3 ms·
>> China was to take HK regardless and do as it pleased. No. The HK handover was part of a treaty, the Sino–British Joint Declaration, in which the Chinese gov
by Hasknewbie 9y ago
>> China was to take HK regardless and do as it pleased.
No. The HK handover was part of a treaty, the Sino–British Joint Declaration, in which the Chinese government agreed to let HK remain mostly autonomous for 50 years after the retrocession.
The current status of HK is the result of, and guaranted by, a treaty between two sovereign nations. China is not meant to do 'as it pleased' here.
- mannykannot 9y ago> The current status of HK is the result of, and guaranteed by, a treaty between two sovereign nations. One of which is in no position to exercise its guarantee.
- Hasknewbie 9y agoYou are correct, and the current (mostly non-)responses from the British government are embarrassing. However this remains a public treaty, and if China does not respect it, it will erode their standing on other matters (e.g. why would Malaysia/Vietnam/Philippines sign any treaty regarding the China sea dispute, if Beijing ignored the one on HK?). So yes, HK is in a bad situation, but not all is lost yet.
- mannykannot 9y agoYour reply ignores the realities of power in the South China Sea, just as it ignores the realities of power in Hong Kong (what sort of response would you like to see from the British government?)
- Analemma_ 9y agoTreaties are worthless pieces of paper unless their signatories are willing and able to confront violations with military force. Britain is not, and China knows it; hence the unopposed erosion of Hong Kong's automomy