3 ms·

You mean to say Britain was so scared by China in 1960 that from 1960 to 1997 it could not grant autonomy, economic and political freedoms to Hong Kong. I am no

You mean to say Britain was so scared by China in 1960 that from 1960 to 1997 it could not grant autonomy, economic and political freedoms to Hong Kong. I am not sure what stopped them to democratically elect a Hong Kong CEO, which is an appointed head without any people involvement until Chris Patten in 1997. Even during cultural revolution when China was going through famine, Britain could not do anything. The declassified papers if you read whole, you will find that Britain did not fight for Hong Kong democracy because it will require economic contribution to Hong Kong and will impact Britain's economy. Britain has never wanted democracy for India too the largest colonial example. It was its people who declared in 1921, quit India movement, they left because one can't govern person who doesn't want at any cost. Indeed before leaving Britain did make sure India remains a divided country so that it does not challenge the Britain in future. India and the resulting Pakistan and Bangladesh still suffer the consequences.

graeme 7y ago
>You mean to say Britain was so scared by China in 1960 that from 1960 to 1997 it could not grant autonomy, economic and political freedoms to Hong Kong. Yes? China had beaten off the US in the Korean war and was a massive land power in the region. Britain had just suffered a humiliating setback in the Suez crisis if 1956 and basically abandoned all imperial ambition. More specifically related to HK, Britain withdraw almost all military forces "Easy of Suez". They were powerless in the east and both they and China knew it. You yourself mention "fighting" for HK democracy, implying it wasn't their choice to make, really. You're mixing timeframes by referring to India. They gained independence in 1948. My argument was the by the 1960s Britain was democratizing as colonies, having given up the empire. It's not unusual that Britain didn't give Hong Kong democracy in 1920. It is unusual that they didn't give it democracy in 1960 or 1970. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_of_Suez https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_of_Suez
- dragonsh 7y ago
  As I said in my earlier comments please read through the declassified documents completely. Britain has no interest in giving democracy at the expense of its economic interests. Even from 1960-1997, Hong Kong has been a cash cow, profit generating colony for Britain. So those interests were also very important. > You're mixing timeframes by referring to India. India is just an example of what does Britain meant by giving democracy to its colonies and for safeguarding its own interests. There is nothing noble about it, and what is happening in Hong Kong is just the repercussions of Britain's selfish economic interests. In history 22 years cannot be compared with 150 years, and it very well shows how Britain looked after the interests of Hong Kong and filled its own coffers. I will agree with your one point that people of Hong Kong should have asked for autonomy and political freedom since 1960 or even earlier like other British colony with mass movements, they didn't. But at least today Britain can come out and show a gesture to Hong Kong permanent residents from whom it profited for 150 years, by really granting them unconditional permanent residence in Britain.

graeme 7y ago

>You mean to say Britain was so scared by China in 1960 that from 1960 to 1997 it could not grant autonomy, economic and political freedoms to Hong Kong. Yes? China had beaten off the US in the Korean war and was a massive land power in the region. Britain had just suffered a humiliating setback in the Suez crisis if 1956 and basically abandoned all imperial ambition. More specifically related to HK, Britain withdraw almost all military forces "Easy of Suez". They were powerless in the east and both they and China knew it. You yourself mention "fighting" for HK democracy, implying it wasn't their choice to make, really. You're mixing timeframes by referring to India. They gained independence in 1948. My argument was the by the 1960s Britain was democratizing as colonies, having given up the empire. It's not unusual that Britain didn't give Hong Kong democracy in 1920. It is unusual that they didn't give it democracy in 1960 or 1970. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_of_Suez https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_of_Suez

dragonsh 7y ago
As I said in my earlier comments please read through the declassified documents completely. Britain has no interest in giving democracy at the expense of its economic interests. Even from 1960-1997, Hong Kong has been a cash cow, profit generating colony for Britain. So those interests were also very important. > You're mixing timeframes by referring to India. India is just an example of what does Britain meant by giving democracy to its colonies and for safeguarding its own interests. There is nothing noble about it, and what is happening in Hong Kong is just the repercussions of Britain's selfish economic interests. In history 22 years cannot be compared with 150 years, and it very well shows how Britain looked after the interests of Hong Kong and filled its own coffers. I will agree with your one point that people of Hong Kong should have asked for autonomy and political freedom since 1960 or even earlier like other British colony with mass movements, they didn't. But at least today Britain can come out and show a gesture to Hong Kong permanent residents from whom it profited for 150 years, by really granting them unconditional permanent residence in Britain.