Protests in Hong Kong

[anvi]

So, as I understand it, there are two issues here.  

The first is that, though candidates for the Chief Executive of Hong Kong had up to now been nominated and then elected by an election council (recently expanded in size), there was a legal aspiration of achieving universal suffrage in the selection of the Chief Executive by 2017.  But some days ago, before the Hong Kong Legislative Council could approve that measure (with a 2/3 vote necessary), Beijing reversed itself and said the selection process would remain in the hands of the election council for the 2017 Chief Executive race.

The other issue is that, last year, Beijing injected some very discernible ambiguity on the issue of who may be considered eligible for nomination.  Previously, candidates for the Chief Executive office were required to be politically non-aligned.  But the language Beijing officials introduced as criteria for nomination last year strongly intimated that eligible candidates had to be judged loyal to Beijing, which is new to the process in Hong Kong.  This is the very criterion that is applied to ballot elections in the Mainland, where, on the local level, candidates from different parties can run for office, but must make public statements of non-opposition to the CCP.

It seems the two issues converge here; Beijing, in exchange for opening up suffrage in the still-undetermined future, wanted to exert stricter control over the criteria of eligibility for the Chief Executive's office.  But then, they reversed themselves on the universal suffrage offer for the next cycle too.

The reversed universal suffrage promise and the apparent reining in of the eligibility criteria have thus catalyzed the Hong Kong protests.  Beijing is banking on getting their way, since, as they have at least nominally put universal suffrage on the table for...sometime in the future..., they can get away with getting a tighter political grip on the nominations process without fear of censure by the international community.  But, by igniting the protests, Hong Kong residents want to exert pressure on international opinion.

Not happy to see the tear gas flying.  I have friends in Hong Kong who are supporting the protesters and have marched with them before.  Tear gas is better than live bullets and tanks, of course, but, having had friends at Tianamen too, it's hard for '89 not to pop back into mind immediately when watching these scenes.

[anvi]

Sorry, my misunderstanding on the basis of a conversation.  Beijing has not pulled the universal suffrage language, but I don't think it's been voted on by the Leg Council yet, and it requires a 2/3 majority that seems in jeopardy.  But the candidate vetting language from Beijing seems the major problem.

[anvi]

Agreed, Beet.  When Beijing says "one country, two systems" with regard to Hong Kong ballet access, what it really means is apparently "one country, one system." 

Did Beijing underestimate the backlash in Hong Kong?  I mean, Occupy movements aside, Hong Kong residents are not shy about political protest.  Hell, there are pubs in Hong Kong called 6/4.