The people were mad, hadn't this country already learnt its lessons? How could the authority so such a thing in 2019?!! That too in a country with such a flourishing tourism industry and so many visitors. If your first thought was of the recent "Brownfacing" in Singapore, then you're completely right. This is the description of the outrage when a Chinese actor, hired by the government initiated ad program for cashless transactions, made his skin visibly darker to play an Indian man. However, if this reminded you of some other Chinese incident, then you're not wrong either. The above, is also equally fitting to recent protests in Hong Kong. If you were thinking a 10 hour flight upwards, then the protests in Russia more or less fit the same description. The last two incidents have a lot more in common and a lot that's different. A closer look is warranted in order to decipher what exactly is wrong (or right) here.
The reason for both protests are quite similar. Dissatisfaction with their government's repressive policies. In Hong Kong, the protests started out due to a controversial extradition bill. The bill would have allowed countries, who do not have extradition treaties with Hong Kong, to make extradition requests. Countries like Taiwan and mainland China. Carrie Lam, Hong Kong's chief in charge, supported the bill, citing cases like the one where a 19 year old Hongkonger is waiting to be extradited to Taiwan for killing his girlfriend whilst on a trip to Taiwan. If not extradited, he is set to leave prison earliest by October. Once the government suspended the bill, the protests turned on the government in general, demanding Mrs. Carrie Lam step down.
In Russia the protests are starting out due to a bunch of small reason but, the major on being the recent government restriction on opposition candidates. However, just like in Hong Kong the protests took a turn and took the form of opposition to political repression. There demands are ever so slightly more digestible and smaller in scope than the demands now made by protesters in Hong Kong, or even previous significant protests such as the grand demands by the 'gilets jaunes’ or the yellow vests. So, while both protests spark from dissatisfaction with recent government policies (don't all protest though?), emphasizing on themes of government betrayal and political unfairness, the protests in Russia had definitely toned it down a bit. This wasn't the only thing that the Russian protesters had toned down on.
The protests in Hong Kong started out peacefully but, like almost all such political protests they soon turned violent, on both sides. Recently after 12 long weeks of protests, Hong Kong saw it's most violent night, with protesters hurling bricks and petrol bombs at riot police, while the authorities reportedly used water water cannons, tear gas and even fired live shots (though they were 'warning shots' as of now). The protests recently attacked central government buildings and clashed with police at a subway station. Multiple officers and countless protesters have been injured since these protests began. All this violence came after weeks of calm, and it has shocked the whole world.
The protesters in Russia however, have managed to stay away from violence. The protests began peacefully and have remained so, as of now. The same however, cannot be said for the crackdown police. Police have detained countless opposition candidates and also around 2000 protesters. Viral videos show the violence being used by them, including a video of an officer punching a woman in the stomach. Russia has been condemned for using excess force and violence, "We are concerned that Russian police appear to have used excessive force against the protesters during the rally in central Moscow" as said by the UN human rights spokesperson Rupert Colville. The overall peaceful nature of the protests have surely angered authorities as there is no clear scapegoat to justify the use of force and violence they are inflicting on the protests. This, however, has not stopped them from doing either of the two, using violence and justifying it.
The last portion to tackle has to be where both protests are headed to and what might happen next. It is also necessary to view the global implications of both the protests to get an idea of their scope and chances of meeting their demands.
The protests in Hong Kong are far from dying down, in fact with each passing day and week they only seem to be getting larger and more violent, on both sides. What the protesters demanded with the extradition bill was fair and great for Hong Kong in the long run. Hong Kong is a hub for business due to it's fair(er) courts and free(er) laws while providing access to China. The bill put that lucrative position in great jeopardy. There is also no arguing that Mrs. Carrie Lam's government is influenced by beijing. While, China claims to be a democracy, it clearly isn't, and it doesn't plan on Hong Kong becoming any more different. While, worthy aims, the streak of violence in the protests marr their main goal and conveniently provide Beijing a very easy target to justify its own violence. However, it's important to consider that there are still a large majority of protesters who are peacefully protesting on the street of Hong Kong. Tiananmen Square is on everybody's mind as it marked it's 20th anniversary this year. The violent crushing of those protests however, put to doubt, that even if the violence on the protesters side stops, Beijing won't.
All this adds to the case for consideration of foreign intervention. A popular image shows a girl wearing a mask is holding up a sign saying "Will you stand with Hong Kong?". Will you? Will the US? Should it? Donald Trump has so far shown no verbal support for the protests and no condemnation for China. While, not particularly shocking this is important. US, has many reasons, ranging from protecting financial interests in Hong Kong, to a moral duty and even maintaining post world war 2 order, to interfere. And this writer believes it should. Hong Kong cannot be another Tiananmen, it cannot show China that it can do whatever it wants to. Verbal support would be a start, followed by action under the Global Magnitsky Act, ranging from imposing visa bans and targeted sanctions as sanction under it on "individuals anywhere in the world responsible for committing human rights violations or acts of significant corruption.” A tidying up of their act by protesters and support by the US, followed by other western nations and China would become too scrutinized to lead a massive crackdown and pressured to accept concessions. This would be a win for democracy, a win for freedom and a win for the entire world order.
The case in Russia however, might be slightly different. The US has already endorsed the protests in Russia and supported their demands. This was, expectedly, followed by a sharp rebuttal by Russia to stay out of it's internal affairs. Donald Trump had always tried to maintain good relations with Mr. Putin however, they seem to be conflicting quite a lot recently. Russia's protests are just as important however, they do play larger into the role of Russia and the world. Already under countless sanctions due to various international incidents, Russia is no stranger to such controversy. It is also less entwined in the global financial system and plays a lesser role in global supply and demand chains. Needless, to say Russia's survival is far less dependent on trade than China's is, which is why the same tactic may not work here. What to do with these protests is an issue that needs to be dealt with however, such thing might not be warranted along with putting pressure on China at the same time, it might drive the two countries closer together, which can never be useful.
As of now the Trump administration should focus on the escalating situation in Hong Kong. The fight in Russia is a long one that requires patience and focus, definitely not any more twitter antics. Scapegoating is an old tactic used by both nations, we need to tackle them one at a time.