I imagine whoever got the 99 year lease is feeling pretty pleased about it - that's basically forever as far as they can tell.
On the other hand, I bet the UK in 1997 would have hoped for a longer lease on Hong Kong.
On the other hand, I bet the UK in 1997 would have hoped for a longer lease on Hong Kong.
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...
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.
https://archive.org/details/longtermlandlea00mcmigoog/page/n...
Seems that it's a real issue -- https://www.reuters.com/investigations/sinking-tuvalu-fights...
In 99 years, being able to exert influence in the region will likely be less important to global trade.
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?
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've had absolute power for a decade and aren't overly concerned about consequences in 20 years.
Sometimes the standards of human decency are global.
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!
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.
> 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.
China rammed into a Philippine ship knowing they would face zero consequences.
Did they face any consequences?
China’s neighbors can hem and haw all they want. China is the superpower in the Eastern Hemisphere.
If you were intending it in the sense of "people fear them," then agreed.
In 2024 china issued 17% less residence visas than 2019.
Maybe. But the trend is down.
That’s one tiny variable of many.
Should I link you an article about how US immigration hit record lows after the Covid-19 pandemic?
Liu Kun reached official retirement age, and I can still find engagements involving him after his successor was announced.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2023-10-24/china-...
I’m not a huge fan of China or anything but let’s stick to facts instead of conspiracy theories?
They could take it back whenever they wanted and we’d do nothing.
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.
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.
https://theworld.org/stories/2016/08/30/there-s-movement-tur...
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.
They have the moral right to do so.
But the ground reality is that many Chinese are becoming North Dakotans (Americans).
https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?g...
And many Hong Kongers are becoming British:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/07/ho...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.