About the events in Hong Kong...

Here too the veil falls, and who do we find at the helm? Again and again the same... (additional information).

Our media (the media of capital, let's not forget!) adore the Hong Kong demonstrators who, by the thousands they claim, are waving umbrellas to demand democracy, the pure, the real, the authentic!

It seems that the Chinese government does not agree. He would prefer to appoint the men who will run Hong Kong himself. So who is right, the protesters or the Chinese government? Beware of answers that are a little too spontaneous!

We who have the experience of this democracy of which some Hong Kongers dream, we know very well that the one who wins this kind of election is the one who has the support of capital: the press passes him the soup every day, pollsters say he's unavoidable and experts show that his program is truly reasonable. In short, the winner is the one who has large sums of money allocated to his campaign by those who have it, and who expect to have as “elected” people who will take care of their interests!

We saw this clearly in France in 2007 when the press, pollsters and experts largely contributed to promoting Nicolas Sarkozy. The same, in 2012, supported François Hollande! We can see (how surprising!) that both are pursuing policies based on the same strategy… in favor of capital!

In the particular case of Hong Kong, we note that the method used by the demonstrators is close to the "orange revolutions": a so-called democratic demand, an easily recognized emblem (here, the umbrellas) and the permanent occupation of a central location.

The Chinese government and the people of Hong Kong have spotted what was going on. The American and British hand is beyond doubt! This "democratic" demand, if it were effectively implemented, would indeed have the short-term consequence of separating Hong Kong from China, and of reversing the 1997 reunification agreement.

Because if we speak today of attachment, it is because there was previously separation: during the opium wars in the middle of the XNUMXth century, the colonial powers had forced the Chinese government of the time to concede territories for their exclusive benefit, in the form of a long-term lease. This is how Hong Kong, a Chinese territory, became British. At the time, the Chinese spoke of “unequal treaties”, of which the Treaty of Nanjing is one.

The British thought that Hong Kong was still theirs. But, at the end of this long centenary lease, the Chinese government asserted its rights and signified to Great Britain that it would not be renewed: Hong Kong would once again become a Chinese land, governed by China.

The People's Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party had prepared the case well: to convince the British not to make a fuss and to allay the fears of the Hong Kong economy, the proposed agreement was summed up in: "one country, two systems” (this is also the same proposal that North Korea has made to South Korea since 1953: “one country, two systems”).

Hong Kong's economy therefore falls under a capitalist system, under Beijing's control. Hong Kong is therefore not “an independent country”: it is a Chinese province, but administered in a very specific way.

It is certain that China does not consider for a moment to go back. The Opium Wars are well and truly over and Hong Kong will remain in China.

The Chinese government has therefore explained that the future governor of Hong Kong will be elected by the inhabitants of the territory. However, the candidates cannot be men under influence campaigning with American and British funding: Beijing therefore proposes candidates who carry the simple, but complex principle: “one country, two systems”…

Is this type of filter legitimate? Yes, because laissez-faire in fact favors the wealth and money of foreign Anglo-Saxons, and, in the particular case of Hong Kong, would aim at a new separation.

It will have been noticed that the Chinese government is dealing with the matter through negotiation and careful use of police forces. But he does not give in. The humiliation of the unequal treaties of the XNUMXth century is not forgotten! Today, China has settled border issues with most of its neighbors, especially Russia. There remains the question of Taiwan and those, pending, with Japan and Vietnam.

This is a clear attempt by the United States to destabilize China. There will be others, let's be sure. Do not give any credit to these maneuvers!

DR