|
While I don't think you're wrong to say that the trends/regime were the same then as today, that's very much more obvious in hindsight than it was at the time. You've got to recall the triumphal attitude in the West towards China circa the run-up to WTO admission in the late 90s. Read Clinton on the topic: https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/Full_Text_of_Clinto... The trendy thing was to believe that exposure to global markets and the Internet would inevitably result in further liberalization, and anyone who disagreed was probably a car-burning anarchist. It was only in the 2010s that the fact that reality wasn't quite that beneficent started creeping into mainstream neoliberal perspectives. To be fair, China really had seen massive changes under Deng, so the idea that continued reform would eventually result in major political liberalisation wasn't completely insane. It went from Mao to a semblance of rule of (in retrospect, obviously "by" rather than "of", but whatever) law, so was extending the trend line really so implausible? In retrospect, obviously, yes, it was implausible. But that general vibe meant that many really did think that the Sino-British Joint Declaration would be respected. Of course, the actual history of how that whole thing turned out w.r.t. tearing up the treaty and burning the bits in the fires of national-security laws, has altered perspectives on how well Taiwan would cope under rule from Beijing. Now that the concept of one country, two systems - that idea of a special status - is widely understood to be a meaningless platitude, the assumptions that were common at the time of HK reunification are totally invalid. You can see this in trends of polling of Taiwanese attitudes to reunification: as HK has been strangled, the Taiwanese public has come to understand the worthlesness of any of the sort of assurances that were offered to HK, which at the time assauged a lot of objections. Finally, there's a matter of basic military calculus: HK is a lot harder to defend than Taiwan. It's not a natural polity grounded in geography, and not potentially self-sufficient in the same ways as Taiwan. Thatcher didn't agree in 1984 because she loved and trusted Deng, but because he could credibly have taken it by force in a day and told her so, so, in a very real sense, there wasn't much of an alternative. |