泰晤士報:香港人民的勇氣讓西方也自愧不如
極速神驅
27 回覆
69 Like
1 Dislike
睇唔到全文
又話失國際民心?
鬼 :
連史上最膽怕事民族都storm
鬼 :
連史上最膽怕事民族都storm
No one with real power has the guts to admit it, but a few years ago the rest of the world gave up caring about the evils perpetrated by the government of China. Perhaps it was the moment when the People’s Republic overtook Japan to become the world’s second biggest economy. Perhaps it was the accession of Xi Jinping, the most uncompromisingly authoritarian Chinese leader since Mao. At some point in the past 15 years, the right-thinking governments of western Europe and North America, confronted by the oppression, cruelty and petty vindictiveness of the Chinese regime towards its opponents, shrugged their shoulders and turned away.
It’s not that the West ignores the rounding up of Muslim Uighurs in “re-education” camps in Xinjiang province, the persecution of peaceful democracy activists or the suppression of Tibet’s independence movement; but the objections raised are so timid and bureaucratic, so hobbled by the fear of causing offence, as to be almost meaningless. The only person standing up to Mr Xi is Donald Trump, who is engaged in a trade war not on grounds of principle, but for national self-interest. He makes little secret of his indifference to the rights of the Chinese; his concern is only for the economic advantage of Americans.
This is the most remarkable, and the most shaming, thing about the protest movement that has emerged in Hong Kong in the past month. The youth of its organisers, several of whom are little more than teenagers, is inspiring. The scale of the demonstrations, some reaching 2 million people, has taken everyone by surprise. But the most important thing about them is their uniqueness. The Hong Kong protesters represent the only significant challenge anywhere in the world to the oppression and arrogance of the Chinese communist party.
It’s not that the West ignores the rounding up of Muslim Uighurs in “re-education” camps in Xinjiang province, the persecution of peaceful democracy activists or the suppression of Tibet’s independence movement; but the objections raised are so timid and bureaucratic, so hobbled by the fear of causing offence, as to be almost meaningless. The only person standing up to Mr Xi is Donald Trump, who is engaged in a trade war not on grounds of principle, but for national self-interest. He makes little secret of his indifference to the rights of the Chinese; his concern is only for the economic advantage of Americans.
This is the most remarkable, and the most shaming, thing about the protest movement that has emerged in Hong Kong in the past month. The youth of its organisers, several of whom are little more than teenagers, is inspiring. The scale of the demonstrations, some reaching 2 million people, has taken everyone by surprise. But the most important thing about them is their uniqueness. The Hong Kong protesters represent the only significant challenge anywhere in the world to the oppression and arrogance of the Chinese communist party.
What began as a movement against a proposed new extradition law, that would allow people arrested in Hong Kong to be sent for trial in China, has metamorphosed into a determined campaign to force the resignation of the territory’s chief executive, Carrie Lam, who is effectively appointed by Beijing. Its leaders, such as 22-year-old Joshua Wong, talk openly about their goal: the introduction of genuine democracy in Hong Kong, a demand which long ago became taboo among the leaders of the G20 nations.
There are reasons, of course, for the reluctance of governments to confront Beijing, beginning with the most obvious of all. Chinese money and technology exert an increasingly powerful influence on the global economy. The Chinese market is one that no multinational manufacturer or financial institution can ignore.
Beijing has made it clear that it will punish any government that challenges it on issues such as democracy and human rights. For a British prime minister to speak out in support of independence for Taiwan, for example, would bring a heavy cost in terms of Chinese investment and opportunities for British companies in Beijing. If the leader of one of its competitor economies, such as France or Germany, were to do so, Britain would stand to benefit from its own silence. It is not surprising that governments prefer to avoid the problem altogether and resort to diplomatic bromides, such as those uttered by Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, when he warned Beijing yesterday of unspecified “serious consequences” if the rights of Hong Kongers were trampled on.
There is another argument for not tackling human rights in China head on — the wish to avoid a new Cold War, in which political differences turn into a broad economic, cultural and military confrontation. Barring some internal catastrophe, China’s rise to global economic pre-eminence is inevitable; military power will not lag very far behind. Surely it is better, the argument goes, to find points of common interest and understanding with this new superpower, rather than turning points of principle into the trenches of a new battle of ideologies.
There are reasons, of course, for the reluctance of governments to confront Beijing, beginning with the most obvious of all. Chinese money and technology exert an increasingly powerful influence on the global economy. The Chinese market is one that no multinational manufacturer or financial institution can ignore.
Beijing has made it clear that it will punish any government that challenges it on issues such as democracy and human rights. For a British prime minister to speak out in support of independence for Taiwan, for example, would bring a heavy cost in terms of Chinese investment and opportunities for British companies in Beijing. If the leader of one of its competitor economies, such as France or Germany, were to do so, Britain would stand to benefit from its own silence. It is not surprising that governments prefer to avoid the problem altogether and resort to diplomatic bromides, such as those uttered by Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, when he warned Beijing yesterday of unspecified “serious consequences” if the rights of Hong Kongers were trampled on.
There is another argument for not tackling human rights in China head on — the wish to avoid a new Cold War, in which political differences turn into a broad economic, cultural and military confrontation. Barring some internal catastrophe, China’s rise to global economic pre-eminence is inevitable; military power will not lag very far behind. Surely it is better, the argument goes, to find points of common interest and understanding with this new superpower, rather than turning points of principle into the trenches of a new battle of ideologies.
This is where the young men and women of Hong Kong put the rest of the world to shame. Their city is part of China. The tanks of the People’s Liberation Army are within short trundling distance of their schools, workplaces and homes. British politicians worry about scaring Chinese securities firms away from the City of London. Hong Kong people face a one-party dictatorship, encroaching on the liberties supposedly guaranteed under the Sino-British “one country, two systems” agreement.
How much more they have to lose than us. They have no army, no embassies, no seat at the United Nations. But for all their vulnerability, they have demonstrated the power of principled dissent. The vandalism perpetrated by a few activists during Monday’s invasion of parliament will be used by Ms Lam and the authorities in Beijing in an effort to portray the whole movement as one of thugs and hooligans. It will not succeed.
Given the frustrations the people of the territory face, and the frustration of the democratic impulse, it is remarkable that there has not been more bad behaviour. The people of Hong Kong have behaved with courage, confidence, dignity and restraint. These qualities in themselves have been enough to throw on to the back foot the mighty Chinese state. It is an example from which the anxious governments of the West could learn a valuable lesson.
Richard Lloyd Parry is Asia editor
Roger Boyes is away
How much more they have to lose than us. They have no army, no embassies, no seat at the United Nations. But for all their vulnerability, they have demonstrated the power of principled dissent. The vandalism perpetrated by a few activists during Monday’s invasion of parliament will be used by Ms Lam and the authorities in Beijing in an effort to portray the whole movement as one of thugs and hooligans. It will not succeed.
Given the frustrations the people of the territory face, and the frustration of the democratic impulse, it is remarkable that there has not been more bad behaviour. The people of Hong Kong have behaved with courage, confidence, dignity and restraint. These qualities in themselves have been enough to throw on to the back foot the mighty Chinese state. It is an example from which the anxious governments of the West could learn a valuable lesson.
Richard Lloyd Parry is Asia editor
Roger Boyes is away
外國選擇性失明，當年戰鬥民族反共，葉利欽用坦克車炮轟議會大樓，人民衝入KGB 大樓破壞，機密文件全部拋出街任睇，西方國家一致支持! 普京由KGB 淪為DC9, 用民族覆興榥子上台再誅殺暴己變翻獨裁！
終於有遊行
之前未出過嚟嘅巴絲打
希望你地出一次嚟感受現場環境
之前未出過嚟嘅巴絲打
希望你地出一次嚟感受現場環境
燒山對整個運動的預測(連G20),一次都無中過
推
屌緊班西人奶共奶到雪雪聲
多得佢燈死對家
燒山好嘢
燒山好嘢
多謝燒山
嘩, 強心針
我地上前線既勇氣，分分鐘啲牛高馬大既鬼佬都無
佢地自細有民主自由已經當係理所當然
大部分鬼佬一生人都未去過遊行
佢地自細有民主自由已經當係理所當然
大部分鬼佬一生人都未去過遊行