[throwaway1997]

It may have made sense technically but China has a huge army and HK is dependent on water, electricity and food which comes from the mainland. The mainland government made very clear that if HK wasn't returned, they would cut off the water supply.

[delecti]

That's a separate issue though. That China had the military might to take HK doesn't mean they were the legitimate government to have HK returned to.

It's not stealing from China to not give them something taken from someone else.

[free_rms]

The UK running HK in the first place was stealing from China. They originally got it as part of the peace settlement from the Opium Wars, then signed the 99-year lease later when the Qing empire was in terminal decline and unable to resist.

[skissane]

If UK had not switched recognition from ROC to PRC, they could have returned it to ROC instead.

UK could have demanded a lease renewal from PRC as the price for switching recognition. Instead they just got some “alliance” against the Soviets and it is questionable what that actually delivered.

[UIZealot]

> Instead they just got some “alliance” against the Soviets and it is questionable what that actually delivered.

China doesn't like to take credit for that, but personally I believe its alliance with the West was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[free_rms]

If you're gonna go pro-colonialist might makes right, that's your prerogative, but then you're just gonna have to eat it on the fact that the PRC had a lot more might nearby.

[skissane]

I don’t see how handing HK over to ROC would have been “pro-colonialist”.

[free_rms]

Presuming to control HKs fate after taking it in the freaking opium wars is.

Giving HK back to China is an act of decolonization. Putting them under Taiwan and loading up the island with US weapons would not be.