Chinese Basic Law of 1990, Hong Kong's mini-constitution.
The protests were fuelled by dissatisfaction with the Hong Kong government, but the catalyst was the 31 August decision of China's national legislature - the National People's Congress Standing Committee - on Hong Kong's constitutional development.
The key issue of contention is not whether Hong Kong people should have a say in the choice of their next chief executive (head of government) in 2017 - Beijing has already agreed to allow a popular vote. The controversy is over how candidates should be nominated.
The central authorities see a role for themselves as being in line with the Basic Law, one of the few manifestations of 'one country' when it comes to a political structure which is otherwise formed locally in Hong Kong. As a result, the 31 August decision provides for a 1,200-strong nominating committee, half of whose members must approve candidates to appear on the subsequent popular ballot. The committee's constitution means that it is a broadly pro-establishment body, and this is where Beijing (and Hong Kong's elites) can effectively screen out candidates.
Views in Hong Kong are divided. But a sizable proportion of people want more, effectively demanding greater autonomy by rejecting any way for Beijing to influence nominations, or by seeking to dilute the nominating committee's role. These aspirations are understandable given the nature of Hong Kong society and a desire for better governance.
The problem is that they are not easily attainable within the framework of the Basic Law. Without compromise, Hong Kong could be facing something of a constitutional crisis.
How does this debate match up to those historical agreements?
Contrary to what some are saying, the proposals on the table do not contravene what was agreed between China and the UK. All the Joint Declaration said is that the chief executive will be 'appointed by the central people's government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally [in Hong Kong]'. Britain's role as co-signatory of that agreement gives it no legal basis for complaint on this particular point, and the lack of democracy for the executive branch before 1997 leaves it little moral high ground either.
It is the Basic Law that introduces 'the ultimate aim [of] the selection of the chief executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures'. This is the basis for what is on offer from Beijing today. China didn't promise anything different.
Sent from my HUAWEI P7-L07 using Tapatalk 2
Comment by politicians and the media should not distort these historical agreements, which are the foundation for Hong Kong's status as a sub-national region with a high degree of autonomy, not a country or sovereign territory.
Perhaps part of the issue for some in the UK is an underlying feeling of post-colonial guilt, the idea that the British government didn't put proper protection in place for the people of Hong Kong.
But as the demonstrations have once again showed, Hong Kong people are quite capable of standing up for themselves. The idea - which some in Hong Kong encourage - that the UK is somehow still responsible for their well-being sounds outdated.
Furthermore, we should not forget the substantial achievements in the UK's negotiations with China over the future of Hong Kong. To engineer a smooth transition of sovereignty in 1997, followed by the maintenance of Hong Kong's legal, judicial, financial, social and economic systems, was no small achievement. It has provided the basis for a vibrant and passionate society in Hong Kong. Implementation was never going to be easy, but 'one country, two systems' remains the best option by far.
Those outside Hong Kong have a legitimate right to comment. But they also have a responsibility to base those comments on accurate and historically-informed analysis of the complex and emotive issues currently disputed in Hong Kong.
Sent from my HUAWEI P7-L07 using Tapatalk 2
Main land people should support Hongkong people and their legitimate struggle for civil rights.
Eventually Chinese CCP will have to give away to people's demand, the question is when.
Demand to become a country like India?
Separate names with a comma.