One of the reasons not to hold up non-violence as the ultimate ideal for protesters is that it prevents an intelligent and moral debate within the movement about the rules of engagement *for* the use of force.
Näytä tämä ketju
-
I think that non-violence is *generally* the best way against liberal regimes; I'm more skeptical about its utility against illiberal ones. Hong Kong is an interesting case because it's somewhere in between right now.
So, if the goal is removal/regime-change/liberalization on a state-wide scale, I absolutely agree with you. But my impression is that the goal of the HK protests is to get China to leave them alone. And that's why I think Indirect Strategy is the best way of thinking about it.
-
-
If HKers can reduce and continue to suppress China's Freedom of Action, they win. That's their goal. In that context, I'm just not sure what force gets them. They're not in a position to impose the kinds of costs, through force, cf what they can impose through non-violence.
-
Denying the PRC the excuse closes down the PRC's freedom of action by imposing much greater reputational cost for acting. It's not ideal - HK's position is very weak, in my view - though the cause is just - which makes any strategic calculation hard.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.