Bret Devereaux

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.

Perhaps, but I think you also have to grapple with the potential that any use of force would be - to use Andre Beaufre's formulation - a 'false note.' Movements that are liberal and nonviolent by tradition risk altering the zone of freedom of action adversely.

E.g. it may be possible that the impact of any use of force, under any circumstances, to the regime's perceived freedom of action may be such that the circumstances in which the use of force is favorable is 'never.'

I think Beaufre's thinking on Indirect Strategy is actually a pretty helpful way to think about demonstrations against a liberal regime, because it functions much like a proxy war - one side has effectively infinite force, but lacks the freedom of action (sometimes) to use it.

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.