Looking back at what other countries did centuries before is a weak argument for justifying what one does today. The “international community” includes more than a western minority when it comes to the issue of Hong Kong.
yes, basically the argument against 'whataboutism'. however I have a hard time to process the idea of 'follow what I told you, not what I have done' attitude.
The affluent Western minority is led by an anti-colonial rebellion whose record on this issue, while nowhere near perfect or even an absolute good, is the best of any major power in the history of humanity.
When China says "You know what, China? No. We will not break our own agreement. How could you even suggest that? Hong Kong is sovereign" (as the United States recently did in McGirt v. Oklahoma), then we can talk about whataboutism. Until then, that kind of argument is utterly unconvincing.
Sure is easy to give ourselves a good grade when we're also the judges. Shall we discuss track records of interference in external affairs? How many foreign regimes have we toppled in comparison?
Always disappointing to see such vitriolic rebuttals to the mere idea of considering a Chinese perspective.
The issue is its not a Chinese perspective, it's the CCP perspective. The Hong Kong narrative inside the mainland is heavily guided by the media in China. You average Chinese person either has no opinion or just repeats the Party line, because they don't know much else.
