Since we haven't poked a stick at the Chinese fire ants in a while. The line from Beijing seems to be, "Prove that you would vote the way we want you to vote and then we'll give you the vote." Or are all these protests a western plot to discredit China? How do people justify China ignoring the agreement they signed with Great Britain and shelving democracy for some far off unspecified later date? [rquoter] Crowds demand HK democracy Hong Kong (dpa) - Tens of thousands of people Sunday demanded democracy for Hong Kong on the 10th anniversary of its return to Chinese rule, hours after China's president warned them not to defy Beijing. Huge crowds congregated in the city's Victoria Park from 2 pm onwards including former deputy Hong Kong leader Anson Chan and head of the Catholic church Cardinal Joseph Zen for the annual march to demand universal suffrage. Early estimates put the turnout at between 40,000 and 50,000, making it potentially the largest demonstration since the 2003 and 2004 July 1 marches which each attracted more than 500,000 people. President Hu Jintao, visiting Hong Kong for the first time as China's leader, earlier sounded an apparent warning to pro-democracy campaigners Sunday, warning them not to challenge Beijing's powers. In a speech to mark the handover anniversary, President Hu spoke of the "paramount importance" of national unity above any of Hong Kong's singular interests. But Hu left the city before the pro-democracy march began Sunday afternoon in a move that seemed designed to avoid any embarrassing confrontations. The Chinese leader's speech, delivered at an early morning swearing-in ceremony for a new Beijing-appointed administration in Hong Kong, appeared to be a warning to campaigners pressing for universal suffrage in the former British colony. Hu went to lengths to stress that national unity was the most important factor of the "one country, two systems" arrangement by which Hong Kong was returned to Chinese rule on July 1, 1997. "One country and two systems cannot be separated from each other, still less should they be set against each other," Hu said. "One country means we must uphold the power vested with the central government and uphold China's sovereignty, unity and security." Hu spoke of "gradual, orderly development" of Hong Kong's political system, indicating that Beijing will not be rushed into putting a date on universal suffrage in the former British colony. The president, accompanied by Hong Kong leader Donald Tsang, then left the city for Shenzhen in neighbouring southern China before the start of the pro-democracy demonstration. At the demonstration, Cardinal Zen said he was in "no mood to celebrate" the 10th anniversary of Hong Kong's return to Chinese rule as the city still had no democracy. President Hu's relatively low-key visit, with no public walkabouts, was characterized by tight security with police keeping protesters from going anywhere near the Grand Hyatt Hotel where he stayed. Hong Kong was a British colony for 156 years before reverting to Chinese rule at the stroke of midnight on July 1, 1997, under an agreement that guarantees political freedoms for 50 years. The territory is technically entitled to full democracy from 2007 but China and Hong Kong's Beijing-appointed chief executive have so far refused to name a date for universal suffrage in the city of 6.9 million. [/rquoter]
The effects are only felt by the people of Hong Kong. Do the people of Hong Kong need to be payed back?
It is also interesting to note the (non)coverage of the protests on Xinhua, dispite several pages on the aniversary showing people waving PRC flags and many pages on how happy and content everybody is in Hong Kong.
I was just half-kidding. I think the Chinese could argue that this whole 'one country, two systems' -- or 'state within a state' -- solution isn't really much of one. That Honk Kong has to be re-integrated with mainland China and become a part of the PRC, not some privileged province. China could argue that they don't want to have to deal with yet another Taiwan in the long run, that they feel like it's a matter of 'national security' and that Hong Kong having that degree of autonomy would set a bad precedent and encourage 'unrest' in other parts of China. The British don't have to agree with them, but the Chinese could argue their case a number of ways. If the British don't like it, they can always send the Royal Navy in to reclaim HK on the basis that China violated the terms of the deal. How likely is it? Not very, but it's an option.
What does how happy and content people are have to do with anything? I think it's irrelevant to the discussion.
I assume you are trying to say the USA does the same? If so, when was the last time that the US Government suppressed all media coverage of any event?
I'm not sure where I made that claim? The agreement on the transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong was the implementation of democracy after a interregnum of 10 years. See One Country, Two Systems. btw, forgot the source link
Democracy in HK was a sham concocted by the British as they left to spring as a nasty surprise for China. For 99 years they have no democracy as a British crown colony, yet in around 1995-1996 suddenly the British start making noise about it. Gee, I wonder why the UK did that? Could it be to stir up trouble for Communist China? Too bad for them we've squished the democracy problem and solved the bigger problem, which is keeping the economy of UK going well so nobody actually cares about democracy. Tens of thousands is pretty pitiful; we didn't even bend when a hundred thousand showed up.
Don't talk to us about violated treaties. We've had plenty of treaties violated on us (pretty much every treaty from about 1850-1950). Besides, the American record on such things isn't terribly clean either.
