4 ms·

China specifically agreed under the terms of the transfer to allow for Hong Kong's continued independence in domestic matters until 2047. Beijing is in flagrant

China specifically agreed under the terms of the transfer to allow for Hong Kong's continued independence in domestic matters until 2047. Beijing is in flagrant violations of its international treaty obligations. The New Territories were under a 99 year lease, but Britain was under no obligation to transfer Hong Kong Island and Kowloon back at any time for any reason. They graciously agreed to return them for China, but in exchange Beijing made explicit promises, which it's openly disregarding.

whydoibother 5y ago
> They graciously agreed to return them for China Sorry, but you can't 'graciously' return a colony. It was something they never should have had.
- dcolkitt 5y ago
  The right to govern extends from the consent of the governed. It's not a question of who "should" own Hong Kong based on some centuries old history. It's a question of who the people of Hong Kong choose to govern them. Had an open referendum been held in 1997, it's almost certainly the case that the citizenry would not have voted to return to the tutelage of the dictatorship in Beijing.
  - whydoibother 5y ago
    Given most of the pro democracy groups are funded by the CIA/NED, I really doubt that.
  - neverminder 5y ago
    This is something I don't understand as well. Why didn't Hong Kong choose to become an independent state when they had the chance? They could have thrived like Singapore does.
    - skhr0680 5y ago
      They didn't have a choice. It was either rejoin China or get their water cut off.
      - kindatrue 5y ago
        Electricity too. That PRC nuclear plant that was in the news? Helps power HK.
    - alau1218 5y ago
      CCP didn't allow Hong Kong people to choose. They didn't even allow Hong Kong people to participate in the hand over negotiation. Remember CCP is a group of savage dictators and does not embrace the Western values, such as respect, equality, that are familiar to us.
      - _tik_ 5y ago
        The British did not allowed them to choose either. The members of legislative created by the British is based on appointment not elections. The British only decided the reform the legislative after the handover sealed.
        kenneth 5y ago
        The CCP prevented the British from enacting democratic reforms and any self-determination in Hong Kong, under the thread of military invasion. This isn't on Britain, they tried decades prior.
      - yibg 5y ago
        I have no love for the CCP but I think this type of caricature simplification is both wrong and not insightful. The CCP members are not some cartoon villains bent on world domination.
    - _tik_ 5y ago
      They could thrive only if their Govt rule like Singapore Govt.
  - ProfessorLayton 5y ago
    >The right to govern extends from the consent of the governed. First I must say that what's happening to HK is tragic, and I very much empathize with their situation, and am not at all in agreement with how the CCP is handling this. But this is quite the take! I don't know if you're US-based, but by that logic if the Native Americans held a referendum, they would have most certainly not allowed the U.S. government to form on their land. This is simply a case of Big Stick Ideology, something the U.S. is quite familiar with [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology [EDIT: No, I'm not suggesting that this is right, just making an observation]
    - kurthr 5y ago
      Yes, that is why people feel that what was done to Native Americans was wrong. By which I mean that Americans believe it was wrong. It was also 200 years ago, and no explicit treaty had been signed to another world power granting them rights (the French and Spanish sold them out). Unless you think it was right and the Big Stick is right, then HK is more than tragic. It is a violation of international treaty and of human rights.
      - ProfessorLayton 5y ago
        No, I do not think Big Stick is right. The U.S. has a whole history with Latin America that was a lot less than 200 years ago. I'd argue that many outside of the U.S believe this policy isn't a thing of the past. >French and Spanish sold them out I don't find the suggestion that those that were subjugated needed rights granted to them by outside groups, including those that colonized them to begin with. Again, I'm in agreement that this is wrong, but I also believe that "Rules for thee but not for me" is not a very productive type of diplomacy either.
      - magicsmoke 5y ago
        If that's the case we would see an effort to reverse those wrongs by reverting all the economic benefit that America gained at the expense of Native Americans. All the land and lives taken, and all the wealth and prosperity they could have generated. The total sum if repaid would probably erase a significant part of America from the map. So it was wrong. But clearly not wrong enough to warrant erasing America and its wealth from existence. Saying sorry and expressing regret is cheap. Actual action is expensive. As an aside, I wonder what the psychological effects are from growing up in a nation where the public discourse is all about how the nation was unjustly founded. If a significant part of the next generation believes that America's historical foundations are rotten to the core and that its existence is a tragedy, what happens next?
  - xster 5y ago
    Sounds like a good approach. Why not put it to practice by letting China own Florida for 150 years, then see who Floridians want to join at the end of it.
- kenneth 5y ago
  Hong Kong was built from nothing by the British. Before the British arrived and settled HK, it was but an empty jungle mountains sticking of an estuary on the Ocean. By comparison, the powerhouse of southern China, Guangzhou, was plenty populated. They ceded some empty land to the brits to build a trading port some distance away. Why would the Communist Party of China have more of a claim to this land than the brits? When HK was ceded and built, the CCP didn't even exist and wouldn't for a few more hundred years. A different power (the Qing empire) controlled the land from afar. They are from a different ethnic group (Manchurian), from modern day northern China / Russia, and have very little to do with the Cantonese people who inhabit southern China. (I live here)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
dragonsh 5y ago
> China specifically agreed under the terms of the transfer to allow for Hong Kong's continued independence in domestic matters until 2047 Independence in domestic matters is still there in Hong Kong, as it was before 1997 (at that time also chief executive is not elected). Hong Kong earlier worked under common law system and it still has the same system (China system is continental law system). Nationality law was enacted using provisions of basic law which provided a thin layer between one country and two systems. Also this is in response to threats of using Hong Kong as launch pad for attack on China in cold war. > They graciously agreed to return them for China Lived long enough in Hong Kong to know it was anything but gracious. UK left because they milked enough from Hong Kong and risking a war with China for a small gains were not worthwhile.

whydoibother 5y ago

> They graciously agreed to return them for China Sorry, but you can't 'graciously' return a colony. It was something they never should have had.

dcolkitt 5y ago
The right to govern extends from the consent of the governed. It's not a question of who "should" own Hong Kong based on some centuries old history. It's a question of who the people of Hong Kong choose to govern them. Had an open referendum been held in 1997, it's almost certainly the case that the citizenry would not have voted to return to the tutelage of the dictatorship in Beijing.
- whydoibother 5y ago
  Given most of the pro democracy groups are funded by the CIA/NED, I really doubt that.
- neverminder 5y ago
  This is something I don't understand as well. Why didn't Hong Kong choose to become an independent state when they had the chance? They could have thrived like Singapore does.
  - skhr0680 5y ago
    They didn't have a choice. It was either rejoin China or get their water cut off.
    - kindatrue 5y ago
      Electricity too. That PRC nuclear plant that was in the news? Helps power HK.
  - alau1218 5y ago
    CCP didn't allow Hong Kong people to choose. They didn't even allow Hong Kong people to participate in the hand over negotiation. Remember CCP is a group of savage dictators and does not embrace the Western values, such as respect, equality, that are familiar to us.
    - _tik_ 5y ago
      The British did not allowed them to choose either. The members of legislative created by the British is based on appointment not elections. The British only decided the reform the legislative after the handover sealed.
      - kenneth 5y ago
        The CCP prevented the British from enacting democratic reforms and any self-determination in Hong Kong, under the thread of military invasion. This isn't on Britain, they tried decades prior.
    - yibg 5y ago
      I have no love for the CCP but I think this type of caricature simplification is both wrong and not insightful. The CCP members are not some cartoon villains bent on world domination.
  - _tik_ 5y ago
    They could thrive only if their Govt rule like Singapore Govt.
- ProfessorLayton 5y ago
  >The right to govern extends from the consent of the governed. First I must say that what's happening to HK is tragic, and I very much empathize with their situation, and am not at all in agreement with how the CCP is handling this. But this is quite the take! I don't know if you're US-based, but by that logic if the Native Americans held a referendum, they would have most certainly not allowed the U.S. government to form on their land. This is simply a case of Big Stick Ideology, something the U.S. is quite familiar with [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology [EDIT: No, I'm not suggesting that this is right, just making an observation]
  - kurthr 5y ago
    Yes, that is why people feel that what was done to Native Americans was wrong. By which I mean that Americans believe it was wrong. It was also 200 years ago, and no explicit treaty had been signed to another world power granting them rights (the French and Spanish sold them out). Unless you think it was right and the Big Stick is right, then HK is more than tragic. It is a violation of international treaty and of human rights.
    - ProfessorLayton 5y ago
      No, I do not think Big Stick is right. The U.S. has a whole history with Latin America that was a lot less than 200 years ago. I'd argue that many outside of the U.S believe this policy isn't a thing of the past. >French and Spanish sold them out I don't find the suggestion that those that were subjugated needed rights granted to them by outside groups, including those that colonized them to begin with. Again, I'm in agreement that this is wrong, but I also believe that "Rules for thee but not for me" is not a very productive type of diplomacy either.
    - magicsmoke 5y ago
      If that's the case we would see an effort to reverse those wrongs by reverting all the economic benefit that America gained at the expense of Native Americans. All the land and lives taken, and all the wealth and prosperity they could have generated. The total sum if repaid would probably erase a significant part of America from the map. So it was wrong. But clearly not wrong enough to warrant erasing America and its wealth from existence. Saying sorry and expressing regret is cheap. Actual action is expensive. As an aside, I wonder what the psychological effects are from growing up in a nation where the public discourse is all about how the nation was unjustly founded. If a significant part of the next generation believes that America's historical foundations are rotten to the core and that its existence is a tragedy, what happens next?
- xster 5y ago
  Sounds like a good approach. Why not put it to practice by letting China own Florida for 150 years, then see who Floridians want to join at the end of it.
kenneth 5y ago
Hong Kong was built from nothing by the British. Before the British arrived and settled HK, it was but an empty jungle mountains sticking of an estuary on the Ocean. By comparison, the powerhouse of southern China, Guangzhou, was plenty populated. They ceded some empty land to the brits to build a trading port some distance away. Why would the Communist Party of China have more of a claim to this land than the brits? When HK was ceded and built, the CCP didn't even exist and wouldn't for a few more hundred years. A different power (the Qing empire) controlled the land from afar. They are from a different ethnic group (Manchurian), from modern day northern China / Russia, and have very little to do with the Cantonese people who inhabit southern China. (I live here)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

dragonsh 5y ago

> China specifically agreed under the terms of the transfer to allow for Hong Kong's continued independence in domestic matters until 2047 Independence in domestic matters is still there in Hong Kong, as it was before 1997 (at that time also chief executive is not elected). Hong Kong earlier worked under common law system and it still has the same system (China system is continental law system). Nationality law was enacted using provisions of basic law which provided a thin layer between one country and two systems. Also this is in response to threats of using Hong Kong as launch pad for attack on China in cold war. > They graciously agreed to return them for China Lived long enough in Hong Kong to know it was anything but gracious. UK left because they milked enough from Hong Kong and risking a war with China for a small gains were not worthwhile.