Tuesday, October 15, 2019
Pro-Democratic Protests in Hong Kong Targeting Companies
Article Link
Protesters in Hong Kong have begun targeting large businesses and chains, mainly three companies: Starbucks, Yoshinoya, and Blizzard. These companies have been deemed by the protesters as sympathizers to the Chinese Communist party, due to economic ties and business deals. This puts businesses in tough situations, since on one side, China's market is huge and is a good economic move while the Hong Kong protesters have the support of the Westerners and Taiwanese. Their position in the middle has become increasingly dangerous, based on the increasing number of vandalisms and boycotts against these companies. Apple may be the next target, as protestors have called for attacks at store locations due to Apple removing an app that showed the location of police officers. Other companies have started being targeted as well, due to actions that make them seem sympathetic to the side of the Chinese Communist Party such as Blizzard's suspension of a e-sports player for his comments in support of the movement. However, the negatives of such widespread vandalism have caused much panic in the community, as acts of violence and destruction are commonplace and criticizing them may get you beaten as a pro-Communist sympathizer.
Questions:
1. Do you believe the protestors are justified in vandalizing store locations and boycotting companies that have their hands in the Chinese economy through business deals?
2. What do you think companies that have been targeted should do?
3. Do you believe the protesters are getting out of hand or still within reason?
4. Do you see any way this conflict can end without escalating? If so, what will be the outcome?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. Yes, I believe the protesters are justified in targeting these companies because it supports their cause. While vandalism obviously is disruptive, it is a necessary evil if change is to be made.
ReplyDelete2. Temporarily shuttering business in Hong Kong is an infeasible solution, so practically speaking, trying to continue business as usual seems like the best option.
3. I don't think there's a good answer to that question. Some ideologues believe that getting the message out at any cost is important, even at the cost of the economy or risking another Tiananmen-like incident, while arguing for reason and more peaceful, nonviolent means is also a valid perspective. That's a very long-winded way of saying "I don't know."
4. Any de-escalation must start from Beijing's side, as the protests don't appear to be abating. If somehow these protests would cease and the conflict would end, I imagine the most likely outcome is a restoration of the previous status quo from 1997-2017.
1. I don't condone vandalism normally, but when faced with such a powerful opponent that doesn't play by the rules, I think it is justified. Obviously, boycotts and other nonviolent forms of protest are always acceptable.
ReplyDelete2. I think companies need to take a subtle stand against the behemoth that is the CCP. Sure, China represents a huge market, but complying to the whims of the CCP so quickly makes it too easy for them.
3. I don't think the protesters are getting out of hand, but then again I'm more inclined to support violence as a legitimate force for change than most people. China has not followed the agreements promised to them in 1997, and I think Hong Kong's citizens have every right to be as angry as they are.
4. While I agree with Ryan that Beijing has all the power here, I'm much more pessimistic about the outcome. I think things will regress from the status quo and eventually lead to Hong Kong's gradual and forcible integration back into China.
While I definitely wish violence and vandalism wasn't the option that the people in Hong Kong have resorted to, I think that this has been an ongoing issue for so long that it is understandable that the residents are getting infuriated at the government and nonviolent protests have already been attempted. I think the companies targeted have already made their stances and can't do much other than wait out the storm while ensuring that their employees are protected. I think the protests and violence are getting out of hand, having relatives in Hong Kong afraid to go out even for groceries, but I think it is for good reason.
ReplyDelete1. Given the extreme conditions surrounding the Hong Kong protests, I believe vandalism and boycotting are justified.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with Kevin that companies need to start taking a stand against the CCP, and get a better PR team with how Blizzard is fairing from the fallout of their decisions. For companies going forward, though this is not what is the most desirable path, I think the most favorable option for them if they were to comply with the CCP’s demands is to make their policies on political speech on their platforms clearer, in order for there to be a “reason” other than “China made us do it” when punishing people for political speech about Hong Kong.
3. I think that the protesters “getting out of hand” is also a fault of the Chinese government, who has met the protests with force. To me, it seems the entire situation is getting out of hand rather than just the protesters.
4. I agree with Ryan and Kevin that it is very unlikely that China will let Hong Kong be independent, unless there is strong international intervention. Even then, I think the situation would become too complicated for an “easy fix.”
I agree that vandalism and boycotting are justified given the situation. I also believe that these big companies have to take a stand against the CCP, and should not prioritize their business relationship.
ReplyDeleteI think the protests are still within reason as long as the protesters don't attack people who they believe are just criticizing them and stick to protesting the corporations and the government. I don't see how this would end without escalation so far because it does not seem the Chinese government will stand down anytime soon, and the Beijing protesters are likely to continue escalating
I believe that vandalization of store locations is a bit of an extreme approach of protest, but I support the principle of boycotting the companies' products as a nonviolent approach. If violence ramps up, there could be devastating consequences for the protesters. Ultimately, both methods are justified in the sense that the CCP has not been meeting the needs of the citizens of Hong Kong.
ReplyDeleteThe moral question of what companies "should" do is often subjective. On one hand, if they support the actions of the CCP, then they will reap the economic rewards of coordinating with the Chinese economy. On the other, they risk economic isolation if they support the protesters. Ultimately, the majority of companies will act in their own benefit, as they typically do. In terms of the protests as a whole, I worry that violent demonstrations will augment in both intensity and frequency. At the current situation, I would say there still is room for reason, but the threshold is near. There would need to be a dramatic effort by the protesters in order to enact change. In another case, the demands could be met through a long, extended effort. Nonetheless, blood will be shed and the protesters haven't gone this far just to give up.
1. While I strongly believe in peaceful protests and boycotts in Hong Kong, I do not support vandalism. While the protesters are rightfully protesting for democracy, resorting to violence turns it into a "free speech for me—but not for thee" (quoting a book by Nat Hentoff) situation. Additionally, with social media fueling the movement, there's always the risk of fake news and echo chambers. In other words, let our ideals be strong, but let us keep our rational caps on.
ReplyDelete2. Companies in China must make an agreement with the CCP, just as companies in the U.S. must follow the tax code. I'm sure many companies don't even want be a mouthpiece for the CCP. If one or two companies speak up against the CCP, the CCP can easily silence them. On the other hand, if, say, half of the companies in China speak up, the CCP will find it impossible to silence everyone without risking economic obliteration, and it would have to make amendments to its policies. But unfortunately, people are generally more driven by profit than humanitarian causes—this self-interest is ingrained in human nature. When you have a company of thousands of people, you are basically taking a weighted average of self-interest, which unfortunately means that companies would not speak up unless they are financially disincentivized to not do so. In other words, unless enough people boycott, most companies will not change their plans.
3. Please refer to question 1. I believe that the "do whatever is necessary" mindset is overly simplistic. The range of actions one can take range from peaceful protest (Gandhi) to murder (French Revolution). Thinking of it this way, there has to be a line drawn somewhere in the spectrum. I think vandalism crosses that line.
4. I think international economic pressure for China can lead to de-escalation. Or, as previously mentioned, if enough Chinese companies protest, China's policy for businesses will have to change (the problem is getting there). And finally, great societal change comes with the support of the people, not just businesses. We must educate more on this issue and spread the message.
Citizens of a democratic nation, such as Taiwan, have a right to engage in peaceful protests to project their views. Peaceful protests include boycotting, but not vandalism. Once the citizens start to engage in vandalism, they cross a line, giving the government a reason to crush what they may see as a viable threat to their economy. Though the people of Hong Kong may feel that vandalism is justified in their case, it is not practical, as China can easily crush any movement that threatens them. As the citizens of Hong Kong have made a mistake in vandalizing their stores, the companies are justified in a response to protect their property. They can prosecute the vandals freely as they will be seen as the victimized party. There is small chance that there can be a resolution without escalation as the Hong Kong citizens have escalated the situation by vandalizing companies.
ReplyDeleteVandalism of these businesses is an extreme approach to this situation in which these protesters are being faced with, however, I do agree with the idea that the actions of these protesters are justified due to the serious situation they have been put in. As for the companies receiving this backlash from these citizens, they could choose to keep their businesses running or haved a potential shut down. The only thing to consider is that these protesters will most likely not stop boycotting or vandalizing any time soon until some changes have been made. Again as stated before, I think that it seems as if these protesters are “getting out of hand”, but in reality I personally believe that they have every right to be given the circumstances they’ve been put in. Change clearly needs to happen, and I think that these forms of protest are a more effective approach. The government has the potential to prevent and further escalation of these protests and the dangers that come along with them, however, they’d need to act in favor of the protesters to make any progress in stabilizing the situation.
ReplyDeleteI do support the peaceful protests that Hong Kong has been doing to separate from the Chinese Communist Party. However I do think vandalism is a little too extreme to categorize it as an act of peaceful protesting. I understand why protesters feel the need to do such actions, but personally, I don't think it is justified enough. I don't think that the companies should do anything to make matters worse. I believe that the companies should just wait it out until the protesters and their vandalism die out. I do think that there will be some point where it will get out of hand, and China will let Hong Kong go, but I think at the moment, there are going to be times where the conflict dies out and escalates. It is hard to say when this conflict will end. The best option in my opinion for the protesters is to keep on doing peaceful protests because fighting is not the answer to all conflicts. However, more risky and violent protests might be the way to get more attention from the Chinese government who has done little to address this conflict.
ReplyDeleteI believe that these protests are justified. This ongoing issue makes it understandable why the people in Hong Kong need to resort to this kind of violence and vandalism. However, though boycotting is a form of peaceful protest, vandalism and violence is definitely more extreme and people may argue that it is out of line. These people are doing what they think is necessary in order to get the change they need to get and at this point, the only way they feel they are getting people’s attention is through these extreme acts. I agree with Colette that the companies targeted should just wait it out. I’m on both sides that the protesters are getting out of hand since their form of protest isn’t peaceful anymore. On the other hand, no one is listening and they need to get their opinion out somehow. I don’t really see this conflict ending anytime soon since it is unlikely that China will let Hong Kong be independent.
ReplyDeleteSeems like most people above think the protests are fine but the vandalism is extreme. I agree. Businesses like Starbucks are pretty separated from the conflict which is about the Chinese government, so there's no reason to blame them. It's unreasonable to ask all Western businesses to boycott the Chinese market, I mean if anything Western businesses penetrating the Chinese market is good for pro-Westerners since money is flowing out of communist China and into the pockets of democratic Westerners. Either way, there's not much the businesses can do and frankly, if they stopped operating in China, Chinese businesses would step in in a heartbeat and I doubt China's economy would be hit. The protestors should focus more on doing what they've been doing, demonstrating and marching and generally freezing the cities to pressure political action.
ReplyDeleteI agree with grace in that it may be a bit extreme to ask companies to completely cut ties with China, however, I do believe that when the future of Hong Kong is at state, and along with it many of its people's freedoms and rights. It may be necessary to take more drastic measures to improve your situation, and when the pro-democracy movement's leaders and protesters are being beaten and attacked by pro-communist groups in the streets, If anything, it isn't the protests that are getting out of hand. Right now, it seems that the protests don't show any signs of slowing until China gives in to the protester's demands, or if something drastic happens to stop the protests, such as imposing a police state, which obviously will draw heavy international backlash.
ReplyDeleteI think their vandalism is ertainly getting attention, but from what we've learned from the Civil Rights Movement in the US, acts of violence by protesters typically reflects badly on them. Pro-communist people might think, "yes these people want change, but if they are not able to act civilized, why should we give it to them?" In the 1960s, when African Americans excersised civil disobedience and the police and white people were the violent ones, the media captured them as the enemies, not the African Americans. The protesters have every right to be angry and their feelings are justified but I think that they should consider the protest efforts from the 1960s when carrying out their own protests, and look at the different strategies that worked and didn't work in history.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the protestors are justified in vandalizing the store locations just because of their actions - HOWEVER, I think by boycotting, their strong opinions on the issue will be heard equally if not more effectively than through acts of vandalism - boycotting is seen as more of a civil way to get their points across and demand change. In response to all of the seeming civil unrest, I think the companies should do their best to respond to the issues as if they continue with their actions, this could lead to more decline in business - overall not a good end to this issue if they continue like this. A way I think the conflict can end without escalating is if the protestors act in a manner that is not as extreme or violent so that they get their desired outcome - as in many situations violence (or in this case vandalism) is not the key to every issue. Aside from the people acting in a calmer, more civil manner, the companies should do their part in fixing the unrest if they want their companies to stay successful.
ReplyDeletethis is of course, an immensely complicated issue. However, this does not change the fact that vandalism for political gain is not justified. It is good to see Hong Kongers standing up for what they believe in, fighting against communist China, but they have used non-violent civil demonstrations before, and they should again. In order to continue to remain a symbol of strength, peace, and good intentions, the citizens of Hong Kong need to curtail the vandalism and violence, and stage civil demonstrations to promote political change instead.
ReplyDeleteThe only reasonable way for companies to respond is to reduce presence in Hong Kong. They are taking financial losses, property damage, etc. from these violent protestors. It seems to me that those companies are no longer welcome in Hong Kong.
Vandalism in general is not justified. However, it is good to see that the people of Hong Kong are standing up to what they believe in and are trying to stop the Chinese government with nonviolent protests. It could end up being much worse. In regards to the companies they should react in a calm way towards the protesters and even support them. They have good intentions and don't want to ruin their relationships with the outside world. They just want their voices hear somehow and there are other options but they haven't been as effective. The fact that they have to resort to vandalism just shows how tense the situation is between them and china.
ReplyDelete