4 ms·

"Hong Kong is only part of China because the CCP agreed to the terms of the Sino-British Joint Declaration" It isn't true the "only" reason Hong Kong is a part

"Hong Kong is only part of China because the CCP agreed to the terms of the Sino-British Joint Declaration" It isn't true the "only" reason Hong Kong is a part of the PRC is because they agreed to that declaration. This agreement was made because PRC could unilaterally annex Hong Kong at anytime.

billfruit 6y ago
Also New Territories can have reverted back to China without need for any agreement with the British, since they were only on lease to British till 1997 and was not a British possession in the legal sense.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > New Territories can have reverted back to China without need for any agreement with the British But they didn’t. An agreement was reached. “I could have walked away, but didn’t” isn’t a valid reason for breaking a deal.
smacktoward 6y ago
Sure, if they wanted to risk a war. That was the benefit of the agreement to the CCP: it gave them everything they wanted without having to risk war to get it. The only downside was that they just had to wait 50 years for the prize to fall into their lap. What we’re seeing now is even just that extremely minor inconvenience is too much for Xi. He could get China everything he wants just by waiting. But he would rather tear up a signed treaty than wait.
- almost_usual 6y ago
  Which will only cause more concern and disruption amongst HK citizens because what they feared was true.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  They didn't care about risking a war because there is nothing the UK could have done. The key is that HK was very useful as a gateway with the rest of the world for import/exports and finance. They preserved it because, while they despised foreign presence, it served their interests to. Iirc, at one point something like 90% of the PRC's imports and exports transited via HK.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > there is nothing the UK could have done China would have immediately faced sanctions and the possibility of military support to dissident movements within its borders. Not to mention, accelerated arms sales to its neighbours.
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      So nothing, really, because none of that would have made any difference to China at the time of Mao. They could not have cared less about 'sanctions', which seem like a meaningless threat at the time of the Cold War and Maoist China. The West was and still is supplying weapons to their neighbours, which is not very important, anyway. As for 'dissident movements'... This is not a South American banana republic. The CIA probably did try things at some point but clearly to no effect because there is no 'dissident movement' of any scale. From a historical point of view the question I am very interested in is why did Mao stop short of retaking Macao and HK, and of taking Taiwan in 1949? They refrained from taking Russian colonial possessions in the North, which is understandable. But I am puzzles about the rest. For HK and Macao, perhaps he wanted to respect treaties because he also wanted to rely on treaties regarding Tibet (which all the powers recognised as Chinese by previous treaty), I don't know.
      - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > none of that would have made any difference to China at the time of Mao Mao was long dead when the relevant treaties were negotiated. > CIA probably did try things at some point but clearly to no effect because there is no 'dissident movement' of any scale In the late 90s, the West best over backwards to accommodate China. It was a new market and stable Asian power. Modern China has dissident and separatist movements. The NPC has prioritised legislation precisely to head off the threat. Censors scrub the Hong Kong and Tianamen Square protests for similar reasons. > why did Mao stop short of retaking Macao and HK, and of taking Taiwan in 1949? He didn’t have the firepower. Water crossings are taxing. It would have taken a full military commitment, and still left the endpoint uncertain. Consolidating power on the mainland was the more prudent move.
meddlepal 6y ago
Anyone who thought that agreement was going to be respected was a fool.
- thoughtstheseus 6y ago
  True but the status quo prior was also unsustainable.
almost_usual 6y ago
Hong Kong was under British rule for 156 years aside from 4 years of Japanese takeover. That is a long time, 156 years from 1997 is 2153.

billfruit 6y ago

Also New Territories can have reverted back to China without need for any agreement with the British, since they were only on lease to British till 1997 and was not a British possession in the legal sense.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> New Territories can have reverted back to China without need for any agreement with the British But they didn’t. An agreement was reached. “I could have walked away, but didn’t” isn’t a valid reason for breaking a deal.

smacktoward 6y ago

Sure, if they wanted to risk a war. That was the benefit of the agreement to the CCP: it gave them everything they wanted without having to risk war to get it. The only downside was that they just had to wait 50 years for the prize to fall into their lap. What we’re seeing now is even just that extremely minor inconvenience is too much for Xi. He could get China everything he wants just by waiting. But he would rather tear up a signed treaty than wait.

almost_usual 6y ago
Which will only cause more concern and disruption amongst HK citizens because what they feared was true.
mytailorisrich 6y ago
They didn't care about risking a war because there is nothing the UK could have done. The key is that HK was very useful as a gateway with the rest of the world for import/exports and finance. They preserved it because, while they despised foreign presence, it served their interests to. Iirc, at one point something like 90% of the PRC's imports and exports transited via HK.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > there is nothing the UK could have done China would have immediately faced sanctions and the possibility of military support to dissident movements within its borders. Not to mention, accelerated arms sales to its neighbours.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    So nothing, really, because none of that would have made any difference to China at the time of Mao. They could not have cared less about 'sanctions', which seem like a meaningless threat at the time of the Cold War and Maoist China. The West was and still is supplying weapons to their neighbours, which is not very important, anyway. As for 'dissident movements'... This is not a South American banana republic. The CIA probably did try things at some point but clearly to no effect because there is no 'dissident movement' of any scale. From a historical point of view the question I am very interested in is why did Mao stop short of retaking Macao and HK, and of taking Taiwan in 1949? They refrained from taking Russian colonial possessions in the North, which is understandable. But I am puzzles about the rest. For HK and Macao, perhaps he wanted to respect treaties because he also wanted to rely on treaties regarding Tibet (which all the powers recognised as Chinese by previous treaty), I don't know.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > none of that would have made any difference to China at the time of Mao Mao was long dead when the relevant treaties were negotiated. > CIA probably did try things at some point but clearly to no effect because there is no 'dissident movement' of any scale In the late 90s, the West best over backwards to accommodate China. It was a new market and stable Asian power. Modern China has dissident and separatist movements. The NPC has prioritised legislation precisely to head off the threat. Censors scrub the Hong Kong and Tianamen Square protests for similar reasons. > why did Mao stop short of retaking Macao and HK, and of taking Taiwan in 1949? He didn’t have the firepower. Water crossings are taxing. It would have taken a full military commitment, and still left the endpoint uncertain. Consolidating power on the mainland was the more prudent move.

meddlepal 6y ago

Anyone who thought that agreement was going to be respected was a fool.

thoughtstheseus 6y ago
True but the status quo prior was also unsustainable.

almost_usual 6y ago

Hong Kong was under British rule for 156 years aside from 4 years of Japanese takeover. That is a long time, 156 years from 1997 is 2153.