3 ms·

I wonder what UK's strategy was when they made that decision. It was clear they'd have no leverage in enforcing the agreement. I've also always wondered why the

I wonder what UK's strategy was when they made that decision. It was clear they'd have no leverage in enforcing the agreement. I've also always wondered why there was so much investments in HK based on expectation that the status-quo would prevail. I feel really bad for the situation and what it suggests about the future. Yet I can't help but feel this was inevitable. Taiwan however seems a couple orders of magnitude less likely on the short/medium term, I believe, unless the US loses it's edge quite dramatically. That's all just my speculation.

rich_sasha 6y ago
The UK didn't really have an alternative, I think. UK "owned" Hong Kong "proper", i.e. what is called "Hong Kong island". This is a tiny fraction of the territory it was governing until 1997. The remaining territories were only leased, on fixed-term, from the Chinese government, with the lease running out in 1997. Hong Kong Island is in no way self-sustainable as a foreign territory, much less so than even Gibraltar or the Falklands. Think owning downtown Manhattan, with the US hostile to the idea.
- vxNsr 6y ago
  Still 23 years ago if the UK had just said "well we'll be keeping this indefinitely under the current terms," China would have had little recourse. They certainly wouldn't start a hot war with the UK, especially because they were still trying to make it on the world stage and HK was printing money for them at that point.
  - ginko 6y ago
    If the UK had tried that I'm quite certain there'd have been a hot conflict over this. China could have never accepted this. At the very least the PRC would have occupied the New Territories and stopped supplies.
  - rich_sasha 6y ago
    Everything north of Hong Kong Island was going back to China anyway, under international law. For the UK to oppose that, without China's consent, would be below par for their standard of international politics. Hong Kong Island is 80 km^2, surrounded by undisputably Chinese territory and waters. Most of it is mountainous rock you can't develop very much. Not even the airport lies on the island, and there is less than 1 km of sea between the island and territories returning to China anyway.
  - fmajid 6y ago
    All of Hong Kong's water supplies are outside and would have been cut off.
    - bluGill 6y ago
      Perhaps, but probably not right away. Water supplies are not hard to build - if you have the time. The UK could make nice with China long enough to build a desalination plant. I doubt China would want the international stain of shutting off water without warning. (They might have an "accident" shutting off water for a few hours) Though I'm not sure the UK really gains anything either.
vxNsr 6y ago
This was in the same decade that the USSR fell, it felt inevitable that communism would give-way to capitalism and indeed china was slowly allowing more freedom in the rest of the country, that's all been rolled back under Xi who I guess is a megalomaniac.

rich_sasha 6y ago

The UK didn't really have an alternative, I think. UK "owned" Hong Kong "proper", i.e. what is called "Hong Kong island". This is a tiny fraction of the territory it was governing until 1997. The remaining territories were only leased, on fixed-term, from the Chinese government, with the lease running out in 1997. Hong Kong Island is in no way self-sustainable as a foreign territory, much less so than even Gibraltar or the Falklands. Think owning downtown Manhattan, with the US hostile to the idea.

vxNsr 6y ago
Still 23 years ago if the UK had just said "well we'll be keeping this indefinitely under the current terms," China would have had little recourse. They certainly wouldn't start a hot war with the UK, especially because they were still trying to make it on the world stage and HK was printing money for them at that point.
- ginko 6y ago
  If the UK had tried that I'm quite certain there'd have been a hot conflict over this. China could have never accepted this. At the very least the PRC would have occupied the New Territories and stopped supplies.
- rich_sasha 6y ago
  Everything north of Hong Kong Island was going back to China anyway, under international law. For the UK to oppose that, without China's consent, would be below par for their standard of international politics. Hong Kong Island is 80 km^2, surrounded by undisputably Chinese territory and waters. Most of it is mountainous rock you can't develop very much. Not even the airport lies on the island, and there is less than 1 km of sea between the island and territories returning to China anyway.
- fmajid 6y ago
  All of Hong Kong's water supplies are outside and would have been cut off.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Perhaps, but probably not right away. Water supplies are not hard to build - if you have the time. The UK could make nice with China long enough to build a desalination plant. I doubt China would want the international stain of shutting off water without warning. (They might have an "accident" shutting off water for a few hours) Though I'm not sure the UK really gains anything either.

vxNsr 6y ago

This was in the same decade that the USSR fell, it felt inevitable that communism would give-way to capitalism and indeed china was slowly allowing more freedom in the rest of the country, that's all been rolled back under Xi who I guess is a megalomaniac.