10 ms·

> Critics say those freedoms are now under threat with China's recent moves and the UK has accused China of flouting the terms of its handover agreement, but Ch

> Critics say those freedoms are now under threat with China's recent moves and the UK has accused China of flouting the terms of its handover agreement, but China denies this. To be more precise, last year or so Chinese government has issued a statement (on record, googleable) that HK handover agreement is not valid/recognized by them. So far there had been no consequences.

woah 5y ago
In 1997, Britain should have handed Hong Kong over to it's rightful owner, the Republic Of China.
- mosseater 5y ago
  The Republic of China are a nation of people that ran away and started their own place after the PRC drove them out. Putting whether China is the rightful owner of Taiwan aside, that's a lot of politics and back and forth. But how would Taiwan be the rightful owner of Hong Kong in any case?
  - baby 5y ago
    At least they would have been culturally closer and the integration would have been less bloody.
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    If we assume RoC is the rightful government for China as a whole, it stands to reason that they are also the rightful owner of Hong Kong, no? And since one is a democratic government and the other is a totalitarian state actively comiting genocide, then I know whom I would want as my government.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      But the question of whom you would want has nothing to do with who is the "rightful owner" or the one who enjoys the support of the people they claim to govern.
      - BLKNSLVR 5y ago
        "rightful owner" is a funny ol' concept. Basically, whichever power is able to hold it at the time is essentially the "rightful owner". I can't seem to get past this nihilism as the correct answer.
      - GauntletWizard 5y ago
        There are two theories of government: One says that they rule by divine right, the other says that they rule by the consent of the governed. One does not recognize human rights, the other does. I know which one I want to live under; I hope that those that argue the other never have the misfortune of experiencing their wish.
        emodendroket 5y ago
        Let’s run with the second. Do you actually think the majority of the people who live in the PRC wish for their government to be overthrown? It is obvious to me that that is not the case.
        MathYouF 5y ago
        If only there was a mechanism by which one could find out which leaders the people would like to be governed by.
        emodendroket 5y ago
        I think it's pretty foolish to assume that just because a government is not elected means it doesn't enjoy substantial support, especially in the face of a galvanizing force like a foreign country seeking to destabilize it. Polling in China has some obvious limitations but would suggest high levels of satisfaction. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/913650298/as-u-s-views-of-china-grow-more-negative-chinese-support-for-their-government-ri https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/913650298/as-u-s-views-of-chi...
        MathYouF 5y ago
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    The ROC officially still claims to be the legitimate government of all of mainland China.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      They also claim all of Mongolia, so maybe that should be given to them as well?
    - WastingMyTime89 5y ago
      In truth they don't but it's one of China red lines. If the ROC drops its claim on the mainland and just tries to be an independent country (things which the ROC wants to do), China said they will see it as casus belli and invades. China bullies Taïwan a lot but the rest of the world remains spinless in front of it.
      - emodendroket 5y ago
        The remarks supposedly uttered by Trump on this topic [0] are one of the truer things he said: "Taiwan is like two feet from China. We are eight thousand miles away. If they invade, there isn’t a fucking thing we can do about it." There's a lot of talk about standing up to China, but in concrete terms, what does that mean? It's hard to see how any "kinetic" action doesn't go nuclear. I think we should just stop poking the hornet's nest; the Chinese would be quite happy leaving the 1992 Consensus alone. [0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7vpqb/trump-wasnt-going-to-do-a-fucking-thing-if-china-invaded-taiwan-a-new-book-says https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7vpqb/trump-wasnt-going-to-...
        abraae 5y ago
        Ignoring the author of that quote, that sounds pretty realpolitik to me. What other option is there anyway?
        emodendroket 5y ago
        “Limited” nuclear war is one people are talking about, or else first use that’s so devastating that it removes the Chinese ability to respond. I think they’re ill considered but I suppose they are options.
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    The ROC nationalists "ran away" because they did almost all the anti-Japanese fighting during WWII, while the communists sat back and conserved their strength for the coming civil war. Which they proceeded to win. Edit: It's true. Go read a book or something: https://thediplomat.com/2014/09/the-ccp-didnt-fight-imperial-japan-the-kmt-did/ https://thediplomat.com/2014/09/the-ccp-didnt-fight-imperial... > This would be the trend of the entire war. As two scholars note, “From 1937 to 1945, there were 23 battles where both sides employed at least a regiment each. The CCP was not a main force in any of these. The only time it participated, it sent a mere 1,000 to 1,500 men, and then only as a security detachment on one of the flanks.There were 1,117 significant engagements on a scale smaller than a regular battle, but the CCP fought in only one. Of the approximately 40,000 skirmishes, just 200 were fought by the CCP, or 0.5 percent.”
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      Based on the downvote patterns in this thread, it's pretty obvious CCP trolls with HN accounts are highly active.
      - emodendroket 5y ago
        Well, it could be that there is an army of paid trolls targeting this relatively small and specialized forum, but it strikes me as much more likely that this is a contentious issue and not everyone feels the same way about it.
        monksy 5y ago
        There are financial incentives to push propaganda on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party
        emodendroket 5y ago
        Considering how frequently I find people who just don't like what I have to say accusing me of being bought off by some state, company, or other entity, I find such accusations less than compelling when thrown around on so little evidence.
  - CWuestefeld 5y ago
    Wait a minute - circa 1930, "China" included both the mainland and the island of Formosa. Then there was a civil war in which the Communists forcibly took over the mainland portion but weren't able to wrest control of Formosa. So as far as I can tell, the mainland is now the "rogue province" that isn't honoring the legit government that still remains over there in Taiwan. And thus we should be thinking of the PRC as "West Taiwan".
    - coronasaurus 5y ago
      They didn't take it over "forcibly", they took it over with popular support from the Chinese people. If that doesn't grant you legitimacy I honestly don't know what would.
      - CWuestefeld 5y ago
        Popular support would be democratic elections. That's not what happened - it was a civil war, fighting the KMT supporters.
      - strogonoff 5y ago
        The reason it had popular support is because USSR gave them money and resources, presumably just for this reason.
    - CogitoCogito 5y ago
      Formosa wasn't a part of China in the 1930s it was a part of Japan.
    - brobinson 5y ago
      The Qing Dynasty lost Formosa to Imperial Japan in 1895.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ravel-bar-foo 5y ago
    The treaty of Nanjing which gave HK to the UK was made between the Queen of England and the Emperor of China. The Republic of China was the successor state to the empire. The present official Chinese copy of the treaty is kept in the National Palace Museum in Taipei. Historically, the People's republic of China had to lobby the UN quite hard to take over the treaties and privileges (UN security council membership) which the Republic had assumed.
- muststopmyths 5y ago
  Unfortunately Taiwan was unable to accomdate all the outsourced manufacturing from the West.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  The only reason they handed it over at all is their lease on the New Territories ended in 1997 and it was impossible to defend or administer Hong Kong without them. Even if you are convinced that they are the "rightful owners" of the territory, the ROC probably wouldn't find any better way to square that circle than the British would, and it seems less like a gift than an albatross to give it to them and ask them to try.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 5y ago
    If PRC was the same mess it was in the 50’s they could have ignored them without issue. The problem for the UK was they had something to lose from offending China and it was a politically tricky situation domestically. They needed to hand HK to someone and doing what was best for HK was never a serious consideration.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      I mean, sure, they probably could push around a weak state in violation of international law more easily; that's how they ended up administering the territory in the first place. I can't see what that implies though; the situation would have been just as sticky for cross-Strait relations if not more so.
- enriquto 5y ago
  > Britain should have handed Hong Kong over to it's rightful owner, the Republic Of China. LOL, just squirted the tea through my nose. That would have been an epic troll move. Unfortunately (for HK) the british empire had long lost its spine by that time and could only bully tiny nations, not powerful ones.
- mongol 5y ago
  Was this seriously discussed or considered? I never heard it mentioned before.
- ksec 5y ago
  US does not support any idea other than handover. It is called handover in English, but somehow in Chinese it is return to china or hand back to china. Subtle but substantial difference. ( Only New Territories belongs to the them, not Kowloon or HK Island ) Deng Xiaoping also made it explicitly clear, hand it back or soldiers will cross border. If they dare to hand it over to ROC, they might as well kept it themselves.
  - UIZealot 5y ago
    > It is called handover in English, but somehow in Chinese it is return to china or hand back to china. The UK recognizes the PRC as the successor regime of China, and thus the rightful owner of all that's due of the UK to China under the various treaties between them. Somehow? That's how. > Only New Territories belongs to the them, not Kowloon or HK Island Kowloon and HK Island had always been Chinese territory. The British defeated China in a series of wars, mostly for the right to sell opium in China, and took them as spoils. When China became strong enough to defeat the British, they wanted them back, and there's nothing the British could do except handing them back. Funny how that worked out, wasn't it? My advice? Read up a little on history.
    - ksec 5y ago
      >My advice? Read up a little on history. >Kowloon and HK Island had always been Chinese territory. What, You mean the Qing Dynasty? My advice? Read up a little on history. Oh wait..
      - UIZealot 5y ago
        Just as I suspected, you did know the history, you were just feigning ignorance. So I suspect you do know the relevant internation laws as well. But allow me to quote myself: > The UK recognizes the PRC as the successor regime of China, and thus the rightful owner of all that's due of the UK to China under the various treaties between them. You are free to live in your make-believe world in which Kowloon and HK island were never part of China. The rest of us? We live in the real world.
- skissane 5y ago
  The problem with that is that the UK had been one of the first Western nations to recognise PRC, all the way back in 1950. I think in hindsight, this was a big mistake on UK's part. Not that they shouldn't have recognised PRC eventually, but they should have held off doing so and extracted greater concessions in exchange. They gave away one of their biggest pieces of leverage at the very start of the game.
TheEastIsRed 5y ago
> the UK has accused China of flouting the terms of its handover agreement, but China denies this. The UK invaded China to push heroin and opium on the Chinese, and now thinks it has the right to demand how a Chinese city is run. The height of western imperial arrogance, it's hilarious to see all the white professionals here, working from home in their segregated neighborhoods talking about pushing for the return of western domain over Chinese cities for "humanitarian reasons".
- mountainriver 5y ago
  People had a lot more freedom
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  Oh please. The communist party in China makes the nazis look like toddlers in the scope of death and suffering inflicted on people. The long defunct historical events you cite are a dilute drop of tears in the ocean of blood staining the hands of communist government over the last 70 years. The simple fact of the matter is that Hong Kong had been living under the hope of a free and liberal democratic future. Mainland China, like all failing and flailing communist dictatorships before, cannot tolerate even the appearance of dissent, and they crushed that hope for a bright future. Mainland China has made ugly and petty a once beautiful and proud city. The Chinese communist party is evil. If the moral arc of the universe swings toward justice, the CPC will end. The only question is if they'll take the rest of us with them when it's time to fall. China is the country most intent on driving the world to nuclear confrontation. They could have chosen mercy and justice and civilization, holding their citizens high as examples of human achievement. At every opportunity, they choose otherwise, crushing everything human and wise with their cruel folly. You have no high horse, you can stop with the coconut sound effects.
  - UIZealot 5y ago
    Have you been to, read about, or seen any news about China in the last, oh I don't know, 50 years? Or did you make up your mind about China during the height of the Cold War era and you're never going to change it no matter what?
xster 5y ago
Are you referring to something specific?
- strogonoff 5y ago
  > China said on Friday the joint declaration with Britain over Hong Kong, which laid the blueprint over how the city would be ruled after its return to China in 1997, was a historical document that no longer had any practical significance. … Lu told reporters during a regular briefing on Friday that the document no longer binds China. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-anniversary-china-idUSKBN19L1J1 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-anniversary-chin... This was all the way back in 2017, my bad.

woah 5y ago

In 1997, Britain should have handed Hong Kong over to it's rightful owner, the Republic Of China.

mosseater 5y ago
The Republic of China are a nation of people that ran away and started their own place after the PRC drove them out. Putting whether China is the rightful owner of Taiwan aside, that's a lot of politics and back and forth. But how would Taiwan be the rightful owner of Hong Kong in any case?
- baby 5y ago
  At least they would have been culturally closer and the integration would have been less bloody.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  If we assume RoC is the rightful government for China as a whole, it stands to reason that they are also the rightful owner of Hong Kong, no? And since one is a democratic government and the other is a totalitarian state actively comiting genocide, then I know whom I would want as my government.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    But the question of whom you would want has nothing to do with who is the "rightful owner" or the one who enjoys the support of the people they claim to govern.
    - BLKNSLVR 5y ago
      "rightful owner" is a funny ol' concept. Basically, whichever power is able to hold it at the time is essentially the "rightful owner". I can't seem to get past this nihilism as the correct answer.
    - GauntletWizard 5y ago
      There are two theories of government: One says that they rule by divine right, the other says that they rule by the consent of the governed. One does not recognize human rights, the other does. I know which one I want to live under; I hope that those that argue the other never have the misfortune of experiencing their wish.
      - emodendroket 5y ago
        Let’s run with the second. Do you actually think the majority of the people who live in the PRC wish for their government to be overthrown? It is obvious to me that that is not the case.
        MathYouF 5y ago
        If only there was a mechanism by which one could find out which leaders the people would like to be governed by.
        emodendroket 5y ago
        I think it's pretty foolish to assume that just because a government is not elected means it doesn't enjoy substantial support, especially in the face of a galvanizing force like a foreign country seeking to destabilize it. Polling in China has some obvious limitations but would suggest high levels of satisfaction. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/913650298/as-u-s-views-of-china-grow-more-negative-chinese-support-for-their-government-ri https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/913650298/as-u-s-views-of-chi...
        MathYouF 5y ago
- mannerheim 5y ago
  The ROC officially still claims to be the legitimate government of all of mainland China.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    They also claim all of Mongolia, so maybe that should be given to them as well?
  - WastingMyTime89 5y ago
    In truth they don't but it's one of China red lines. If the ROC drops its claim on the mainland and just tries to be an independent country (things which the ROC wants to do), China said they will see it as casus belli and invades. China bullies Taïwan a lot but the rest of the world remains spinless in front of it.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      The remarks supposedly uttered by Trump on this topic [0] are one of the truer things he said: "Taiwan is like two feet from China. We are eight thousand miles away. If they invade, there isn’t a fucking thing we can do about it." There's a lot of talk about standing up to China, but in concrete terms, what does that mean? It's hard to see how any "kinetic" action doesn't go nuclear. I think we should just stop poking the hornet's nest; the Chinese would be quite happy leaving the 1992 Consensus alone. [0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7vpqb/trump-wasnt-going-to-do-a-fucking-thing-if-china-invaded-taiwan-a-new-book-says https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7vpqb/trump-wasnt-going-to-...
      - abraae 5y ago
        Ignoring the author of that quote, that sounds pretty realpolitik to me. What other option is there anyway?
        emodendroket 5y ago
        “Limited” nuclear war is one people are talking about, or else first use that’s so devastating that it removes the Chinese ability to respond. I think they’re ill considered but I suppose they are options.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  The ROC nationalists "ran away" because they did almost all the anti-Japanese fighting during WWII, while the communists sat back and conserved their strength for the coming civil war. Which they proceeded to win. Edit: It's true. Go read a book or something: https://thediplomat.com/2014/09/the-ccp-didnt-fight-imperial-japan-the-kmt-did/ https://thediplomat.com/2014/09/the-ccp-didnt-fight-imperial... > This would be the trend of the entire war. As two scholars note, “From 1937 to 1945, there were 23 battles where both sides employed at least a regiment each. The CCP was not a main force in any of these. The only time it participated, it sent a mere 1,000 to 1,500 men, and then only as a security detachment on one of the flanks.There were 1,117 significant engagements on a scale smaller than a regular battle, but the CCP fought in only one. Of the approximately 40,000 skirmishes, just 200 were fought by the CCP, or 0.5 percent.”
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    Based on the downvote patterns in this thread, it's pretty obvious CCP trolls with HN accounts are highly active.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      Well, it could be that there is an army of paid trolls targeting this relatively small and specialized forum, but it strikes me as much more likely that this is a contentious issue and not everyone feels the same way about it.
      - monksy 5y ago
        There are financial incentives to push propaganda on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party
        emodendroket 5y ago
        Considering how frequently I find people who just don't like what I have to say accusing me of being bought off by some state, company, or other entity, I find such accusations less than compelling when thrown around on so little evidence.
- CWuestefeld 5y ago
  Wait a minute - circa 1930, "China" included both the mainland and the island of Formosa. Then there was a civil war in which the Communists forcibly took over the mainland portion but weren't able to wrest control of Formosa. So as far as I can tell, the mainland is now the "rogue province" that isn't honoring the legit government that still remains over there in Taiwan. And thus we should be thinking of the PRC as "West Taiwan".
  - coronasaurus 5y ago
    They didn't take it over "forcibly", they took it over with popular support from the Chinese people. If that doesn't grant you legitimacy I honestly don't know what would.
    - CWuestefeld 5y ago
      Popular support would be democratic elections. That's not what happened - it was a civil war, fighting the KMT supporters.
    - strogonoff 5y ago
      The reason it had popular support is because USSR gave them money and resources, presumably just for this reason.
  - CogitoCogito 5y ago
    Formosa wasn't a part of China in the 1930s it was a part of Japan.
  - brobinson 5y ago
    The Qing Dynasty lost Formosa to Imperial Japan in 1895.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ravel-bar-foo 5y ago
  The treaty of Nanjing which gave HK to the UK was made between the Queen of England and the Emperor of China. The Republic of China was the successor state to the empire. The present official Chinese copy of the treaty is kept in the National Palace Museum in Taipei. Historically, the People's republic of China had to lobby the UN quite hard to take over the treaties and privileges (UN security council membership) which the Republic had assumed.
muststopmyths 5y ago
Unfortunately Taiwan was unable to accomdate all the outsourced manufacturing from the West.
emodendroket 5y ago
The only reason they handed it over at all is their lease on the New Territories ended in 1997 and it was impossible to defend or administer Hong Kong without them. Even if you are convinced that they are the "rightful owners" of the territory, the ROC probably wouldn't find any better way to square that circle than the British would, and it seems less like a gift than an albatross to give it to them and ask them to try.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 5y ago
  If PRC was the same mess it was in the 50’s they could have ignored them without issue. The problem for the UK was they had something to lose from offending China and it was a politically tricky situation domestically. They needed to hand HK to someone and doing what was best for HK was never a serious consideration.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    I mean, sure, they probably could push around a weak state in violation of international law more easily; that's how they ended up administering the territory in the first place. I can't see what that implies though; the situation would have been just as sticky for cross-Strait relations if not more so.
enriquto 5y ago
> Britain should have handed Hong Kong over to it's rightful owner, the Republic Of China. LOL, just squirted the tea through my nose. That would have been an epic troll move. Unfortunately (for HK) the british empire had long lost its spine by that time and could only bully tiny nations, not powerful ones.
mongol 5y ago
Was this seriously discussed or considered? I never heard it mentioned before.
ksec 5y ago
US does not support any idea other than handover. It is called handover in English, but somehow in Chinese it is return to china or hand back to china. Subtle but substantial difference. ( Only New Territories belongs to the them, not Kowloon or HK Island ) Deng Xiaoping also made it explicitly clear, hand it back or soldiers will cross border. If they dare to hand it over to ROC, they might as well kept it themselves.
- UIZealot 5y ago
  > It is called handover in English, but somehow in Chinese it is return to china or hand back to china. The UK recognizes the PRC as the successor regime of China, and thus the rightful owner of all that's due of the UK to China under the various treaties between them. Somehow? That's how. > Only New Territories belongs to the them, not Kowloon or HK Island Kowloon and HK Island had always been Chinese territory. The British defeated China in a series of wars, mostly for the right to sell opium in China, and took them as spoils. When China became strong enough to defeat the British, they wanted them back, and there's nothing the British could do except handing them back. Funny how that worked out, wasn't it? My advice? Read up a little on history.
  - ksec 5y ago
    >My advice? Read up a little on history. >Kowloon and HK Island had always been Chinese territory. What, You mean the Qing Dynasty? My advice? Read up a little on history. Oh wait..
    - UIZealot 5y ago
      Just as I suspected, you did know the history, you were just feigning ignorance. So I suspect you do know the relevant internation laws as well. But allow me to quote myself: > The UK recognizes the PRC as the successor regime of China, and thus the rightful owner of all that's due of the UK to China under the various treaties between them. You are free to live in your make-believe world in which Kowloon and HK island were never part of China. The rest of us? We live in the real world.
skissane 5y ago
The problem with that is that the UK had been one of the first Western nations to recognise PRC, all the way back in 1950. I think in hindsight, this was a big mistake on UK's part. Not that they shouldn't have recognised PRC eventually, but they should have held off doing so and extracted greater concessions in exchange. They gave away one of their biggest pieces of leverage at the very start of the game.

TheEastIsRed 5y ago

> the UK has accused China of flouting the terms of its handover agreement, but China denies this. The UK invaded China to push heroin and opium on the Chinese, and now thinks it has the right to demand how a Chinese city is run. The height of western imperial arrogance, it's hilarious to see all the white professionals here, working from home in their segregated neighborhoods talking about pushing for the return of western domain over Chinese cities for "humanitarian reasons".

mountainriver 5y ago
People had a lot more freedom
robbedpeter 5y ago
Oh please. The communist party in China makes the nazis look like toddlers in the scope of death and suffering inflicted on people. The long defunct historical events you cite are a dilute drop of tears in the ocean of blood staining the hands of communist government over the last 70 years. The simple fact of the matter is that Hong Kong had been living under the hope of a free and liberal democratic future. Mainland China, like all failing and flailing communist dictatorships before, cannot tolerate even the appearance of dissent, and they crushed that hope for a bright future. Mainland China has made ugly and petty a once beautiful and proud city. The Chinese communist party is evil. If the moral arc of the universe swings toward justice, the CPC will end. The only question is if they'll take the rest of us with them when it's time to fall. China is the country most intent on driving the world to nuclear confrontation. They could have chosen mercy and justice and civilization, holding their citizens high as examples of human achievement. At every opportunity, they choose otherwise, crushing everything human and wise with their cruel folly. You have no high horse, you can stop with the coconut sound effects.
- UIZealot 5y ago
  Have you been to, read about, or seen any news about China in the last, oh I don't know, 50 years? Or did you make up your mind about China during the height of the Cold War era and you're never going to change it no matter what?

xster 5y ago

Are you referring to something specific?

strogonoff 5y ago
> China said on Friday the joint declaration with Britain over Hong Kong, which laid the blueprint over how the city would be ruled after its return to China in 1997, was a historical document that no longer had any practical significance. … Lu told reporters during a regular briefing on Friday that the document no longer binds China. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-anniversary-china-idUSKBN19L1J1 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-anniversary-chin... This was all the way back in 2017, my bad.