Remember, Hong Kong was supposed to be in a 50 year transition period from 1997 where there were supposed to be one country, two systems [1]. The national security legislation is just one in a long line of failures [2]. If nothing else was learned, it was this: China, specifically the CCP, cannot be trusted.
It makes me sick that the UK sends billions to Ukraine to interfere in a war we have no fundamental right to involve ourselves in, meanwhile, Hong Kong was allowed to fall with only light media coverage. It is outrageous. The politicians that oversaw it should be ashamed.
Not to mention that Carrie Lam, former leader of Hong Kong, sold her people up the river by allowing the national security law in [3]. She was even hiding out in the UK with her husband from her own countrymen.
Hong Kong Basic Law also required a national security law since 1997. Lets not be selective.
> Article 23 is an article of the Hong Kong Basic Law. It states that Hong Kong "shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies."
The only lesson that China can learn from Russia is to not invade their neighbor. It did not work out at all for Russia; if China invades Taiwan it will not work out for them either.
From China insisting that the two lands will be united no matter what while building weapons aimed at Taiwan and systems that will be very effective at shooting at Taiwan and building literal invasion barges that are only usable at invading little islands that have heavily built up the defenses on their beaches.
There’s no way China is going to be an aggressor. It’s more akin to “don’t come into my lawn or else”. If you don’t go into their lawn nothing happens.
Um, at the time of the National Security Legislation (your reference [2]), we were not sending billions to Ukraine, because Russia hadn't started their open attack yet.
I wasn't suggesting the time periods are the same. The point is that we were willing to defend Ukraine against Russia, when it's the EU's problem, and refused to defend Hong Kong against China when it's a problem of our making.
The explanation in the news at the time was that Hong Kong was indefensible. For example almost all its water came from China. China could have taken it easily no matter how hard the UK tried to defend it.
It makes me sick that the UK sends billions to Ukraine to interfere in a war we have no fundamental right to involve ourselves in, meanwhile, Hong Kong was allowed to fall with only light media coverage. It is outrageous. The politicians that oversaw it should be ashamed.
Not to mention that Carrie Lam, former leader of Hong Kong, sold her people up the river by allowing the national security law in [3]. She was even hiding out in the UK with her husband from her own countrymen.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems#Imple...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems#2020_...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Lam