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
-
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.
-
I think, in fact, that targeted violence against stores whose owners back Beijing is a potentially very effective strategy - because it imposes *costs* on an otherwise cost-less decision for Hong Kong's billionaires, and incentives them to find answers.
- 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.