Thousands of Hong Kong students start week-long boycott

[nimo_cn]

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/ne...s-Linked-to-US-Government--20141002-0011.html

Wikileaks: HK Protests Linked to US Government

Previous cables show links between United States agencies and the Hong Kong protest movement, as Beijing warns that the protests are China's "internal affairs."
The United States funded groups linked to the ongoing Occupy Central protests in Hong Kong, according to whistleblowing website Wikileaks.

The website tweeted that key figures behind the demonstrations are linked to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a U.S. foundation "dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world," according to its website, but which has been linked with coup attempts and "regime change" plans in Venezuela and elsewhere.

US State Department/NED funded Hong Kong protest movement "Occupy Central" http://t.co/TFvob8Ragf

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) octubre 2, 2014



The Occupy Central movement erupted in Hong Kong last weekend, with organizers stating that over 80,000 people turned out to protest against Beijing's "white paper" on eligibility criteria for standing for election to ruling positions in 2017.

A Wikileaks cable released September 4, 2008 from the American Consulate in Hong Kong to the Secretary of State offices of Condelezza Rice, refers to a US State Department funded project, The Hong Kong Transition Project.

Whilst a cable dated July 2, 2009 discusses demonstration turnouts and how to make them more successful in the future. Whilst a 4 Jan 2010 cable from the American Consulate in Hong Kong to the offices of the Secretary of State looks at increasing the effectiveness of political messaging on future demonstrations.

The revelations come as China has warned that foreign meddling in its affairs will not be tolerated. "Hong Kong is ... a special administrative region of China, and Hong Kong affairs are completely China's internal affairs," Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying stated.

The spokesperson stated the Chinese government is "resolutely opposed to any country attempting in any way to support such illegal activities like 'Occupy Central'."

﹉﹉﹉﹉﹉﹉﹉﹉
the so called occupy central movement has been manipulated by the American government since the very beginning.

HK has been deeply infiltrated by western agents, time to clean them off.

Sent from my HUAWEI P7-L07 using Tapatalk 2

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Anything going wrong in the world, somebody thinks USA behind it. It gets old.

 

[nimo_cn]

Anything going wrong in the world, somebody thinks USA behind it. It gets old.

As if America is innocent.

I am so relieved that wikileaks is not founded by Chinese, otherwise it's pure CCP propaganda against the innocent America.

Sent from my HUAWEI P7-L07 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ray]

If the Western countries are sponsoring and organising the HK protest, then it does speak highly of the organisational skills to mobilise such a huge mass, as also the weakness of the Communist regime not being able to snuff it out when the movement was nascent and isolating the movement from Western influences.

Surprising that the Mainland Communist Govt which is so sensitive to foreign influences failed to notice this coming.

 

[Ray]

Protests at HK leader's residence 23 October 2014
BBC News - China

China caught in a bind?

They can't do a Tienanmen out here because the population has many foreigners around.

So, what can China do?

This is getting embarrassing for China.

 

[Compersion]

I feel that the locals are not capable to stand up to the intellectuals of CCP and that is where the "overseas" tag comes in. it is to distract and perhaps on the other side if true to make it a balanced play ground i suppose. how else can the locals have a sudden mature growth in execution and delivery.

But again if someone does not have the skill and knowledge and is taught and guided by others (non-local) it still takes the person to appreciate and select and execute.

Also another viewpoint is that guidance from overseas is on principles that are universal and the guidance from overseas is similar to the many PRC people that go and study overseas every-ear.

Bo Guagua - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Xi Mingze - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I still feel the local hong kong protesters dont really know what they are doing. what happens next is the question ... what is the goal

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29700156

Hong Kong officials have ended their first round of talks with students, with the government's chief negotiator saying she hoped for further meetings with protest leaders.

Students at the talks reiterated their demand for an unrestricted choice of candidates in the election for the territory's chief executive in 2017.

But both Hong Kong and Beijing officials have said this is impossible.

The meeting came a day after Chief Executive CY Leung repeated his objections to the protesters' demands, saying they would result in populist policies.

"If it's entirely a numbers game and numeric representation, then obviously you would be talking to half of the people in Hong Kong who earn less than $1,800 (£1,110) a month," he told reporters.

"Then you would end up with that kind of politics and policies."

Mr Leung said problems such as the lack of social mobility and unaffordable housing were "not acceptable", and the government needed to do more to solve them.

But he argued that Beijing's position, under which candidates will be screened by a "broadly representative" nominating committee before they go to an open election, was better.

He pointed to the fact that his own appointment in 2012 had to be endorsed by a 1,200-member committee which was made up of people from various sectors of society and professions.

Mr Leung said the make-up of the nomination committee might offer room for negotiation.

 

[Ray]

Top China body axes Hong Kong's James Tien for criticism

Mr Tien said he accepts the dismissal from the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference

Members of the top political advisory body in China have voted to kick out Hong Kong tycoon James Tien for his criticism of Chief Executive CY Leung.

Mr Tien has accepted his dismissal from the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC).

He also said in a press conference that he would resign as the leader of the pro-Beijing Liberal Party.

Mr Tien had publicly urged Mr Leung to quit last week for failing to end the ongoing street protests.

On Tuesday, activists marked a month of protests in response to Beijing's ruling that it will screen candidates for the upcoming 2017 chief executive election.

Hundreds of students and activists calling for full democracy in Hong Kong remain at key demonstration sites.

Out of favour
In remarks reported by the South China Morning Post, Mr Tien said last Friday that Hong Kong residents were ignoring court injunctions to disperse from key roads, and pan-democrat lawmakers were being uncooperative.

The businessman and lawmaker said Mr Leung should consider resigning, adding: "How is he going to govern?"

His remarks appeared to contravene a vote taken by the CPPCC in March to "resolutely support" Hong Kong's chief executive.

Beijing has expressed full support for Mr Leung, whose public approval ratings have fallen to their lowest point since he became Hong Kong's leader in 2012.

The Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece People's Daily published a number of editorials at the height of the pro-democracy protests praising his handling of the situation.

The BBC's Juliana Liu says Mr Tien, 67, is a well-known Hong Kong businessman who has strong ties to the Chinese leadership. He chairs real estate company Manhattan Holdings.

But he was seen to have broken ranks with the establishment with his remarks, says our correspondent. He is believed to be the first delegate from Hong Kong to be sacked due to his political views.

It is not the first time Mr Tien, who is also a member of Hong Kong's Legislative Council, has come into conflict with the government.

In 2003, he withdrew his support for the government's controversial national security bill, Article 23, forcing the government to shelve the legislation and leading to the eventual resignation of the then-Chief Executive, Tung Chee-hwa.

The CPPCC does not wield any formal power in China, but plays a role in the country's affairs by advising the parliament. Membership is said to be a sign of Beijing's favour.
BBC News - Top China body axes Hong Kong's James Tien for criticism

Mr Tien is the leader of the pro Beijing party.

That fact itself indicates how false is the Chinese Communist Mainland propaganda that the protests are being fuelled from foreign shores. And if its so, then the Communist party and its acolytes apparently are disillusioned by the Chinese Communist Party's mode of functioning.

It shows the growing dissatisfaction in Hong Kong with the Mainland Communist actions and directions.

 

[Compersion]

seems to be it is like a carnival feeling

 

[Ray]

Patten criticises UK's 'keep shtoom' policy on Hong Kong

Lord Patten has said the UK should be doing more to support democracy in Hong Kong, suggesting its policy of "keeping shtoom" was counter-productive.

The last British governor of Hong Kong suggested the UK was reluctant to raise difficult issues with Beijing because of fears of losing trade opportunities.

Ministers should speak out publicly rather than talk "behind their hands".

MPs on the Foreign Affairs Committee also revealed that Beijing had urged them not to "meddle in their affairs".

Tens of thousands of pro-democracy demonstrators took to the streets this summer in protest at the pace of democratic reform in Hong Kong.

Among their grievances is the system being used to elect Hong Kong's chief executive in 2017, amid fears that only candidates approved by Beijing will be able to get on to the ballot.

Universal suffrage by 2017 formed part of an agreement with China over the future of the former colony when it assumed sovereignty from the UK in 1997.

'Stolen future'
Lord Patten, Governor of Hong Kong between 1992 and 1997, said he admired the protesters' courage in taking a stand, calling them a "generation that feels they are having their future stolen".

And he questioned what he suggested was a low-key response from the UK government to recent events.

He said the terms of the 1984 Joint Declaration between the two countries, agreeing the transfer of sovereignty to China and setting out a "one country, two systems" principle of governance explicitly gave the UK a "legitimate" interest in Hong Kong's future

Lord Patten said that progress of democratic reforms was "going backwards"

He told the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is examining UK relations with Hong Kong, that No 10 and the Foreign Office should not be leaving a "debate about what is a really important issue touching on British sovereignty and British honour" to MPs to discuss.

"When China asserts that what is happening in Hong Kong is nothing to do with us, we should make it absolutely clear both publicly and privately that it is not the case," he said.

Lord Patten said the UK could have been more "helpful" in raising issues about the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary in July before the protests began to escalate.

"Maybe [ministers] were saying that behind their hands and behind closed doors," he added.

"I am not one of those people who ever think it is as helpful to say those kind of things privately.

"We could have said things...which were not provocative but gave people in Hong Kong something to hold on to.

"I really think there is a lot more elbow room in all this than we think. It is going to be more difficult for the demonstrators to step back, to get out of their corner, because of a feeling that nobody on the outside is giving them the support they feel they deserve.

"In some ways we may have made it more difficult to resolve than the reverse."

'Going backwards'
Lord Patten, who was dubbed "Fat Pang" by the Chinese media when he was governor, said progress towards full and free elections was "going backwards rather than forwards" and there was a lot that could be done without threatening Hong Kong's constitutional status within China.

Chris Patten said the UK had a "legitimate" interest in the future of Hong Kong

The UK's own record on democracy when it controlled Hong Kong was "not a good one", he told MPs, while he questioned the approach of successive government to Sino-British relations.

Asked by Labour MP Ann Clwyd whether the UK had "raised expectations" over the years about the political freedoms that Hong Kong could ultimately aspire to, the Tory peer said this could not be case as the UK had "hardly said anything" in recent times.

"We have kept shtoom as much as we could in the bizarre anticipation that that would be the best way of developing our relationship with China."

Politicians, he argued, were mistaken if they thought raising difficult issues with China - such as human rights and relations with Tibet - would affect trade, saying the Chinese were "more sophisticated" in their approach to international affairs than given credit for.

"Why does Germany export more to China than we do?" he added. "It is because Germany has more things that China wants to buy. It is not because [Chancellor] Angela Merkel is nicer to Chinese leaders".

High-level ministerial relations between the UK and China were effectively frozen for more than a year after Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg met the Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama in 2012.

But Mr Cameron welcomed new Chinese leader Xi Jinping to the UK earlier this year, and Chinese businesses have said they intend to invest billions in new nuclear and transport projects in the UK.
BBC News - Patten criticises UK's 'keep shtoom' policy on Hong Kong

Lord Patton was the last Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Hong Kong, and oversaw its handover to the People's Republic of China in July 1997.

There is no doubt that the Communist Chinese Govt is renegading on the commitment if so blithely gave the British Govt to ensure that handing over of Hong Kong to China.

It is important to note that the territories of Hong Kong were not entirely ceded to Britain at one time.

The cessions were divided into three periods.

In 1842, Hong Kong Island was formally ceded in perpetuity to the United Kingdom under the Treaty of Nanking.

In 1860, after China's defeat in the Second Opium War, the Kowloon Peninsula and Stonecutter's Island were ceded in perpetuity to Britain under the Convention of Peking.

In 1898, under the terms of the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory, Britain obtained a 99-year lease of Lantau Island and the adjacent northern lands, which became known as the New Territories.

Therefore, ALL of Hong Kong, apart from the New Territories, was ceded to UK in perpetuity!

Hence, under no circumstances, the contention of our Chinese posters that Hong Kong was under a 99 years lease is correct. In fact, it is bogus and contrived.

It is only the New territories which were under the 99 year lease and was to be returned to China. The rest of Hong Kong as per the treaty was always to be that of Britain!

However, crafty that the Chinese are, they promised the moon (and Britain fell for it since they were already a moth eaten power unable to manage its own country) and Britain agreed. And so the fake 'One Nation, Two Systems' came into being, at least superficially and cosmetically.

In accordance with the "one country, two systems" principle agreed between the UK and the PRC, the socialist system of PRC would not be practised 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 until 2047. The Joint Declaration provides that these basic policies should be stipulated in the Hong Kong Basic Law and that the socialist system and socialist policies shall not be practised in HKSAR.

However, given the fear of Communists of democracy, they quietly and with a sleight of hand, the cold steel grip of the Mainland Chinese commenced griping the jugular of HK and stifling the concept of "one country, two system". The aim was to make it 'one country, one system" and keep a charade that the "two system" is in vogue.

Given the shrill cries that of morality and democracy lesson that are handed out so regularly by the West to other non Western Nations, it is evident that these cries are false and agenda driven and not really true in intent.

If indeed, there was morality and democracy as the cardinal philosophy of the West and not that of an agenda driven humbug, Britain and the West would have stridently and honest supported the demand of the Hong Kong protesters.

They shied away because of their own economic interest and gave the clarion call that the normally use to chastise those countries their agenda prompts them to hold in ridicule, a quiet burial.

The hypocrisy of the West stand exposed.

Lord Patton is right and possibly the sole voice when he suggests that, " the UK was reluctant to raise difficult issues with Beijing because of fears of losing trade opportunities.

Ministers should speak out publicly rather than talk "behind their hands".

 

[Ray]

Hong Kong betrayed: Testing future of China's freedom

Protesters in Hong Kong

The pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong are the story of the hour, in my book. Hong Kong is important itself (it has 7 million people). But what's happening there is a test of the future of freedom for China's billions.

Without which — mark it well — eventually there will be a war.

My own appreciation for that danger was gained during the 1970s, when I was posted in Hong Kong for The Wall Street Journal.

In 1984, with end of Britain's lease on most of the colony but 13 years away, Britain and China signed their Joint Declaration.

This promised democratic reforms ("one country, two systems"), including universal suffrage in Hong Kong by 2017. Even so, the Journal urged Britain to take a hard line by holding out for Hong Kong Island, to which Britain owned title in perpetuity (like the Falklands).

That argument infuriated Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. She vented this when she visited the paper's editors in 1990, calling the editorials "hurtful." Then she leaned her capacious bosom forward, stared at the editor across the table, and demanded: "Do I make myself cleee-ah?"

I'd left the Journal by then, but Dan Henninger tells me Bob Bartley didn't bat an eyelash. He just flashed "one of the largest Bartley Cheshire Cat grins of all time." Nor did the paper back off.

Both Thatcher and Bartley have left this mortal coil, but the promises China made during those years are what is being tested today. Students are risking their lives to redeem the guarantees. Their protest ranks with the pro-democracy demonstrations that erupted in 1989 at Tiananmen Square.

That's when a lone protester faced down a column of tanks of the Red Army. It was one of the most astonishing pictures of individual courage ever filmed. During Tiananmen, incidentally, more than 1 million people came into the streets of Hong Kong to show solidarity.

Yet Hong Kong could prove more important than Tiananmen. This is because if freedom comes to China, it is going to enter through Hong Kong. The city already had its taste of liberty, if only a taste, and it just is never going to forget.

The reason this is coming to a head now is that the Red Chinese have been breaking their promises. What they mean by universal suffrage, The Post pointed out this week, is that everyone gets to vote for candidates approved by the Communist camarilla.

Journalists and editors are being beaten, judges — famously independent under Britain — are being harangued to be "patriotic" to the Communist line.
And a major civil servant has reportedly just admitted in court he'd received a $1.3 million payoff from "Beijing," as the Communist capital is known.

This is a moment to remember that the West has its own obligations in Hong Kong.

The point was made last month in The Financial Times by the last British governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten (who had famously wept when Hong Kong was handed over to the Communists).

Patten wrote that he wanted to "invite an interrogation of Britain's sense of honor." The United Kingdom, after all, was a party to the Joint Declaration, the treaty under which the Communists guaranteed to preserve Hong Kong's way of life for 50 years after 1997.

America has its own obligations. The United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 requires our government to report regularly on Hong Kong's progress.

It has done a sporadic job of that at best — partly because Congress recently failed to fund the report, and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn't seem to care.

And several months ago, two of Hong Kong's tribunes of democracy — Martin Lee, founding chairman of its Democratic Party, and Anson Chan, a former chief secretary of Hong Kong — came to Washington to remind America of its obligations.

The Obama administration palmed them off on Vice President Joe Biden.

All in all, it's hard to imagine, at this point, that President Obama will lead on China.

That in and of itself deserves to become an issue in the runup to the 2016 election. Natan Sharansky likes to say that war doesn't break out between democracies.

If the Chinese Communist Party can't tolerate democracy in Hong Kong, where in China will it ever be found — and how will China's designs on the world be tempered?

Do I make myself clee-ah?
Hong Kong betrayed: Testing future of China’s freedom | New York Post

 

[Ray]

Hong Kong protesters break into government building
Small breakaway group enters city legislature
Bailiffs earlier evicted part of two-month-old protest camp

A small group of Hong Kong pro-democracy protesters broke into the city's legislature via a side door early on Wednesday, and police stopped others forcing their way in as tensions in the Chinese-controlled city escalated following a period of calm.

The flare-up came just hours after court bailiffs managed to clear part of a protest camp in the heart of the city that has been occupied by pro-democracy demonstrators for nearly two months, while leaving most of the main protest site intact.

About 100 riot police with helmets, batons and shields stood guard outside the government building in the early hours of Wednesday, facing off with protesters who are demanding free elections for the city's next leader in 2017.

"Police retreat!" the protesters chanted.

It was the first time protesters had broken into a key public building, defying the expectations of many political analysts who had predicted that Hong Kong's most tenacious and protracted protest movement would slowly wind down.

The escalation came in the early hours of Wednesday when a small group of protesters charged towards the legislature and used metal barricades and concrete tiles to ram a glass side door. They eventually smashed through, with several managing to get inside, according to witnesses.

Scores of riot police, some with shields and helmets, rushed over, using pepper spray and batons to keep other demonstrators from also smashing their way in.

Police raised red signs warning protesters to stay back as the activists held up a wall of umbrellas to defend themselves against the pepper spray.

A democratic lawmaker at the scene, Fernando Cheung, said he and other protesters had tried to stop the small group of radical activists from breaking through.

"This is a very, very isolated incident. I think it's very unfortunate and this is something we don't want to see happen because the movement so far has been very peaceful," he said.

On Tuesday, about 30 court bailiffs arrived at the 33-storey Citic Tower, also in the Admiralty district, to enforce an injunction forbidding street barricades after a request from the building's owners.

A similar injunction has been issued, but not yet enforced, for a street in the gritty district of Mong Kok, across the harbour, which has seen some of the most violent clashes of the past seven weeks.

Hong Kong was returned to China from British colonial rule in 1997 under a "one country, two systems" formula that gives the city more autonomy and freedom than the mainland, with an eventual goal of universal suffrage.

The protesters are demanding open nominations in the city's next election for chief executive in 2017. Beijing has said it will allow a vote in 2017, but only between pre-screened candidates.

Hong Kong protesters break into government building | World news | The Guardian

No matter what the Communist vassal of a HK Govt wants to do, the protesters are not giving in.

Democracy is a very powerful elixir of life.