China Geopolitical News Thread

[mr.bean]

You're right, some (most?) British didn't get it, but clearly some did get it and made public statements to the effect. There's no question Britain left, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because China has grown too powerful, and Britain couldn't keep Hong Kong even if it wanted to. China isn't Argentina, and Margaret Thatcher had no delusions about it.

your average british joe from the street ''getting it'' and made public statements don't mean anything at all because her majesty's ruling establishment just continued to rule hong kong until the day they were forced out. and you are wrong because Margaret thatcher did have delusions about hong kong. she thought she was going to china in a position of power right after her victory in the Falkland war. it was after her meeting with deng Xiaoping that her delusions about hong kong were permanently gone. I've great respect for the iron lady but she was just a novice in front of a giant like deng Xiaoping.

 

[Brumby]

I'd be far less skeptical about British actions, had they showed even a modicum of human decency for their Hong Kong "subjects" during the century of their rule. No thoughts of democratic governance was ever seriously entertained for almost a century, but we're suppose to believe the Queen generously granted democracy to her loving subjects out of the goodness of her heart? Yeah right, and the Pope is Jewish too. In my view, Britain tossed a hand grenade in China's lap while being evicted from stolen land. It was nothing less than a geopolitical stab in the back.

I think your last statement is misguided and unfair. Obviously, Britain played politics during the separation negotiations in a way that would at least be perceived as honourable rather than tainted. It is a well known that Chairman Deng make the point to Thatcher that China could anytime walk in and take HK by force and there is nothing that Britain can do about it. Thatcher famously replied that that may indeed be the case but that HK would not be worth a dime to China. Herein lies the basis of the Basic Law that was drafted for HK to ensure continuous prosperity, stability and freedom that would be worth more than a dime to China.

I was an expat living in HK at that time and a tremendous amount of our time like many multinationals were focussing on assuring the local employees that there would be no major changes to their way of life under a communist regime because of the protection enshrined under the Basic Law of "one country two systems". The politics today in HK concerns the interpretation of the Basic Law. All the other comments about history on what Britain could or should have done to the political system during their time is really irrelevant to current events.

 

[antiterror13]

They were not evicted. The lease, if you will, expired.

The lease is for New Territory ... for Hongkong itself, it was evicted

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Blackstone]

your average british joe from the street ''getting it'' and made public statements don't mean anything at all because her majesty's ruling establishment just continued to rule hong kong until the day they were forced out. and you are wrong because Margaret thatcher did have delusions about hong kong. she thought she was going to china in a position of power right after her victory in the Falkland war. it was after her meeting with deng Xiaoping that her delusions about hong kong were permanently gone. I've great respect for the iron lady but she was just a novice in front of a giant like deng Xiaoping.

Whatever Thatcher wanted in private quickly evaporated after meeting Deng. I too like the Iron Lady, but she had a weak hand, and didn't have many good cards to play.

 

[Blackstone]

I think your last statement is misguided and unfair. Obviously, Britain played politics during the separation negotiations in a way that would at least be perceived as honourable rather than tainted. It is a well known that Chairman Deng make the point to Thatcher that China could anytime walk in and take HK by force and there is nothing that Britain can do about it. Thatcher famously replied that that may indeed be the case but that HK would not be worth a dime to China. Herein lies the basis of the Basic Law that was drafted for HK to ensure continuous prosperity, stability and freedom that would be worth more than a dime to China.

I was an expat living in HK at that time and a tremendous amount of our time like many multinationals were focussing on assuring the local employees that there would be no major changes to their way of life under a communist regime because of the protection enshrined under the Basic Law of "one country two systems". The politics today in HK concerns the interpretation of the Basic Law. All the other comments about history on what Britain could or should have done to the political system during their time is really irrelevant to current events.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on British intentions, but we probably don't disagree on England treating its HK "subjects" like second-class citizens from the day it strong-armed it away from China, all the way to the very end.

 

[mr.bean]

I think your last statement is misguided and unfair. Obviously, Britain played politics during the separation negotiations in a way that would at least be perceived as honourable rather than tainted. It is a well known that Chairman Deng make the point to Thatcher that China could anytime walk in and take HK by force and there is nothing that Britain can do about it. Thatcher famously replied that that may indeed be the case but that HK would not be worth a dime to China. Herein lies the basis of the Basic Law that was drafted for HK to ensure continuous prosperity, stability and freedom that would be worth more than a dime to China.

I was an expat living in HK at that time and a tremendous amount of our time like many multinationals were focussing on assuring the local employees that there would be no major changes to their way of life under a communist regime because of the protection enshrined under the Basic Law of "one country two systems". The politics today in HK concerns the interpretation of the Basic Law. All the other comments about history on what Britain could or should have done to the political system during their time is really irrelevant to current events.

it was also well known that when Margaret thatcher went to Beijing she pitched the 'return sovereignty to china but keep british administration' scheme to china. but deng Xiaoping said no deal. hong kong was just too valuable and good to just give away and the brits tried everything they could to keep it.

 

[Blackstone]

Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

1. This is what I was referring to as being poon simply because it is perceived to be credible. it does not show a trend because that would include comparison to a previous poll.

Yes, you're right, and I stand corrected. The poll in question is a snap shot in time and doesn't show trend on its own.

2. The poll specifically said ASIA not China's neighbors. This is very misleading. It also does not include many of China's other neighbors such as Russia, central Asian States, Laos, NK etc. It did not say anything about concern of China's rise and willing to use power only that disputes could result in conflict which is even a concern to China itself which is obvious and a no brainer. Only 3 of those 11 poll view China as the greatest threat, which just happens to be Vietnam, Philippines and Japan. 4 out of 11 including China saw Us as the greatest threat. Another 4 for others.

I said the poll showed China's neighbors are "nervous" about it, and not who is the greatest threat. But, if you were to ask me who the greatest threat to peace in the region is, I'd say Japan.

3. Most of these countries are traditional US allies so the ally part is not surprising. Again there is no trend to compare it to any previous poll.

Fair enough, I take your point as item 1 above.

The most you can get from the poll is that China has bad relations with those 3 countries that it has disputes with. And that traditional American allies of those polled are still allies. Lastly there is only one country with hegemonic ambitions for the world and its not China.

No, I disagree. The poll show there are many nations that are nervous about China, even ones currently enjoying friendly relations with it. US is preferred by more of China's neighbors than the original Middle Kingdom.

 

[mr.bean]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on British intentions, but we probably don't disagree on England treating its HK "subjects" like second-class citizens from the day it strong-armed it away from China, all the way to the very end.

the brits treated ALL it's colonized subjects like second-class subjects, not just hong kong. that's the whole purpose of colonialism.

 

[Brumby]

it was also well known that when Margaret thatcher went to Beijing she pitched the 'return sovereignty to china but keep british administration' scheme to china. but deng Xiaoping said no deal. hong kong was just too valuable and good to just give away and the brits tried everything they could to keep it.

Obviously, a lot went into the 2 years of negotiations but ultimately the end result is the Basic Law which outlines how HK will be governed over the next 50 years. The current political issue concerns the interpretation of that constitution. Digging up history is seriously missing the point in my view.

 

[Brumby]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on British intentions, but we probably don't disagree on England treating its HK "subjects" like second-class citizens from the day it strong-armed it away from China, all the way to the very end.

How is this connected to current political events in HK?