8 ms·

Of course Hong Kong rose to prominence thanks to masses of anti-communist, mostly well educated and trained refugees fleeing post civil war China. Britain was

Of course Hong Kong rose to prominence thanks to masses of anti-communist, mostly well educated and trained refugees fleeing post civil war China. Britain was moving to give the territory democracy in the 1950s. They only refrained when China made it clear that continued moves to democratise would result in invasion. At the same time Beijing talked of the importance of keeping HK just as it was as it was already an essential route to Western trade and hard currency for them. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-push-against-hong-kong-elections-in-50s.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...

mytailorisrich 7y ago
Which colonies did the Brits give democracy to in the 1950s? They were busy fighting the Mau Mau uprising. I feel that blaming Chinese threats is a convenient excuse.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  The records of Hong Kong are there, and open, so hardly excuse.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    If you know for a fact that a proposal which you don't necessarily agree with, but which would make you look good, is going to be vocally rejected so as to provide you with an apparent reason not to implement it then you should definitely propose it. Politics 101. I'd still like to know about any democratic push by the British colonial authorities in any other colonies at the time... Because even if the HK colonial administration genuinely wanted it I think that the British government did not want to hear about it quite independently of any Chinese 'threat'.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Except that's not how it happened.
      - mytailorisrich 7y ago
        It's always quite astonishing the see the attempts at twisting history to paint the Chinese as villains with respect to HK, a Chinese territory snatched in odious circumstances for the benefit of British interests, never for the 'locals'. HK should never have been British. It's now back to China. Let's all move on. It is quite right to support democracy and respect for individual rights, but we should also respect that this is a matter for the Chinese people in China. We would not accept foreigners to dictate what we should do in our own country either.
        NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        The record is there to be seen. No twisting is necessary, it's a matter of record. We should respect that this is a matter for the Chinese people at the end of the 50 year "one country, two systems" period they willingly signed up to. Until that point sticking to the treaty lodged at the UN seems important. After all if they couldn't abide the terms, surely they wouldn't have signed it? Or is it reasonable for countries, any countries, to break international agreements whenever they feel like it?
        mytailorisrich 7y ago
        The record only shows what I mentioned and to keep repeating this ignores the main point. As to the 50 year transition period, it remains to be seen how the mainland is breaching the terms or even attempting to breach the terms. But that's largely academic in practice since there is no enforcement. As mentioned it is mostly to placate the British and to allow them to save face. As the saying goes, promises only bind those who believe in them. The Chinese government does seem to make efforts to abide by the terms, though.
- javagram 7y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization#British_Empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization#British_Empir... > Independence for the colonies in Africa began with the independence of Sudan in 1956, and Ghana in 1957. All of the British colonies on mainland Africa became independent by 1966, although Rhodesia's unilateral declaration of independence in 1965 was not recognized by the UK or internationally. [. . .] Cyprus, which came under full British control in 1914 from the Ottoman Empire, was culturally divided between the majority Greek element (which demanded "enosis" or union with Greece) and the minority Turks. London for decades assumed it needed the island to defend the Suez Canal; but after the Suez crisis of 1956, that became a minor factor, and Greek violence became a more serious issue. Cyprus became an independent country in 1960, but ethnic violence escalated until 1974 The 1950s and 1960s were a process of Britain divesting itself of its empire and granting self-government to various entities. Perhaps the closest parallel is Gibraltar, where Britain did give self-government over the 50s and 60s, but held onto the territory after a sovereignty referendum? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_development_in_modern_Gibraltar#Gibraltar_Constitution_order,_1950 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_development_in_mod...
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Rhodesia's case is worth commenting on in this context. Independence breached the principle of "no independence before there's majority rule in place" that was being applied to all territories moving toward independence in that period, to ensure a minority of former colonialist descendants didn't continue ruling in London's absence. That's why Rhodesia made their unilateral (white) declaration of independence. As Rhodesia's UDI was under white minority rule, close to apartheid South Africa's, neither the UK nor UN recognised them. From what little I remember, which is mainly the 70s aftermath and rise of China backed Mugabe, just about only South Africa had supported them afterwards.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    Independence is akin to HK retrocession to China. Britain could no longer hold onto its colonies, could no longer control them.

mytailorisrich 7y ago

Which colonies did the Brits give democracy to in the 1950s? They were busy fighting the Mau Mau uprising. I feel that blaming Chinese threats is a convenient excuse.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
The records of Hong Kong are there, and open, so hardly excuse.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  If you know for a fact that a proposal which you don't necessarily agree with, but which would make you look good, is going to be vocally rejected so as to provide you with an apparent reason not to implement it then you should definitely propose it. Politics 101. I'd still like to know about any democratic push by the British colonial authorities in any other colonies at the time... Because even if the HK colonial administration genuinely wanted it I think that the British government did not want to hear about it quite independently of any Chinese 'threat'.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Except that's not how it happened.
    - mytailorisrich 7y ago
      It's always quite astonishing the see the attempts at twisting history to paint the Chinese as villains with respect to HK, a Chinese territory snatched in odious circumstances for the benefit of British interests, never for the 'locals'. HK should never have been British. It's now back to China. Let's all move on. It is quite right to support democracy and respect for individual rights, but we should also respect that this is a matter for the Chinese people in China. We would not accept foreigners to dictate what we should do in our own country either.
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        The record is there to be seen. No twisting is necessary, it's a matter of record. We should respect that this is a matter for the Chinese people at the end of the 50 year "one country, two systems" period they willingly signed up to. Until that point sticking to the treaty lodged at the UN seems important. After all if they couldn't abide the terms, surely they wouldn't have signed it? Or is it reasonable for countries, any countries, to break international agreements whenever they feel like it?
        mytailorisrich 7y ago
        The record only shows what I mentioned and to keep repeating this ignores the main point. As to the 50 year transition period, it remains to be seen how the mainland is breaching the terms or even attempting to breach the terms. But that's largely academic in practice since there is no enforcement. As mentioned it is mostly to placate the British and to allow them to save face. As the saying goes, promises only bind those who believe in them. The Chinese government does seem to make efforts to abide by the terms, though.
javagram 7y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization#British_Empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization#British_Empir... > Independence for the colonies in Africa began with the independence of Sudan in 1956, and Ghana in 1957. All of the British colonies on mainland Africa became independent by 1966, although Rhodesia's unilateral declaration of independence in 1965 was not recognized by the UK or internationally. [. . .] Cyprus, which came under full British control in 1914 from the Ottoman Empire, was culturally divided between the majority Greek element (which demanded "enosis" or union with Greece) and the minority Turks. London for decades assumed it needed the island to defend the Suez Canal; but after the Suez crisis of 1956, that became a minor factor, and Greek violence became a more serious issue. Cyprus became an independent country in 1960, but ethnic violence escalated until 1974 The 1950s and 1960s were a process of Britain divesting itself of its empire and granting self-government to various entities. Perhaps the closest parallel is Gibraltar, where Britain did give self-government over the 50s and 60s, but held onto the territory after a sovereignty referendum? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_development_in_modern_Gibraltar#Gibraltar_Constitution_order,_1950 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_development_in_mod...
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Rhodesia's case is worth commenting on in this context. Independence breached the principle of "no independence before there's majority rule in place" that was being applied to all territories moving toward independence in that period, to ensure a minority of former colonialist descendants didn't continue ruling in London's absence. That's why Rhodesia made their unilateral (white) declaration of independence. As Rhodesia's UDI was under white minority rule, close to apartheid South Africa's, neither the UK nor UN recognised them. From what little I remember, which is mainly the 70s aftermath and rise of China backed Mugabe, just about only South Africa had supported them afterwards.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  Independence is akin to HK retrocession to China. Britain could no longer hold onto its colonies, could no longer control them.