Hong Kong island was ceded to the British in perpetuity. The 99 years lease of the New Territories (not Hong Kong, technically) was an additional unequal treaty that the Qing were forced into on top of it, after they also had to give up Kowloon. The British could have asked for 150 years too, who'd have stopped them?
Now the same happens to Britain in reverse. There is no benefit for any state to give up territory for nothing in return, why would they be "pretty pleased" about it? Also not only is Britain ceding its territory but they're actually paying rent to keep a base on what was previously their own land! It almost feels like China is involved in this because the number doesn't sound like something Mauritius would come up with on their own. See other 99 year leases the CCP is involved in, they're obsessed with this number:
> It almost feels like China is involved in this because the number doesn't sound like something Mauritius would come up with on their own. See other 99 year leases the CCP is involved in, they're obsessed with this number
Err 99 leases are common in lots of places. 99 years is a bit more than a lifetime so not many people care much about what happens afterwards. And it is a lot shorter than in perpetuity which would look bad for whoever is granting it.
> In England during the sixteenth century it was common practice to make leases for a term of three lives or a period of 99 years. It is presumed to be upon the theory that the lease should last thru three generations as it has been common practice to accept thirty-three years as the span of a single generation.
The Chagos Islands were't lawfully "their own land" according to an International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling from 2019, which probably had something to do with this change.
The article posts one reason why they'd give it up: they feel the ongoing issue of the Chagos Islands is hurting their ability to get diplomatic support in other international matters that are far more important to them.
Also decreased oil consumption as a result of renewable energy sources (decreasing the Middle East's importance) and climate change opening up northern shipping routes (decreasing the SE Asia - Suez Canal importance).
In 99 years, being able to exert influence in the region will likely be less important to global trade.
Even if that lease was permanent I doubt the PRC would just let it be. The time limit just meant they could just wait instead of having to negotiate or invade.
Probably not. In 1997 they were happy to court the $$ associated with opening up this huge new market of 1b+ "middle class" consumers.
Id argue they still aren't sufficiently butthurt about it. The UK has sufficient grounds to reclaim HK since china has very much failed to uphold its agreement to keep hong kong democratic for at least 50 years. I guess that's why the CPC goes on gaslighting rants about "whole process democracy" like Jesus CPC. You just had to wait 20 years, what the hell is the rush?
One of the reasons UK didn't contest it in 1997 was that it couldn't. UK "owned" Hong Kong island, which is a tiny bit of territory. Most of what is called Hong Kong was actually leased from China for a definite term, and the lease was coming to an end, fair and square. Hong Kong island was handed over as part of the package.
Hong Kong island is, I would imagine, in no way sustainable as a standalone territory, if China were to be hostile.
A lot of crazy things look more reasonable when you realize that your metric for 'crazy' and 'not crazy' is less about gauging the mental state of the person making those decisions, and more about how much/little they upset Western interests.
We never call a Western or west-aligned politician who is doing it 'crazy'.
We have a lot of other negative terms for it, but for a very recent example, nobody in the press (even the press hostile to them) doubted Dubya's or Tony Blair's mental state in 2003.
Somebody opposed to us doing it, is, of course, mentally ill. There's no other explanation for it!
If you look at the history of the last 2000+ years in Europe and Asia, invading sovereign nations (or whatever you want to call the equivalent over that period) is pretty much the norm...so not crazy.
Is it violating the standard of human decency if that seems to be the norm?
Maybe we humans are not as decent as we would like to thing we are.
I think it's a mistake to give in to the temptation to jump to the conclusion that China is a tunnel-vision cult of personality everything-the-crazy-dictator-wants-he-gets government.
The Chinese government under Xi has a well-established track record of long-term planning that has done nothing but elevated China's status and leverage in the world.
It really couldn't be further from (e.g.) Putin's style of governance.
Sidelining potential political competitors and/or forcing them out of the public sphere doesn't inspire confidence in Xi's ability to resist using power conveniently.
> The Chinese government under Xi has a well-established track record of long-term planning that has done nothing but elevated China's status and leverage in the world.
Some of its neighbors in the South China Sea would beg to differ.
> UKs failure to retake HK despite the broken agreement
I don’t think the UK law works that way. There may be compensation or other consequences, but it’s unlikely the whole agreement is null and void.
Real life example: I rented a house in UK, paying monthly rent. The heating system and hot water broke down in winter, and it took them three months to fix. It was clear breach of contract, landlord is responsible for the heating system and must fix withing 48 hours.
I was not allowed to break up the contract and leave, and I even went to court over it - my compensation was really pathetic.
In what universe does the UK have grounds to have anything to do with governing a region 6000 miles away from home that it seized during the Opium War?
I would love for China to have democracy, but Great Britain really doesn't have any moral high ground on the issue nor any business having anything to do with the government there.
If you think they aren't sufficiently butthurt about it, I'd counter that by saying "what can they realistically do about it?" The answer is "absolutely nothing." You want them to invade or something?
They can write a nastygram or something but any of the promises involved with the transfer really mean nothing. An analogy would be asking the next owner of your car to not play any Britney Spears on the radio. Good luck enforcing that.
Should the people of North Dakota be able to take a vote and decide to become a Chinese province?
I mean, I completely empathize with their situation, but the fact of the matter is that the UK has even less of a claim to governance over the territory than China does. It’s physically connected to mainland China with no other countries or territories around.
Whether you have the moral right to do so is rather debatable. Morals are up to the individual.
I would say that it would be a major national security issue and detriment to everyone else in the country if a state was allowed to secede to another country, especially a foreign adversary.
In the United States nobody has the legal right to secede, even if a statehouse passes a law or holds a ballot vote on a constitutional amendment.
As far as emigrating and gaining legal status elsewhere that’s up to the individual.
> In what universe does the UK have grounds to have anything to do with governing a region 6000 miles away from home that it seized during the Opium War?
A universe that respects the right of the people who live somewhere to chose the government they want? We've all seen the protestors waving British flags there.
Abolishing the right of conquest in the early 20th century was one of the great achievements of humanity, and that is not diminished by the impossibility of making it retroactive.
> If you think they aren't sufficiently butthurt about it, I'd counter that by saying "what can they realistically do about it?" The answer is "absolutely nothing." You want them to invade or something?
> They can write a nastygram or something but any of the promises involved with the transfer really mean nothing.
There's a whole spectrum of diplomatic measures the UK could do short of all-out war. Trade restrictions. Hell, full diplomatic recognition of Taiwan is a great option.
We’ve seen protestors in all kinds of countries wave all kinds of flags. We all know pragmatically that that’s not how governments are chosen.
The fact that the situation is unfair to HK citizens doesn’t have much relation to the fact that there’s no legitimate reason for the UK to have any involvement at this point in time, unless you’re just plain and simple in favor of imperialism.
In that case you’d be making the argument that people who more closely align with China who live in North Dakota are allowed to just vote and declare North Dakota to be a Chinese province.
There’s a whole spectrum of diplomatic measures that the UK can do that make zero difference in the situation.
Trade restrictions? The UK fully depends on Chinese imports. It would hurt the UK more than China.
Recognition of Taiwan? What would that change? Western countries already defacto recognize Taiwan and work with them as a close ally. This would be changing vocabulary on some documents and plaques.
> In that case you’d be making the argument that people who more closely align with China who live in North Dakota are allowed to just vote and declare North Dakota to be a Chinese province.
If a majority of legitimate citizens, the people who've lived their whole lives there and made the place what it is, want to join China (and China is willing to accept them), of course they should be allowed to do that. Do you not believe in self-determination? And if you don't believe in self-determination then how can you even object to imperialism in the first place?
> It would hurt the UK more than China.
The second world war hurt the UK more than Germany. But there was a time when the country's integrity was worth something.
> Recognition of Taiwan? What would that change? Western countries already defacto recognize Taiwan and work with them as a close ally. This would be changing vocabulary on some documents and plaques.
Sure, but it's documents and plaques that China apparently cares deeply about.
>china has very much failed to uphold its agreement to keep hong kong democratic
That would be a curious failure indeed given that Hong Kong wasn't democratic under the British to begin with. It was a crown colony ruled by an appointed governor. The Brits of course never had any legitimate claim to an island they took after a war whose objective was to force opium into China. If they still have dreams of empire I'm sure China would be delighted to see them try though and see how it goes this time.
Now the same happens to Britain in reverse. There is no benefit for any state to give up territory for nothing in return, why would they be "pretty pleased" about it? Also not only is Britain ceding its territory but they're actually paying rent to keep a base on what was previously their own land! It almost feels like China is involved in this because the number doesn't sound like something Mauritius would come up with on their own. See other 99 year leases the CCP is involved in, they're obsessed with this number:
https://ceylontoday.lk/2023/08/31/over-1200-acres-of-sri-lan...
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-says-no...
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/05/25/asia-pacific/ch...