Protesters expose a fractured Hong Kong, but China’s grip only tightens
economist.com
economist.com
The transition period was useful for China because HK was important and the government did not want to scare foreign companies away. It also allowed the British to save face.
We read sometimes that the expectation was that HK's system would 'spread' to the mainland... It was at best wishful thinking. HK might have had the rule of law (Still has it, and it is still lacking on the mainland) but it did not have Democracy under the British, who really started to open the system up after they agree to the retrocession, and the Chinese were not the type to turn 'soft' (1989 brought those who thought otherwise down to Earth, hard).
On the 'Chinese' side (mainland), I think that the thinking was that as the country develops the role and importance of HK would diminish. We see that now.
HK really rose to prominence after 1949 when Shanghai was effectively killed off. Before that Shanghai was the leading centre and the trend is that it will reclaim the title.
By population Shenzhen is also now larger than HK so one might wonder whether HK will end up being 'absorbed'.
For China as a whole, it seems to me that the rule of law is a key issue because China will not be able to truly achieve its potential without it.
Lastly, it's interesting that no-one ever mentions Macau that was retroceded to China in 1999 under similar arrangements after a much longer colonial period (governed by the Portuguese since the 16th century).
Edit: The Chinese side's point if view is also not often discussed. For China HK has always been a source of shame and humiliation, and understandably so. The retrocession was very emotional in China because it finally ended that period.
That is to say that I think that China will never budge on HK and will react very strongly against any 'interference', with the full support of the Chinese population at large because that brings them back to the darkest times of the Opium Wars and of the Unequal Treaties, even if all Chinese are not necessarily unsympathetic towards the protesters when it comes to democracy.
Britain was moving to give the territory democracy in the 1950s. They only refrained when China made it clear that continued moves to democratise would result in invasion. At the same time Beijing talked of the importance of keeping HK just as it was as it was already an essential route to Western trade and hard currency for them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...
> Independence for the colonies in Africa began with the independence of Sudan in 1956, and Ghana in 1957. All of the British colonies on mainland Africa became independent by 1966, although Rhodesia's unilateral declaration of independence in 1965 was not recognized by the UK or internationally. [. . .] Cyprus, which came under full British control in 1914 from the Ottoman Empire, was culturally divided between the majority Greek element (which demanded "enosis" or union with Greece) and the minority Turks. London for decades assumed it needed the island to defend the Suez Canal; but after the Suez crisis of 1956, that became a minor factor, and Greek violence became a more serious issue. Cyprus became an independent country in 1960, but ethnic violence escalated until 1974
The 1950s and 1960s were a process of Britain divesting itself of its empire and granting self-government to various entities.
Perhaps the closest parallel is Gibraltar, where Britain did give self-government over the 50s and 60s, but held onto the territory after a sovereignty referendum? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_development_in_mod...
As Rhodesia's UDI was under white minority rule, close to apartheid South Africa's, neither the UK nor UN recognised them. From what little I remember, which is mainly the 70s aftermath and rise of China backed Mugabe, just about only South Africa had supported them afterwards.
Britain could no longer hold onto its colonies, could no longer control them.
Politics 101.
I'd still like to know about any democratic push by the British colonial authorities in any other colonies at the time... Because even if the HK colonial administration genuinely wanted it I think that the British government did not want to hear about it quite independently of any Chinese 'threat'.
HK should never have been British. It's now back to China. Let's all move on.
It is quite right to support democracy and respect for individual rights, but we should also respect that this is a matter for the Chinese people in China. We would not accept foreigners to dictate what we should do in our own country either.
We should respect that this is a matter for the Chinese people at the end of the 50 year "one country, two systems" period they willingly signed up to. Until that point sticking to the treaty lodged at the UN seems important. After all if they couldn't abide the terms, surely they wouldn't have signed it? Or is it reasonable for countries, any countries, to break international agreements whenever they feel like it?
As to the 50 year transition period, it remains to be seen how the mainland is breaching the terms or even attempting to breach the terms.
But that's largely academic in practice since there is no enforcement. As mentioned it is mostly to placate the British and to allow them to save face. As the saying goes, promises only bind those who believe in them. The Chinese government does seem to make efforts to abide by the terms, though.
The mainland is still far from having anything that could be called "rule of law"...