Thoughts about autonomy and independence.

 

Thoughts about autonomy and independence. 

Hong Kong is part of China, and that means that the laws of China are also laws of Hong Kong. This is the thing, that we must realize when we are talking about the relationship with China. I don't know any other cases, where single cities can make contracts with other countries, even they are some kind of special economic area. 

The thing is that the term "special economical area" is the term, which is not defined anywhere. Does that mean the state, autonomic area, or something else? If the term means the autonomic area, what the autonomy means at this time. 

If some area has the status of an autonomic area, that doesn't mean the same thing with independence. Autonomy means that area has limited rights to enact laws. But that means the central government has the last word in every law and the foreign policy is made under the command of the central government. 

In the international fields, autonomy means that the area is part of some other nation. And because the area is part of the other state, the autonomy can disband, when the central government wants. If the central government wants to use force against the protests, what this kind of decision causes, that thing is the internal law of the conflicts says, that the use of force is the internal affair of the nation. 

So the thing is that if some people are returned to Hong Kong, that means that the authorities of China can send them to "re-education camps". And this is the problematic thing in international law. When superpowers are reading that law, there is always very tricky and complicated translations about that thing. 

And nuclear weapons are an effective tool for making the translations more suitable for the superpowers or rather saying nuclear-armed states. The reason for the arms race is that when nations have a great strike force, they will have respect for their willingness. 

So the thing is that superpowers can blame themselves for the new nuclear race. The nuclear armament race is the result of international policy, where those weapons are the reason, that justifies everything. Nuclear weapons are guaranteed the permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. 

The veto-right or the right to deny the decisions of the United Nations might seem non-democratic. It is given for the permanent member of the Security Council because every permanent nation in the Security Council is owners of nuclear weapons. So the reason for that right is that the afraid of the use of nuclear weapons. This thing causes that nations are making nuclear weapons for getting respect in the international field. 

Image: https://www.dailyfinland.fi/assets/news_photos/2020/01/03/image-13837.jpg