3 ms·

Naive or not, there wasn't really an alternative for Britain anyway. China had made it clear that they wanted HK back, and would get it back one way or the othe

Naive or not, there wasn't really an alternative for Britain anyway. China had made it clear that they wanted HK back, and would get it back one way or the other. The best they could do was sign an agreement that offered as much protection to the city for as long as possible and then hope things would change in China over time.

kzrdude 4y ago
So China was too powerful to ignore their threats? Even today don't you think there is an alternative to handing stuff over to threats of military violence? In your view how is it different from today's situation where China might declare the same thing about Taiwan?
- gowld 4y ago
  Look at the map. Is UK going to fight a war with China over Hong Kong? UK has no legitimate claim to Hong Kong, so the non-China option is independence. Taiwan has always had a local military.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  There are a couple things that make the Hong Kong situation more complicated. * by 1997 (handover date) Britain lacked a colonial empire from which it could assist in a defense of Hong Kong, and of the overseas posts it did have, the regiments were fairly small. Sending a large military force all the way from Britain itself would take too long in any sort of conflict. Taiwan has always come with the implicit security guarantee of the United States, which maintains a very active presence in the Pacific. * the PLA has the law of numbers on their side, not only due to part 1 but because of how large their army is in general, and the border between Hong Kong and the rest of China is a fairly small river. The PLA generally lacks the amphibious capacity to do a land invasion of Taiwan. * the New Territories in Hong Kong, unlike the rest of it, were signed over in a 99 year lease. 1997 was the end of those 99 years. The New Territories are a mountainous area with a good deal of Hong Kong's postwar population and also its major water supplies; without it and bordering a hostile China, Hong Kong would quickly cease to be a functioning city. Holding onto the territories wouldn't last a very long time due to parts 1 and 2, and unlike Taiwan where international law depends on who you think China is, the UK would clearly be in the wrong by violating the 99 year lease unilaterally.
  - dixie_land 4y ago
    Exactly this. The fact that NT is leased land (vs ceded colony) makes a big difference
- nemothekid 4y ago
  >Even today don't you think there is an alternative to handing stuff over to threats of military violence? The alternative is war. >today's situation where China might declare the same thing about Taiwan? And everyone pretty much agrees the alternative is war. Calling for war in times of peace from your couch is a very easy thing do; but it's not something to be taken lightly. There's no telling how quickly this appetite for war against our 3rd largest trading partner will dry up once we start having to deal with the economic fallout.

kzrdude 4y ago

So China was too powerful to ignore their threats? Even today don't you think there is an alternative to handing stuff over to threats of military violence? In your view how is it different from today's situation where China might declare the same thing about Taiwan?

gowld 4y ago
Look at the map. Is UK going to fight a war with China over Hong Kong? UK has no legitimate claim to Hong Kong, so the non-China option is independence. Taiwan has always had a local military.
bobthepanda 4y ago
There are a couple things that make the Hong Kong situation more complicated. * by 1997 (handover date) Britain lacked a colonial empire from which it could assist in a defense of Hong Kong, and of the overseas posts it did have, the regiments were fairly small. Sending a large military force all the way from Britain itself would take too long in any sort of conflict. Taiwan has always come with the implicit security guarantee of the United States, which maintains a very active presence in the Pacific. * the PLA has the law of numbers on their side, not only due to part 1 but because of how large their army is in general, and the border between Hong Kong and the rest of China is a fairly small river. The PLA generally lacks the amphibious capacity to do a land invasion of Taiwan. * the New Territories in Hong Kong, unlike the rest of it, were signed over in a 99 year lease. 1997 was the end of those 99 years. The New Territories are a mountainous area with a good deal of Hong Kong's postwar population and also its major water supplies; without it and bordering a hostile China, Hong Kong would quickly cease to be a functioning city. Holding onto the territories wouldn't last a very long time due to parts 1 and 2, and unlike Taiwan where international law depends on who you think China is, the UK would clearly be in the wrong by violating the 99 year lease unilaterally.
- dixie_land 4y ago
  Exactly this. The fact that NT is leased land (vs ceded colony) makes a big difference
nemothekid 4y ago
>Even today don't you think there is an alternative to handing stuff over to threats of military violence? The alternative is war. >today's situation where China might declare the same thing about Taiwan? And everyone pretty much agrees the alternative is war. Calling for war in times of peace from your couch is a very easy thing do; but it's not something to be taken lightly. There's no telling how quickly this appetite for war against our 3rd largest trading partner will dry up once we start having to deal with the economic fallout.