> From a simpletons perspective, I don't understand why we get to have a say of how a country reclaims its former territory. The handover of Hong Kong from Bri

> From a simpletons perspective, I don't understand why we get to have a say of how a country reclaims its former territory. The handover of Hong Kong from Britain to PRC in 1997 is based on the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, which is being violated [1]. PRC is violating an international declaration it signed, which at least Britain has a say. Putting aside the international nature of Hong Kong, other nations should take a part in some extreme cases, such as to push back on concentration camps and genocide, be it in Nazi Germany or modern day PRC. [1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-britain/uk-says-chinas-security-law-is-serious-violation-of-hong-kong-treaty-idUSKBN2425LL https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-britain... P.S. As other comments said, Hong Kong (transferred from Qing to Britain in 1841, 1860, and 1898) has never been a former territory of PRC (formed in 1949). It is also arguable if Britain should give Hong Kong to ROC instead of PRC.