Posted on 08/05/2019 6:31:32 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Are there foreign forces interfering in Hong Kong affairs and fomenting unrest? Of course, there are. Just because local opposition figures laugh it off and ridicule such claims doesn’t make them untrue. And I am not even talking about long-ago, on-record funding of local anti-China groups by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which is financed by the United States Congress.
Just consider two incidents from last month, a lively period of anti-government protests.
Riding on her high horse, but acting in the most irresponsible way possible, the British Labour Party’s shadow Asia minister, Helen Goodman, released the names of the most senior expatriate officers responsible for conducting anti-riot operations last month. The officers and their families have been subjected to vitriolic cyber attacks and physical threats.
How did Goodman identify the expat officer responsible for authorising the use of tear gas? Hong Kong police carefully guarded such operational details from the public, but it would not be difficult for British government agents, including those working at the consulate in Admiralty, to obtain them. After all, the local force was called, not long ago, the Royal Hong Kong Police. The British government just handed over, without a fight, the information to a member of the opposition on request. What did they think Goodman would do with it?
Another serious incident is a leaked Skype conversation between Chinese fugitive billionaire Guo Wengui, now in the US, and disqualified localist legislator Leung Chung-hang during a protest last month. Neither man has issued a denial.
During the 15-plus minute conversation, Guo offered Leung “complete financial support” and that he had established full protection for him with the US government, including the Congress, State Department and the American consulate in Hong Kong.
Guo may be exaggerating his influence with the United States government, but we shouldn’t underestimate it either. According to The New York Times, he has formed a US$100 million fund – called the Rule of Law Fund – with former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, with the express goal of undermining the Chinese Communist Party.
Both men are friends of Kyle Bass, the hedge fund manager who has been short-selling the yuan and presumably the Hong Kong dollar and its denominated assets as well; he claimed in April that “Hong Kong currently sits atop one of the largest financial time bombs in history”.
I ask: who benefits from Hong Kong’s unrest and instabilities?
Ping for your interest.
I would hope we are, just the Soviet Union funded the Chinese Communist Party. I can’t speak to the future, but as of today, the Hong Kong protestors, unlike the Party, have not been responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese.
RE: I would hope we are, just the Soviet Union funded the Chinese Communist Party.
The Chinese would consider this interference in their internal affairs.
I hope we are funding as well. It is a fundamental obligation
Wow.
Party has really taken over what’s being published. They’re very scared.
Btw, “disqualified localist legislator Leung Chung-hang”.
Disqualified simply because the Chinese communists deemed him disqualified.
Hong Kong is making it clear they do not want to be under Chinese Communist suzerainty.
Of course the CCP is bribing u s government elected and non elected employees. Why else would they assist in sending industries and jobs to China.
[The Chinese would consider this interference in their internal affairs.]
Silly of them to complain of “foreign interference” considering their actions in so many countries- including the US.
Anyway, whatever the facts, they’d really scream if Soros treated them like he does every other country...
Seriously, HK shows all the characteristics of an honest event.
VERY impressed by the civil servants joining.
[Why? It would be wonderful if the US government minded its own business. ]
“I can’t speak to the future, but as of today, the Hong Kong protestors, unlike the Party, have not been responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese.”
You certainly have a point; Mao was no choir boy.
Still, his homicidal record is rapidly being dwarfed by the 60+ million children murdered by their own mothers in the womb since 1973. Over 60 million innocent human beings.
Those are statistics that Pol Pot, Mao, and Mussolini could only dream of.
Glass houses and all that...
The Chinese are the biggest meddlers. They are paying the triads to beat protestors. Much of the violence are false flags by pro Peking thugs. The PLA is amassed on the border.
Who stands to benefit indeed.
“” “” WWII was obviously an extreme case, but merely funding China’s internal opponents is a fine way of keeping an adversary tied up in knots. “” “”
Yep, it is perfectly normal but $100k in Russian Facebook ads and 13 internet trolls are bloody murder.
That’s the ticket and some are surprised why nobody abroad takes US serious anymore.
[Yep, it is perfectly normal but $100k in Russian Facebook ads and 13 internet trolls are bloody murder.
That’s the ticket and some are surprised why nobody abroad takes US serious anymore.]
Hillary’s comments and policies are contradicting your statement. So were her husband’s and Obama policies.
Everybody talk about Uranium One here but it is a rather minor in a great scheme of things.
Both missile defence and INF exit are basically the same thing in terms of fallout. Both undermine existing security system which worked for relative peace for decades but we are yet to figure out is it good or bad in a long run.
As for Oswald he was a lazy stupid nut case who wanted to be important. It has nothing to do with political conviction. In fact he has extensive medical records in USSR and was institutionalized into a psychiatric facility at one point.
[Hillary’s comments and policies are contradicting your statement. So were her husband’s and Obama policies.]
Let’s say earlier US withdrawal from missile defence ban made INF treaty absolete.
Also Russians claim to have intelligence that US were planning to use ABM infrastructure as cover for INF.
Considering the technology involved it is at least very likely but it is not really the case.
The single actual reason for INF withdrawal is the fact that China is not a participant. It makes no sense for other players to limit themselves with China unrestrained.
And by the way you are selling Clintons short as dovish. Although not in a class of Hitler they left quite a scar across multiple nations. Russia included.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.