Live data from Hacker News

Billionaire Is Reported Seized from Hong Kong Hotel and Taken into China

nytimes.com

151–160 of 185 posts

Re: Billionaire Is Reported Seized from Hong Kong Hotel and Taken into China

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent comment implied no such thing, you invented that. Rather, they said it's concerning (which makes perfect sense), and that they hope the Canadian Govt gets on top of it swiftly (also makes perfect sense, the Canadian Govt should get involved asap, given it's one of their citizens).

To the Chinese government he is Chinese, period. This is their public stated policy. To be considered a foreigner you have to be born outside of China to non-Chinese parents and only hold foreign citizenship. This is the only case in which the Chinese government allows foreign consulates to become involved.

Yes, North Korea has a full-ownership policy too. I hear it's quite efficient.

Re: Billionaire Is Reported Seized from Hong Kong Hotel and Taken into China

#152
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Hong Kong is a separate state. They govern themselves.

Yes, but no. Hong Kong is officially the "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". It's an autonomous region, but it's part of the PRC, not a separate state.

Ahh, right, right. The people were given to one country by another. Silly people.

Re: Billionaire Is Reported Seized from Hong Kong Hotel and Taken into China

#153

Mossad abducted Adolph Eichmann in Argentina and took him to Israel. US Navy Seals raided and killed Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. Indian army stormed across the LoC and destroyed terrorist camps in Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Chinese police captured Xiao Jianhua in Hongkong and took him across the border. When are these actions justified? Only when someone is a killer or a torturer or a terrorist? Or are they okay in…

Don't forget Marc Rich, FBI Ten Most Wanted, who US Marshals failed to kidnap in Switzerland several times... over unpaid taxes.

Re: Billionaire Is Reported Seized from Hong Kong Hotel and Taken into China

#154
post #148
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be inclined towards genuine antipathy towards corruption. I have a brother that at one point regularly dealt with top levels of Chinese government. His summary was, "China is a country of crooks ruled by honest men; the USA is a country of honest men ruled by crooks." He's not sure which is worse in the end. Based on that, I would bet on the top levels of the Chinese government being basically ethical (albeit…

This sounds eerily like something a Chinese government propaganda person would say.

The Chinese government values stability above all else. This is why they will also not hesitate to detain lawyers asking tough questions or steamroller physically protesting activists with tanks, because their calculus is that it's the lesser evil compared to the tens of millions of dead in the various revolutions and upheavals of the past 100 years.

Of course, stability is also quite useful for preserving power and enjoying the fruits of dubious wealth, so here the moral imperative dovetails neatly with the personal interests of party cadres.

Re: Billionaire Is Reported Seized from Hong Kong Hotel and Taken into China

#155
post #135
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the cold shoulder he's given Taiwan's president, who is also the first female leader democratically elected in Asia, and how he barely responded to Wang Yi's belligerent behavior in Canada, I'd say Trudeau will do nothing. When it comes to might vs right, Canada generally sides with might. To be honest, other than the US, the only country I can even imagine standing up to China for the well-being of a 3rd party…

> who is also the first female leader democratically elected in Asia There have been plenty of other female leaders elected in Asia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_or_appointed_f...

That's totally right. It should have been first female leader in any Chinese-speaking countries. The greater point still stands. Trudeau would not snub the democratically elected leader of any other advanced economy of 23 million.

Re: Billionaire Is Reported Seized from Hong Kong Hotel and Taken into China

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the Chinese government he is Chinese, period. This is their public stated policy. To be considered a foreigner you have to be born outside of China to non-Chinese parents and only hold foreign citizenship. This is the only case in which the Chinese government allows foreign consulates to become involved.

Yes, North Korea has a full-ownership policy too. I hear it's quite efficient.

If you're going to get snarky, then the US has it too... but only for taxation.

Re: Billionaire Is Reported Seized from Hong Kong Hotel and Taken into China

#157
post #148
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be inclined towards genuine antipathy towards corruption. I have a brother that at one point regularly dealt with top levels of Chinese government. His summary was, "China is a country of crooks ruled by honest men; the USA is a country of honest men ruled by crooks." He's not sure which is worse in the end. Based on that, I would bet on the top levels of the Chinese government being basically ethical (albeit…

This sounds eerily like something a Chinese government propaganda person would say.

Feel free to look through my comment history and make your own opinion on whether I'm likely to be a Chinese government propaganda person.

Re: Billionaire Is Reported Seized from Hong Kong Hotel and Taken into China

#158
post #148
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be inclined towards genuine antipathy towards corruption. I have a brother that at one point regularly dealt with top levels of Chinese government. His summary was, "China is a country of crooks ruled by honest men; the USA is a country of honest men ruled by crooks." He's not sure which is worse in the end. Based on that, I would bet on the top levels of the Chinese government being basically ethical (albeit…

This sounds eerily like something a Chinese government propaganda person would say.

Please don't imply another member is a shill or plant or whatnot without solid evidence. It's uncivil and not conducive to constructive discussion. If you're actually concerned that this might be the case, please contact the mods via the Contact link in the footer.

Re: Billionaire Is Reported Seized from Hong Kong Hotel and Taken into China

#159

I wonder, what would the world be like today if the UK had refused to give back Hong Kong? Or, they could have refused to switch recognition from ROC to PRC, and then handed Hong Kong to ROC instead? The US and the UK basically gave the PRC everything they wanted in switching the UN's China seat from ROC to PRC. They could have driven a much harder bargain – e.g. have two Chinas in the UN, just like it has two Koreas…

China needed strong assurances from the US and UK that formally splitting from the Soviet Union wouldn't see the American alliance then turn against China in a divide-and-conquer strategy. Could we have gotten a better deal? I'm not sure. Given the earlier incursion into Vietnam and Korea, the military support of the ROC and the militarization of the First Island Chain, I can't imagine that anything short of the very…

Did the US-China alliance win the Cold War? To what extent did it contribute to the fall of the Soviet Union? I think most of the reasons why the Soviet Empire fell were internal factors rather than external pressures, and the US-China alliance made at best a marginal difference to the outcome.

Indeed, what did the US and its allies actually get out of their anti-Soviet alliance with PRC? Nixon hoped that it would help the US in Vietnam; but obviously it didn't – South Vietnam lost the war and they probably would have lost it just the same even if Nixon's China trip never happened. More broadly, I honestly can't see any military benefits for the US and its allies from the deal. The various potential military hotspots – Vietnam, the Korean peninsula, the South China Sea – would probably be in much the same state if the US-China deal never happened. Obviously some sort of understanding with PRC had to be reached eventually, since pretending ROC was the government of the whole of China wasn't tenable in the long run, but the US could have extracted some major concessions from PRC in exchange for recognition instead of basically conceding to PRC all its major objectives – an alliance against the Soviets was not a huge concession from PRC given that PRC and USSR were already mutually hostile since the Sino-Soviet split of the early 1960s.

Many people say that Nixon's decision was a great strategic move, but I am unconvinced – the US got some short-term assistance against the Soviets which it didn't really need and didn't make much difference anyway; in exchange, the US put itself in a weaker strategic position vis-à-vis China for many decades to come.

And of course, China's economic development since the 1980s has provided many economic benefits to the US and its allies. But, that still could have happened even if there was a more assertive US policy towards PRC, such as a "two Chinas policy" of recognising both PRC and ROC and maintaining diplomatic relations with both. Under this model, it would not be essential that PRC itself abandon the "one China" position, merely that it be willing to accept trade and diplomatic relations with countries that adopted the "two Chinas" position instead. If the US had made that the price for US-PRC trade from the outset, I think Beijing probably would have come around to paying it. In the 1970s, the US was a vastly richer country than PRC (the gap is still there but it has closed a lot in the last 30-40 years), and PRC had far more to gain from US trade than vice versa, so the US arguably had more power to set the ground terms for the relationship – but the US despite having the far stronger hand chose not to play it.

Re: Billionaire Is Reported Seized from Hong Kong Hotel and Taken into China

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me whether the anti-corruption drive arises out of a genuine antipathy towards corruption or as a means for Xi Jinping to consolidate personal power. This is especially hard because it seems likely that every Chinese bigwig is at least somewhat corrupt, and high-level Chinese power politics is opaque enough that it's not clear if only Xi's rivals are being targeted. I really don't know how to unpick…

It seems to me that it's an actual genuine effort, given that the publicity of the drive has damaged Chinese public confidence in their institutions of government (high profile corruption is often featured in the news) and because many of the people taken to court have been in Xi Jinpeng's own circle and have represented for him a loss of personal power in the party. I haven't read much about Xi's personal power grow…

> Documents and communications from Jinping

The family name is Xi, just FYI.

Post reply on HN