Hey, everybody. Nathan Rich here.
Just wanted to remind everybody that they can support this channel by going
to Patreon or SubscribeStar or my public Wechat or BuyMeACoffee, and several
other ways. So please do that if you're interested in me continuing to talk
about political and controversial subjects.
Thanks. Today, I want to talk to you about yet another lie in regards to
America-China relations having to do with Hong Kong.
I read an article recently and here's a little bit of what it said.
Pompous said, "I am announcing visa restrictions on current and former CCP
officials who are believed to be responsible for or complicit in undermining
Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy, as guaranteed in the 1984 Sino-British
Joint Declaration..." So already this is a little bit weird because I'm
pretty sure Pompous doesn't work for the British government and the
Sino-British Joint Declaration has nothing at all to do with the United
States. So already, before we go any further, everyone watching this should
be wondering "Why this pompous have any opinion about this at all?
What does this have to do with him or his country?
" Nothing. It has nothing at all to do with the United States.
So it's already a little bit weird.
But let's just assume that Pompous' ideas and Pompous' reactions are somehow
relevant. Let's carry on.
The Sino-British Joint Declaration does not guarantee anything like what he
just said. It's not a guarantee or a promise at all.
If you actually read it, it's a declaration.
That's why it's called a declaration.
But even if it was, let's just assume that it actually...
it totally is, OK?
Again, that has nothing to do with the United States.
I mean, the United Kingdom and the United States aren't actually the same
country. This may be surprising to people, but...
Friday's announcement follows the State Department's determination last month
in a report mandated by the Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 and the Hong Kong
Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019, that the city no longer warrants
different treatment from mainland China.
So to me, great, awesome.
Don't treat it any differently.
China's embassy in Washington pushed back, arguing that China's Constitution
and Hong Kong Basic Law supersede any authority the Sino-British joint
declaration may have had because, "All rights and obligations of the British
side, as prescribed in the joint declaration, were completed when sovereignty
over the city was transferred to China in 1997.
" Obviously, the Constitution and Basic Law are the fundamental pieces.
So these are way more important than some vague, arguably non-binding, and
what this guy's arguing is since expired or invalid joint declaration.
I mean, that's pretty obvious.
I don't know why this is even an argument.
This is just an obvious fact.
I mean...OK...
The Joint Declaration states that China's basic policies regarding Hong Kong
will remain unchanged for 50 years after the handover, including the promise
that the city would retain a high degree of autonomy.
The Basic Law is the city's mini constitution put into effect by China's
National People's Congress in 1990.
And it sort of rambles, but that's pretty much its main points.
The interesting thing that nobody ever brings up, no matter how many times
they discuss this, no matter how many times they talk about Basic Law, Hong
Kong, China, the protests, this whole kind of thing that's been going on.
.. No one talks about this very simple fact - Even if I accept everything this
article has claimed as completely true, Hong Kong has not followed its own
Basic Law.
It has not enacted anti-secession, anti-treason, anti-sedition laws, as it
was supposed to, according to Basic Law Article 23.
And you have lots of people trying to break Basic Law Article 1 and many
other articles of Basic Law.
So even if we just agree with everything in this entire article, it is still
negated by the fact that this agreement was first broken by the local
government of Hong Kong.
This agreement has been nullified.
I mean, you can't have an agreement between two parties or in this case, two
parties in relation to a third party that a fourth party is butting its head
into... You can't have an agreement and only one party is ever expected to
uphold its side. That's not an agreement.
So as far as I'm concerned, even if all this is true, it still has been
nullified. Now, that doesn't mean that any side is right or wrong by itself.
It just means that you should really think about when you're watching and
listening to this news and reading news, why do they never, ever mention that
Hong Kong has been directly and specifically avoiding following its own Basic
Laws? They have gone out of their way to stop the process of following Basic
Law. And then when some citizens or some protesters or some rioters want
something, they suddenly think Basic Law is super important, but only this
one. This is the Basic Law we really like.
These ones we don't like.
Well, that's not following the law.
That's just literally lawlessness.
That's chaos. That's just doing whatever you want.
So I always recommend that if you're going to talk about this type of stuff
with somebody, make sure that they specifically bring up and mention and talk
about Article 23.
Make them explain to you why Hong Kong of everywhere in the world shouldn't
have anti-treason laws, anti-sedition laws, anti-secession laws.
Make sure they're very clear about that because whatever they come up with is
not going to make any sense.
Anyway, just another quick video.
There's a lot more coming, so stay tuned.
Thanks again, everybody, for your support and we'll see you soon.
Bye, everybody. Xiexie