[wat0n]

Yes, but the US government that put them in place is still around and has not changed its MO at all.

How so? Where are the military dictatorships that would prove so?

No. This is presumably based off declassified documents. We cannot know right now if the US is still involved because of “national security”. At this point, it is logical to presume that the US is still involved in covert operations against democratically elected governments for the purpose of enriching US companies.

So, this is, at best, an argument from ignorance.

And it ignores other interventions since Noriega, like US support of Colombian death squads.

Actually yours is: You are saying we should assume the US is carrying threatening actions out without proof because it has supposedly not changed its policy (not true, it has - we know that because we can clearly see its current indifference towards Latin America, which contrasts with policies such as the Alliance for Progress or the support for right-wing military dictatorships, none of which is currently in place).

Feel free to provide any evidence at all that China has been involved in Latin America.

I think this is the sixth or seventh time I ask for this evidence.

I already did, applying exactly the same reasoning you use when it comes to the US.

Not really.

You assume that Latin Americans are incapable of opposing US power successfully. This is incorrect.

Interesting, so why did the Latin American military dictatorships collapse? For Pinochet, the usual discourse is that it had to respect the results of the 1988 plebiscite (instead of just committing electoral fraud) because it had lost US support. Left-wing armed resistance doesn't seem like an explanation, since it did not manage to do much at all throughout the whole dictatorship but help it justify its repression and attempts to remain in power for as long as possible. Left-wing political resistance doesn't seem like a great explanation either, as they didn't seem to care too much about domestic or international criticism enough to step down in the '70s.

Do you have any other competing explanations? I think the internal cohesion of the military had eroded by the late '80s, and without it Pinochet's position as dictator for life was shaky at best. But I may be wrong.

[Pants-of-dog]

I had no such assumption, but cooperation from them is still an indication that your description of the said MO is little more than your anti-US fantasy.

Prove me wrong.

How so? Where are the military dictatorships that would prove so?

https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/Lis ... ted_States

More importantly, you have not objected to my point that the US supporters of dictatorships are still in power.

Actually yours is: You are saying we should assume the US is carrying threatening actions out without proof because it has supposedly not changed its policy (not true, it has - we know that because we can clearly see its current indifference towards Latin America, which contrasts with policies such as the Alliance for Progress or the support for right-wing military dictatorships, none of which is currently in place).

The bolded phrase is the argument from ignorance that you have now repeated.

I already did, applying exactly the same reasoning you use when it comes to the US.

No. None of your evidence has mentioned China at all.

Interesting, so why did the Latin American military dictatorships collapse? For Pinochet, the usual discourse is that it had to respect the results of the 1988 plebiscite (instead of just committing electoral fraud) because it had lost US support. Left-wing armed resistance doesn't seem like an explanation, since it did not manage to do much at all throughout the whole dictatorship but help it justify its repression and attempts to remain in power for as long as possible. Left-wing political resistance doesn't seem like a great explanation either, as they didn't seem to care too much about domestic or international criticism enough to step down in the '70s.

Do you have any other competing explanations? I think the internal cohesion of the military had eroded by the late '80s, and without it Pinochet's position as dictator for life was shaky at best. But I may be wrong.

You like to go off on tangents when you are unable to support the actual argument.

I think I am going to focus solely on your lack of evidence for your China claim until you stop bringing up these tangents.

[Patrickov]

Prove me wrong.

Already did (you said I have ridiculous assumptions, in the first place). You are just in denial again.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Patrickov

Seeing as how our discussion has nothing to do with the topic and does not teach me anything, it would be best to cut it short.

Have a good day.

[wat0n]

https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_supported_by_the_United_States

More importantly, you have not objected to my point that the US supporters of dictatorships are still in power.

If they are in power, it's because they were democratically elected. In reality, they are not in power in plenty of places.

I'm still waiting for you to produce an example of an US-backed military dictatorship in Latin America that is in power today.

The bolded phrase is the argument from ignorance that you have now repeated.

Yours is the actual argument from ignorance, saying we should assume the US is doing stuff without providing proof.

By the way, since it's your claim the burden of proof falls on you. I have no obligation to prove a negative, such as proving that I have not committed a crime.

No. None of your evidence has mentioned China at all.

Yes it did. The economic, military and diplomatic support for regimes like Venezuela's is similar to American support for military dictatorships prior to the 1990s. In some cases, the Chinese economic support for its dictatorial allies in Latin America is even more relevant than anything the US did in this realm.

You like to go off on tangents when you are unable to support the actual argument.

I think I am going to focus solely on your lack of evidence for your China claim until you stop bringing up these tangents.

So you will not elaborate, but claim there was resistance to the US-backed military dictatorships that was so great that it outweighted US backing in each and every case, without providing any evidence to that effect. In the Chilean case, not even the left claims something like that and its usual explanation is that Pinochet's regime was forced to accept the electoral defeat because it had already lost American support.

But sure, I guess I could probably believe you just because you say so without providing proof.

[Patrickov]

Seeing as how our discussion has nothing to do with the topic and does not teach me anything, it would be best to cut it short.

Discussion is two-way.

If anything, I find your posts serve to anger me rather than anything else, although in a different way than China apologists. I have to admit that your posting style and stance makes it hard for me to come up with anything useful to you.

From what I observe, those you think who benefit you are mostly those who are on your side in the first place. As I see, I am not and I probably never will.

Hope Springs Eternal.

[Tainari88]

This statement of you clearly indicates that you have not even tried to know what's happening in HK for the past 2 years.

We have did exactly "put your big boys' and girls' pants on and confront your own ethnic group from the mainland" in 2019, and then China's response? Imposing the National Security Law and effectively closing off competitive elections, i.e. THE EXACT OPPOSITE!!!

Maybe you think we should follow the examples of Myanmar and have ourselves shot dead on the street. If it is so, I actually AGREE and have such urge myself, but we all know that China can just pour off some of their elites to replace us and pretend nothing has happened.

Next time research before you suggest others to do something they already had!

Oh outraged now. YOU FAKE DOUBLE SPEAKER. You don't give a fuck about Puerto Ricans getting jailed, stomped and killed off during our fight for independence, because it was the USA government that did the fucked repression. But you are PISSED when the nasty anti-democratic PRC does it to your group.

Damn hypocrite. HongKong got backstabbed by the British and the PRC. Why? Trying to avoid what needs to happen. All of you being fully in charge of your nation. Not letting IMPERIAL shit nations be the nice guys. Because THEY SUCK. Now you understand how we feel you hypocrite. Now you understand how the Puerto Ricans feel. The deal the British struck was for control till 1997. That was the date. The British could have gone this route or the UK/HK could have negotiated something better. They did not. So what this quora man stated from Hong Kong is pretty accurate:

Let’s have a quick look at history. Hong Kong, meaning HK Island and the Kowloon peninsula, was ceded to Britain in perpetuity in 1842 following the First Opium War. Hong Kong subsequently obtained the New Territories on a 99-year lease in 1898 (**Note: Baron Frederick Lugard, the governor of HK from 1907–1912, actually made a proposal to return land leased by the British in northeastern China in exchange for China ceding the New Territories in perpetuity. If that had been acted on, Hong Kong might well still be a British territory).

For the UK to refuse to hand back the New Territories at the end of the lease would have been a breach of an international agreement, and as others have noted, the UK would never again be trusted to honor its international obligations. Moreover, it’s important to understand that China was eager to put its humiliation in the 19th and early 20th century at the hands of imperial powers, so it’s highly likely they would use high-pressure tactics to force Britain to the negotiating table. No need for military action. Simply cutting off water and food supplies to Hong Kong or a partial blockade of shipping and air traffic would very quickly bring the colony to its knees — and there would be very little the UK could do about it.

But in theory, Britain could’ve held on to Hong Kong (minus the New Territories) as its Asian Gibraltar. A few random thoughts on what might be needed:

Critical infrastructure would need to be relocated — reservoirs, power plants, even the container port — away from the New Territories to the area ceded under the original agreement with China
The HK government in the late ‘70s had embarked on a program of urban development in the New Territories, so there would need to be preparations to resettle 1–2 million people from these areas back to HK Island or Kowloon
I’d invite the US Navy to base part of the 7th Fleet in Hong Kong at HMS Tamar. China would almost certainly deem this a provocative act, but then its military was far weaker in 1997 than it is today. Given HK’s strategic location (and the fact that the US Navy could no longer access Subic Bay), I could see the US accepting such an invitation. This would provide a degree of security for Hong Kong as well as an additional economic driver for the colony, given that China might well limit investment opportunities by HK companies.
Going through this alternative reality, it seems rather clear that the case for the UK to hold on to Hong Kong without the New Territories in the mix is not really viable. It would simply be too costly.

Now it’s a completely different ball game if Lord Lugard’s proposal had been acted on…

5.5K viewsView 15 upvotes · Answer requested by Jonathan Siborutorop

The Chinese would have taken it back militarily in 1997, as they would have had the right to do under international law.

Only a very small part of Hong Kong as we knew it was actually ceded to the British in perpetuity, that being Hong Kong Island itself and the Kowloon Peninsula, the former in 1841 and the latter in 1860. The rest of the territory, about 90 percent of the total land area of British Hong Kong, was known as the “New Territories.” These lands were held by the British under a 99-year lease, and had to be returned in 1997.

The British government had tried to open negotiations with t … (more)
Profile photo for Mandy Hudson

Profile photo for Alan Watson
Alan Watson, lives in Hong Kong
Updated March 31, 2019
There could be many possible reasons Britain may have retained Hong Kong, and I'm going to predict the outcomes based on each possible reason.

1. China had never expressed the interest of getting back the sovereignty of Hong Kong

So Hong Kong people would be free of the political movement, development and interventions from China.

2. Britain was still a global powerful country that China couldn't have negotiating power with Britain

But Chinese government would try its best to help people in Hong Kong to fight for the independence from Britain and would assist this by sending many personnels and se … (more)
1 comment from Derek Gould
Promoted by Adam Fayed
How do you invest as an expat if you do not know where you will eventually settle?
Profile photo for Adam Fayed
Adam Fayed, Founder of Global Online Financial Advisory Firm
Updated Wed
I have been an expat for 9 years. Where you live now, is largely irrelevant to your investments. Sure, some things make a difference. For example, if you live in US as an expat, there are tax implications. But in general, there are loads of expat focused accounts, which are designed to be f
(Continue reading in feed)
Related Questions
More Answers Below
If Hong Kong people file a petition to rejoin the UK, will China accept it?
Why did the UK peacefully agree (1984) to return the Hong Kong Islands and Kowloon to China but went to war with Argentina (1982) over the Falklands?
Why didn't the UK defend Hong Kong like it did the Falklands or Gibraltar?
Profile photo for Keith Moody
Keith Moody, A clearer view of history and the world…
Answered August 6, 2016
To answer the question directly would be to apply conjecture as to the circumstances of the retaining of Hong Kong, of which there are three principal streams.

Since most have offered thoughts on the military aspect, and the ‘let's move/ abandon the NT to HK island’ etc., there only remains the political option.

All Britain would have had to do was to concede that the treaty ceding the NT was unfair - and ‘apologize’ by acknowledging China’s rights and pay a tenure.

Had that happened then a few things would be very different. For one: no Tung Chee Wah, Donald Tsang and CY Leung. It is also highly … (more)
3 comments from Norman Owen and more
Profile photo for Desmond Ng
Desmond Ng, Highly interested in history, 8 years of history reading behind me.
Answered July 5, 2016
For one, it would likely cause an international incident. Great Britain’s reputation would be greatly affected, suffering a major blow as now people would view her as an untrustworthy country which breaks international treaties as she see fit.

The shockwaves would be felt across the world. Anti-Britain countries would have a field day, as they paint the British in a bad light. It is likely that many neutral countries that Great Britain had treaties with would either cancel them or seek alternatives with other countries, lest the British break those as well.

China would likely have retaliated, in … (more)
1 comment from User
Profile photo for Gary Braithwaite
Gary Braithwaite, I live here, have done for most of my life.
Answered July 5, 2016
Well, the very first thing would be that there would be furious words back and forth, possibly involved some very stern letter writing. Would the Chinese have invaded? Probably, since the UK is so much smaller in terms of military power and extremely remote.

However, the very big consequence is that nobody would trust us anymore. International trade deals and agreements would be viewed as something we would violate at our whim.

1.1K viewsView 5 upvotes
Profile photo for Mandy Hudson

Profile photo for Anonymous
Anonymous
Answered July 8, 2016
I don’t think Chinese government won’t do much as long as the British didn’t lead Hong Kong to independence.

Hong Kong has been providing what China needed when they started to reform their dirt poor economy from early 1980s. Hong Kong has always been the biggest foreign investment in China since the reform started. Hong Kong provided skilled technician and management personnel to help China catch up, especially in light industries.

As long as China doesn’t close up the door again, the demand and supply would never change.

814 viewsView 1 upvote
Profile photo for Mandy Hudson

Profile photo for Robert Cameron
Robert Cameron, I am British!
Answered July 5, 2016
The Chinese military would simply march in, much as India did in Goa. It would have been so monumentally stupid that even a country capable of Suez would not have done it.

653 viewsView 3 upvotes
1 comment from Derek Gould
Related Questions
If Hong Kong people file a petition to rejoin the UK, will China accept it?
Why did the UK peacefully agree (1984) to return the Hong Kong Islands and Kowloon to China but went to war with Argentina (1982) over the Falklands?
Why didn't the UK defend Hong Kong like it did the Falklands or Gibraltar?
Why did the UK sign a 99-year lease with China for the return of Hong Kong? Why didn’t they just mandate that it was theirs in perpetuity?
What if China invaded Hong Kong around 1996 and Britain defeated them Falkland Islands style? What would happen?
How happy was Hong Kong with British colonial rule?
Ask Question

Somehow you think it is different because it is the USA. It is not Patrikov!

Stop with Disneyland thoughts about what being colonized and fought over is about in this world Patrikov! It is a very difficult historical thing and getting the Empires off your back? It is a very ugly, hard won and difficult thing. You want me to know how it feels to be like Myanmar? You are with foolish thoughts in your head assuming that the FBI did not go after us for YEARS threatening our lives because there was no ability to vote and affect change in the nation doing the colonizing from our island. NONE. But somehow you think that is what VOLUNTARY? It is about violence and threats. Get that through your head. For us and for YOU! The PRC is gonna use it and the British don't have a legal case to retain Hong Kong. It was on loan. And China is in your realm of the world. Not the UK. Latin America is in the USA's Empire Realm. They are doing all kinds of shitty things over here. If you believe they are justified and the PRC is not? I got to conclude. HYPOCRISY is who you are. Or you are not respecting Latin American sovereign rights like you would the Hk's. That my man @Patrickov is double speak and I will NEVER respect it.

It is the same. Go and pack your damn bags and go and live in the UK. Speak English and assimilate into Anglo life and go and live there for the rest of your life. Give up your land to the PRC. That is what fighting these damn imperialist is like. Do you like it? No.
Read this:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/12/br ... hong-kong/

Read it and face reality. BETRAYED by the UK. You believed the lies. Because they lied. They lied to us too..the USA did. All the EMPIRES lie. Get that through your biased for the British because your socioeconomic class did well under their underhanded ways of acquiring colonies. The party is over! Go and put your big boy pants on and fight for HK's independence movement and the democratic values you think are the answer. It is going to be blood, sweat and death for a long time. Welcome to all the Latin Americans dealing with the USA's shit Imperialism. It is not Disneyland for us Patrikov! At all!

THen don't you ever talk about Puerto Ricans in some derogatory patronizing shit way again! ( I read and have been reading your patronizing comments don't think I skipped it).

That provocation I did ON PURPOSE for you to snap out of your damn romance with American bullshit Imperialism. It is all BAD. The ENglish version, the American version and the Chinese version. But the opium war drug dealing English were the ones who came up with wanting control of HongKong. They dumped you when they had to measure which of the two nations they could make better money off of. BETRAYED for selfish imperialist powers to win.

Welcome to that world. You hypocrite!

Have the British said they will sweep in and confront the PRC and kick their asses if they touched their precious HongKong people? NO? Why not? Aren't they your buddies and allies? Or are they going to leave you high and dry like they did the Cuban Exiles in the Bay of Pigs trying to take back their country from the nightmare of Communism?

I can answer that one for you Patrikov the double standard pro USA crap thought man......they are GONE. Left you holding the bag. They aren't shedding tears and are battling for their own economic survival in Europe and the European Union.

Putting your need for protection from the homicidal PRC government? They ran like scared dogs.

What you gonna do then? Cry on the internet about it?

I hate people who spout about nations who are in their exact same position in the world and live the problem of being a damn colony and ex colony and then don't empathize with the ones who still are in that same position but since it is some English speaking Anglo influenced bully nation and not Chinese Communism? They give them a damn pass! Don't give them a pass. I don't give the PRC a pass with HongKong. But I won't cry for your hypocrisy you double speaker.

I read what you said about Puerto Rico. I did that whole thing on purpose. You revealed your hypocrisy Patrikov. Biased for the Anglos. To hell with that!

[Pants-of-dog]

If they are in power, it's because they were democratically elected. In reality, they are not in power in plenty of places.

I'm still waiting for you to produce an example of an US-backed military dictatorship in Latin America that is in power today.

The Colombians who employed death squads against villagers are still in power and supported by the USA.

And yes, the US government that has supported all these dictatorships is still in power because it was democratically elected by US citizens.

Yours is the actual argument from ignorance, saying we should assume the US is doing stuff without providing proof.

By the way, since it's your claim the burden of proof falls on you. I have no obligation to prove a negative, such as proving that I have not committed a crime.

Yes it did. The economic, military and diplomatic support for regimes like Venezuela's is similar to American support for military dictatorships prior to the 1990s. In some cases, the Chinese economic support for its dictatorial allies in Latin America is even more relevant than anything the US did in this realm.

So you will not elaborate, but claim there was resistance to the US-backed military dictatorships that was so great that it outweighted US backing in each and every case, without providing any evidence to that effect. In the Chilean case, not even the left claims something like that and its usual explanation is that Pinochet's regime was forced to accept the electoral defeat because it had already lost American support.

But sure, I guess I could probably believe you just because you say so without providing proof.

Your refusal to provide evidence is noted.

At this point, I will assume you concede that the US is a far bigger threat to most Latin Americans and MENA residents than China.

[wat0n]

The Colombians who employed death squads against villagers are still in power and supported by the USA.

They are still in power because they were democratically elected by the Colombian people, and Colombian courts have been ruling against those who ran those death squads. Where is the similar comparison to what the Venezuelan, Cubans and Nicaraguans do?

And yes, the US government that has supported all these dictatorships is still in power because it was democratically elected by US citizens.

No, it's not. Nixon and Reagan are already dead. Carter is very old, retired and likely at the end of his life.

Or are you suggesting that any and all US administrations from then on are to blame for the actions of the past ones?

Your refusal to provide evidence is noted.

At this point, I will assume you concede that the US is a far bigger threat to most Latin Americans and MENA residents than China.

You have no response - even after I provided easy to find sources on the matter - because you have no argument. Hence, instead of addressing the facts and upon being totally unable to muster a cogent response, you prefer to pretend that no argument was provided, just as you prefer there are no accusations against the Cuban, Venezuelan and Nicaraguan governments in terms of the human rights situation in these countries, even if some of those come from the same organizations that would issue similar accusations against US-backed military dictatorships 30+ years ago.

[Pants-of-dog]

They are still in power because they were democratically elected by the Colombian people, and Colombian courts have been ruling against those who ran those death squads. Where is the similar comparison to what the Venezuelan, Cubans and Nicaraguans do?

As long as we agree that the US is continuing to support people who committed massacres.

No, it's not. Nixon and Reagan are already dead. Carter is very old, retired and likely at the end of his life.

Or are you suggesting that any and all US administrations from then on are to blame for the actions of the past ones?

Former Senator Biden was instrumental in helping the Colombians at the height of the violence by right wing guerillas. He is now POTUS.

You have no response - even after I provided easy to find sources on the matter - because you have no argument. Hence, instead of addressing the facts and upon being totally unable to muster a cogent response, you prefer to pretend that no argument was provided, just as you prefer there are no accusations against the Cuban, Venezuelan and Nicaraguan governments in terms of the human rights situation in these countries, even if some of those come from the same organizations that would issue similar accusations against US-backed military dictatorships 30+ years ago.

Please see my last post. Thank you.

[wat0n]

As long as we agree that the US is continuing to support people who committed massacres.

No, the US continues supporting the Colombian State that is moving to prosecute the perpetrators as these massacres become known. Or are you saying the US has been pressuring Colombian courts to allow them get scots-free?

Former Senator Biden was instrumental in helping the Colombians at the height of the violence by right wing guerillas. He is now POTUS.

Indeed, it's a good thing he's helped restore stability in Colombia.

But it's interesting to see you bringing this point up, because then we can discuss how regimes like those governing Cuba and Venezuela have behaved in terms of supporting criminal left wing guerrillas and which countries have helped bankroll those regimes to do their dirty work. That's an important aspect of the damage left-wing dictatorships in Latin America have aided to take tens of thousands of lives and commit several massacres against civilians, such as those in Colombia (FARC, ELN). Thank you for the reminder.

Please see my last post. Thank you.

I'm still waiting for you to stop deflecting, particularly since the evidence you are requesting was provided long ago.

[Pants-of-dog]

You mean that it continues supporting the Colombian State that is moving to prosecute the perpetrators as these massacres become known.

The killings are ongoing, by the way.

And many of the perpetrators have received immunity, and many of the leaders live free in the USA.

Indeed, it's a good thing he's helped restore stability in Colombia.

This justification for continuing to support US politicians who have been involved in human rights abuses and massacres abroad is the same justification for China’s new law for HK candidates.

[wat0n]

The killings are ongoing, by the way.

And many of the perpetrators have received immunity, and many of the leaders live free in the USA.

Which ones? The most important ones were extradited to the US under drug charges and some have returned to Colombia to face charges after serving sentences in the US (example). Are you referring to lesser ones who cooperated with American or Colombian authorities to catch bigger fish?

This justification for continuing to support US politicians who have been involved in human rights abuses and massacres abroad is the same justification for China’s new law for HK candidates.

Is it? China is denying the right to the population living in HK to vote for their own leaders (just as mainland Chinese cannot do the same). FARC also did the same to the population living under its control, as still do its backers in Latin America and as is still done by its competition (ELN).

Leftists can vote for whoever the wish in the territories under the control of the Colombian government, including FARC's political arm (which isn't banned as per the peace agreement).

[Pants-of-dog]

Which ones? The most important ones were extradited to the US under drug charges and some have returned to Colombia to face charges after serving sentences in the US (example). Are you referring to lesser ones who cooperated with American or Colombian authorities to catch bigger fish?

I am discussing the leaders of the AUC, mostly.

Is it? China is denying the right to the population living in HK to vote for their own leaders (just as mainland Chinese cannot do the same). FARC also did the same to the population living under its control, as still do its backers in Latin America and as is still done by its competition (ELN).

Leftists can vote for whoever the wish in the territories under the control of the Colombian government, including FARC's political arm (which isn't banned as per the peace agreement).

So we agree that Biden directly supported right wing death squads in Colombia and still does.

And we have no evidence that China has had a similar direct support for left wing death squads.

[wat0n]

I am discussing the leaders of the AUC, mostly.

They were extradited and jailed in the US. Those who have been released were deported to Colombia to face charges.

This doesn't quite fit your narrative, does it?

So we agree that Biden directly supported right wing death squads in Colombia and still does.

And we have no evidence that China has had a similar direct support for left wing death squads.

I'm not sure how you concluded any of this. Nonsense.

[Pants-of-dog]

They were extradited and jailed in the US. Those who have been released were deported to Colombia to face charges.

This doesn't quite fit your narrative, does it?

Many of them were not charged or arrested for the killings and are no walking free.

I'm not sure how you concluded any of this. Nonsense.

Do you want me to clarify something?

[wat0n]

Many of them were not charged or arrested for the killings and are no walking free.

Who?

Do you want me to clarify something?

Go on.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

At this point, we are discussing to what extent people like Biden are accessories to massacres. I have made my argument as to how. Someone like @Patrickov could easily provide an argument about how current leaders in Chinese government are doing the same in China’s backyard.

So, again, the question is what socio-economic conditions lead to this?

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog since you evaded the issue, even after I provided high profile examples of right-wing Colombian AUC members who faced jail time in the US and where then deported to Colombia to face trial there as well, I assume you have no counterargument to offer.

[Patrickov]

@Tainari88

My anger towards you is the same as yours to me because neither of us see each other willing to fully understand the perils of the other party.

We are under direct Chinese rule now, and like a lot of posters said, China is an aggressive and (as you yourself agree) anti-democratic jerk. And we are supposedly to be a Chinese citizen to start with. Our situation is like, USA federal government treating citizens in SF like they do in, say, Guatemala when the people there elect an anti-US president.

If there are alternatives to stop the PRC and not to bring any other Singapore-like situation then to hell with USA. But to us here, the USA or, by extension, Five Eyes are the only ones who can practically punish China.

I admire the British system, which allows us to do the balance and check we need. Hoping foreign rule to bring good people is an outdated thought to me -- most in the West are equal jerks if not more. Chris Patten is as virtuous as they can get.

As I said in the Syria thread, the West has been proxying around the world which IMHO is the reason of much of the perils the likes of you and your kin experienced. I do think the US should treat Puerto Rico more equally, e.g. admit it as a state.

P. S. I don't see myself centrist but I took the alignment test a while ago and it called me centrist. However, under the current situation I do strive myself to be as right as I can, because I see left-wing politics the source of perils in my part of the world. Moreover, most left-wingers are either pro-China or are their useful idiots.