Not a very savory opinion to say "I wish colonialism had gone even further".
In contrast, the new law by by the CPC is an act of colonialism by definition as it is the CPC overriding 1 country, 2 systems and asserting political control over HK.
The British providing a path to independence could have been very similar to Belize (with CPC being equivalent to Guatemala in this case).
The British left a battalion of troops in Belize, the British Forces Belize, in order to act as a deterrent to a Guatemalan invasion.[1][2]
While China is obviously much more powerful than Guatemala, they still wouldn't have been able to invade given that it would have caused a nuclear war. Also, at that point China was much weaker economically so an economic war would have severely hurt their economic growth, undermining the key source of their power over the past 20 years.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belizean%E2%80%93Guatemalan_te... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_Training_and_Supp...
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Catalan_independence_refe...
Not to mention, HKers DO NOT want independence. In a recent poll only 20% of HKers desire independence.
This is part of the manipulation of the narrative by the Chinese government. It refuses to even recognize that these are truly different languages and calls them "varieties of Chinese" or "dialects of Chinese" when Cantonese or Taiwanese are more distant from Mandarin than the Romance languages are from one another. Then it tries to pretend like there are only a single people in China and is systematically eradicating minority communities.[1]
Thus, Mandarin political domination over other Chinese communities is imperialism at the very least, if not colonialism. Imperialism and colonialism aren't really that different from one another.[2]
Additionally, every group always like to claim the land that they had at their maximal imperial state. But borders change over time. People move around -- even Taiwan was only recently colonized by Chinese in the 17th/18th century in large numbers and before and after that was owned by other empires. Another example is when the Dutch decolonized Indonesia. The Dutch were simply replaced by the new "foreign imperialists" of the central Indonesian government, which the Balinese people and other such peoples of Indonesia considered a different group than themselves.
Furthermore, simply a region has been part of a broader empire for centuries or even millennia, doesn't mean isn't still being oppressed by an imperialist empire. The Russian Empire, Spanish oppression of other provinces and minorities for hundreds of years, etc.
Thus perhaps instead of focusing on the colonialism part we should focus on the imperialism part. The aim should be to empower self determination of a people and enabling them to be free of oppressive, imperial influence.
And to expand on your point about wanting to empower self determination, then you should stand with the HK government against foreign influence in HK domestic affairs. There is ample evidence of the United States pumping millions of dollars into the protests. The leaders of the protests have met with US officials to get their support. This is not normal. Imagine if news came out that BLM leaders in certain cities were meeting with Xi or Putin, and receiving millions in funds.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-poll-ex...
As you note, a much smaller fraction want independence. That doesn't mean they want to be subject to PRC law, though I agree the thing the people of HK seem to want (autonomy without independence) isn't usually how international (intranational?) relations work, especially when the "protecting power" is a dictatorship.
And yes, the linguistic argument was embarrassing; Westerners should learn more about Asia, and he'll surely abandon such arguments once he learns what language they speak in Taiwan. You could likewise learn more about life with Western-style freedoms, and you might understand why the people of Hong Kong (and America, misinformed as we might often be) so value them.
For example, the majority of people would agree that they do not want their taxes to be raised (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx). Those same people might not like the ramifications of that, but that wouldn't necessarily change their opinion.
Back to HK. The existence of HK as a semi-autonomous region that is still part of China provides a great way for foreign powers to extend their influence into China's domestic affairs. In this scenario, the US clearly has its hand in HK domestic affairs. US leaders are meeting with protest leaders. US organizations are funding protests. Flip this with domestic affairs in America, and you'll see that there is something deeply wrong with this picture. Although it isn't 1 to 1, imagine if China were funding BLM protests and inviting BLM leaders to Beijing.
I'm going to add a few links which support these claims if you were unaware. You could find some more yourself if you'd like:
US role in Hong Kong protests - https://www.workers.org/2019/06/42820/?fbclid=IwAR2ZjOUSl2Bt...
US Senator Ted Cruz visiting Hong Kong - https://twitter.com/CarlZha/status/1182937896795246593
American Gov’t, NGOs Fuel and Fund Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Protests - https://www.mintpressnews.com/hong-kong-protests/259202/
Sidenote: I am American. I have learned about Western-style "freedoms" and find them very contradictory with America as it exists today. For example, the American rate of incarceration is the highest in the world, surpassing even the highest rates of incarceration of Stalin's USSR. Obviously, not everything China does is good and not everything America does is bad, but I'd encourage you to take a more critical eye to any mainstream Western sentiment on foreign countries, especially when that sentiment usually results in thousands being killed.
There's certainly a contradiction there. I'd attribute HK public opinion against independence as recognition that they're geopolitically unable to exist as an independent country, and a desire for the perceived next best thing (which they really did have until recently), and not as any actual desire to be controlled by the PRC. How else do you explain public opposition to the national security law?
> I do believe China could do better in terms of securing individual liberty for their citizens, but if that comes at the cost of its sovereignty, then obviously some concessions have to be made.
And I'm not sure how Hong Kong's previous autonomy (or any other freedoms) would come at the cost of the PRC's sovereignty? If the CCP wanted to hold democratic elections tomorrow for all territory within their military control, then they could do it. Inertia being what it is, they'd probably even win! No outside force is preventing the PRC's government from responding to the will of the mainland's or HK's people; but instead, Beijing is transitioning from the pragmatic sort of technocracy that Deng Xiaoping introduced to plain dictatorship. The end of Hong Kong's autonomy is just another step down that path.
Finally, countries express opinions about the affairs of other countries all the time. The USA exists in part because of French meddling in a British colony. Everyone likes to do it, and no one likes it when others do it to them. As long as it's happening openly, I can't get too upset either way. America is certainly flawed in many important ways, but I can express those ways openly without fear for my personal safety, and that free expression has historically resulted in what I consider positive change. Something close to that used to be true in HK, and now it isn't. I suspect that became inevitable with the handover and with Xi's self-coronation, but I think it's a great loss.
ETA: And I'm not sure whether it's by coincidence, but your points closely track Beijing's usual talking points against the USA (sovereignty / "internal matter", incarceration rate, etc.). If you don't mind sharing, where did you develop these beliefs?
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Hong Kong benefits immensely from its autonomous position in regards to the Chinese government, so they don't want to disrupt the status quo. The protests have revealed HK to be a national security issue for the Chinese government, so they want to create laws to make sure HK isn't used as a center of political dissent. These two ideas are contradictory with each other, so a law like this was inevitable.
>And I'm not sure how Hong Kong's previous autonomy (or any other freedoms) would come at the cost of the PRC's sovereignty?
I'm not sure if you understand the original impetus of the extradition bill. Here's a good Twitter thread that details the provisions: https://twitter.com/DanielDumbrill/status/117502034599824588...
To answer your question, if criminals are able to easily escape China into Hong Kong, that fundamentally weakens the justice system. HKers and mainland Chinese move between HK and the mainland constantly. It would obviously be a failure of justice if you could go to a city within your country and encounter the man who killed your daughter. A similar law exists within Puerto Rico, a US territory. This is the bill that originally sparked the protests.
Recently Beijing passed the bill we are talking about that also gives them much more power in terms of being able to imprison HKers that try to subvert the government. This can be seen as a response to the protests, whose leaders have been revealed to be funded and supported by foreigners. China's sovereignty is absolutely threatened by protests and riots that seek to destabilize Chinese places of power, like Hong Kong.
>As long as it's happening openly, I can't get too upset either way
If you can't get upset about the US meddling in Chinese affairs, then you can't get upset about China trying to stop internal subversion. Not to mention, it absolutely doesn't just happen openly. The US has a long history of covert regime change operations. This happens completely undemocratically. Here's a short list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
I mean, just look at the hysteria surrounding Russian involvement in US elections. Rumors of Trump officials meeting with Russian officials has set public discourse on fire for years. And yet, it's unreasonable for China to oppose Demosisto party leaders who have openly met with US officials. I'm not trying to use whataboutism to deflect, I'm trying to paint an equivalency between the situations of these two countries.
>where did you develop these beliefs?
I'm fairly left leaning. China is a leftist country. I know China isn't perfect, but you can easily rationalize their decisions as being made by a government that cares about its people, not power-mad evil dictators as most people would have you believe. If you're interested in learning more, I would recommend reading Blackshirts & Reds by Michael Parenti. https://mltheory.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/michael-parenti...
I think the extradition bill means "anyone can be extradited to the mainland at any time, to be punished in any manner for any reason, according to Xi Jinping's personal judgment". Do you disagree? If so, what makes you doubt that Xi has that power? Or do you agree, but think it's good for him to extend that dictatorial power into Hong Kong?
Finally, have you been to Hong Kong? To the PRC? How much time have you spent living or doing business there? You have a picture of the region that I'm afraid departs considerably from that lived experience.
ETA: And to be clear, you're saying here that you were born into relative freedom, and have chosen to use that freedom to advocate for a one-man dictatorship to impose further control over a precarious quasi-state with elements of democracy and a highly-functioning rule of law. This is apparently because you consider that dictatorship to be "leftist". I hope you're not surprised by the cool reception that you're getting to this.
Also when the British took Hong Kong it was only an island with some small fishing and charcoal making villages. Not the same as the huge metropolis it is today. So it exists today because of people going there and building the place up. My guess is because it wasn't part of communist China proper so you could do and say things that you couldn't on the mainland.