[rolltiide]

Do you think there is any scenario where it can be a bargaining chip that results in its independence?

1997 China is very different than 2019 China with regard to the successes in Shanghai's free trade zone and Guangzhou. The Communist Party is very very far from the teachings of Karl Marx and there is no outcome of a communist utopia that dissolves the central planners, after the means of production are completely egalitarian (a communist state is supposed to be a means to an end, all communist states have failed during this supposedly transitionary stage, China is stable in its central control of power, but doesn't seem to be aiming for a transaction to this fictional untested standard of governance). I don't get the impression that the people buy it, with so many known ways to effect private ownership and capital formation. The effect being that Hong Kong itself isn't that relevant and is more of a blight to undermine the Communist Party's power.

How many resources does the party need to deploy to maintain this information leakage? There would be considerably less international heat on the Communist Party if they let go of their Special Administrative Regions. Other provinces don't derive their adherence to the party based on what happens to the SARs.

[duguxu]

Uniting China has been the core political ideology for all major China dynasties across history, the same for CPC too. Let alone overthrowing the colonialism and getting independence is widely regarded as one of the greatest achievement and gives the legality of its governance.The resource deployed is chicken feed compared to the political crisis losing SARs.

[Robotbeat]

Gaining more power is probably the only common thread among powerful men of all ideologies. "Uniting China" is just another way of saying "extend my control over more people." We shouldn't be surprised that expansionary rhetoric was common among all the major dynasties in what we today call China. This is not, however, a license to do so.