3 ms·

Yes but those territories were not ceded voluntarily. It was because they lost the war so as in any war, the defeated nation had to give something up. It would

Yes but those territories were not ceded voluntarily. It was because they lost the war so as in any war, the defeated nation had to give something up. It would be different if HK was given to British as part of some deal reached by diplomacy which was not enforced as a consequence of lost war. Then you could perhaps argue that UK could keep it for perpetuity.

angry_octet 9y ago
This is a modern re-interpretation of inter-state conflict. In the past it was widely accepted that states could resolve disputes via war. By that standard, the UK could indeed keep HK indefinitely. A post-WWI agreement, called the Kellog-Briand Pact, sets the state for multilaterism, and outlaws war for conquest. This later develops into non-recognition of illegal conquests, war crimes, etc. So, in contrast to HK, Tibet will never be part of China. But at the moment China is too rich, and Tibet to inconsequential, for anyone to make a big deal over it. There was a great discussion of this on a recent Lawfare podcast: https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-oona-hathaway-and-scott-shapiro-internationalists https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-oona-hathaway-an...
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  " But at the moment China is too rich, and Tibet to inconsequential, " This is it. When I was in Cali 1997-2003 - 'Tibet' was all the rage. Hollywood, popular opinion, documentaries etc. etc.. Then about the mid-2000s', 'Tibet' was snuffed out as a 'popular concern'. There were quite a number of big business people/CEO's whispering about Tibet as a 'cause' - but they shut up pretty quick. China has very effectively divided and conquered Western leaders who speak with 1000' voices (i.e. politicians, CEO's, academics) and even played nations against one another. They have very effectively dangled the 'we have 1 Billion consumers carrot' in front of everyone and have them all kow-towing (pun intended) to get a juicy slice, but it never quite happens. It's amazing how much indirect influence a coordinated attempt to attack an issue can have. I remember the Dalai Lama used to even be a big name in the press, we hardly hear about him any more. Many, long tentacles ...
  - stevenwoo 9y ago
    I feel it's unjust what happened to Tibet since 1950 but practically speaking, what can anybody outside do?
- richardknop 9y ago
  > This is a modern re-interpretation of inter-state conflict. In the past it was widely accepted that states could resolve disputes via war. By that standard, the UK could indeed keep HK indefinitely. By that standard PRC could send their military and take over Hong Kong and then keep it indefinitely. In a direct conflict UK would lose and they probably knew that which is why they left voluntarily. > A post-WWI agreement, called the Kellog-Briand Pact, sets the state for multilaterism, and outlaws war for conquest. This later develops into non-recognition of illegal conquests, war crimes, etc. This pact seems to be historically insignificant. US has been using war as an instrument of national policy quite frequently. Same for Russia and before that Soviet Union. And other countries. So why not China? > So, in contrast to HK, Tibet will never be part of China. But at the moment China is too rich, and Tibet to inconsequential, for anyone to make a big deal over it. Tibet is definitely a part of China though. For example, on Google Maps I don't see Tibet marked as a separate nation. It's part of China according to biggest online maps provider.
  - khuey 9y ago
    Google Maps marks Taiwan as a separate nation ... Does that mean it's definitively not part of China?
MisterPC 9y ago
This always seemed a bit strange. Provoke a nation into war (e.g. Britain with the opium wars, America when they wanted to annex California) and you get to keep the land you took, but if you didn't use violence to get the land you have to give it back.

angry_octet 9y ago

This is a modern re-interpretation of inter-state conflict. In the past it was widely accepted that states could resolve disputes via war. By that standard, the UK could indeed keep HK indefinitely. A post-WWI agreement, called the Kellog-Briand Pact, sets the state for multilaterism, and outlaws war for conquest. This later develops into non-recognition of illegal conquests, war crimes, etc. So, in contrast to HK, Tibet will never be part of China. But at the moment China is too rich, and Tibet to inconsequential, for anyone to make a big deal over it. There was a great discussion of this on a recent Lawfare podcast: https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-oona-hathaway-and-scott-shapiro-internationalists https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-oona-hathaway-an...

alexasmyths 9y ago
" But at the moment China is too rich, and Tibet to inconsequential, " This is it. When I was in Cali 1997-2003 - 'Tibet' was all the rage. Hollywood, popular opinion, documentaries etc. etc.. Then about the mid-2000s', 'Tibet' was snuffed out as a 'popular concern'. There were quite a number of big business people/CEO's whispering about Tibet as a 'cause' - but they shut up pretty quick. China has very effectively divided and conquered Western leaders who speak with 1000' voices (i.e. politicians, CEO's, academics) and even played nations against one another. They have very effectively dangled the 'we have 1 Billion consumers carrot' in front of everyone and have them all kow-towing (pun intended) to get a juicy slice, but it never quite happens. It's amazing how much indirect influence a coordinated attempt to attack an issue can have. I remember the Dalai Lama used to even be a big name in the press, we hardly hear about him any more. Many, long tentacles ...
- stevenwoo 9y ago
  I feel it's unjust what happened to Tibet since 1950 but practically speaking, what can anybody outside do?
richardknop 9y ago
> This is a modern re-interpretation of inter-state conflict. In the past it was widely accepted that states could resolve disputes via war. By that standard, the UK could indeed keep HK indefinitely. By that standard PRC could send their military and take over Hong Kong and then keep it indefinitely. In a direct conflict UK would lose and they probably knew that which is why they left voluntarily. > A post-WWI agreement, called the Kellog-Briand Pact, sets the state for multilaterism, and outlaws war for conquest. This later develops into non-recognition of illegal conquests, war crimes, etc. This pact seems to be historically insignificant. US has been using war as an instrument of national policy quite frequently. Same for Russia and before that Soviet Union. And other countries. So why not China? > So, in contrast to HK, Tibet will never be part of China. But at the moment China is too rich, and Tibet to inconsequential, for anyone to make a big deal over it. Tibet is definitely a part of China though. For example, on Google Maps I don't see Tibet marked as a separate nation. It's part of China according to biggest online maps provider.
- khuey 9y ago
  Google Maps marks Taiwan as a separate nation ... Does that mean it's definitively not part of China?

MisterPC 9y ago

This always seemed a bit strange. Provoke a nation into war (e.g. Britain with the opium wars, America when they wanted to annex California) and you get to keep the land you took, but if you didn't use violence to get the land you have to give it back.