It does not really matter, does it. It's done and you can't change it. So instead of bikering about what we should have/have not done, best is to look forward and see what can be done.
The Brits won't lift a fingers for HK anymore, they have left almsot 20 years ago. Hong Kongers have now to make choices and decide what is best for them. We may not agree with what the majority will/will not chose but it is for HKers to make thier own history. Either they become more "chinese", either they fight back and try to keep some sort of "autonomy". History will tell.
Actually, the real difference was that Falklands was defend-able by the UK at the time, whereas HK was not. Falklands, given its geographic location, can be seized by military assets of the UK. Despite its distance from Britain (far away in the South Atlantic), it is surrounded by the sea, which plays to the strength of UK, its Royal Navy.
Whereas HK is literally right at the door-step of Mainland China, making any defence of the colony much more difficult and costly, in short a futile action. Furthermore, at the time, it was still the Cold War, and China was a useful potential ally against the Soviet Union (relations were poor between USSR and China in the latter half of the Cold War, despite both being nominally communist).
Last edited by Cho-man; 28-01-2016 at 05:34 PM.
sorry to burst your bubble ( to be fair it seems all people here, local and expat live in a bubble), but I am Hong Kong born and bred, try to find the excellent series 'end of empire' and see what mess the UK has left behind in every colony it left, why would you think it would be different for HK?
Legally it must
Morally it should
In reality it will do what is in the best long term interests of the UK.
China was very clever about the gradual encroachment of civil liberties and keeping the facade of clean government built on solid public institutions. This rationality from Beijing seems to be slipping under what some call the cult of Xi .
They left...what mess did they leave behind? Most locals I know would have them back in a heartbeat.
It seems to me that Hong Kong was one of the very few examples where The Brits. did more good than harm as colonizers... HKers got a pretty good deal IMHO...they got the rule of law, the engineering and infrastructure, the best parts of British culture and nobody tried to crush the local culture...the worst thing they did was leave...
I don't think war was ever on the cards in the 1980s between the UK and China over Hong Kong. I think what people are saying is that Britain could have taken a stronger negotiating position over HK - for example extending the lease for another 50 years - while the full history of the negotiations are still unknown, many believe that the key British player, Percy Cradock, was too compromising towards the Chinese - note his criticism of Patten and the attempts to introduce democracy in HK in the 1990s.
It's appalling what the British did...nobody living in Hong Kong in 1997 had anything to with colonization. Generations of folks had been born and lived in the British colony and the China that Britain had 'the deal' with had ceased to exist.
In my view, Britain had 'no right' to 'return' Hong Kong to China...it should have either stayed or defended Hong Kong's right to autonomy.
Last edited by Lord Dashwood; 28-01-2016 at 08:58 PM.
your name just says it all about you your lordship, you live in a bygone era in your own mind, enjoy your tea and crumpets on the veranda and watch the sun setting on your tiny world