HK was always going g to be returned to the Chinese. It took 20 years for the charade to end, but the situation is different to Taiwan.

You’re not responding to the point. There was a clear deal in place regarding how China could govern/change Hong Kong, with strict timelines.

China broke its word and trashed the deal. Eventual certainty notwithstanding — the CCP demonstrated (as it has oh so many other times) that their word is unusually unreliable, even in the shitty arena of international politics.

I'm late returning to this, and I don't normally like whataboutism, and I don't want to be seen to be condoning what is happening in HK, but I have very low expectations for nations keeping commitments made in international politics. I think everyone was pretty clear when the HK deal was struck that it wouldn't make the distance. The UK just wanted to avoid rocking the boat + there was very little that could be done. The US has renagaged on several international agreements in recent history — we all know that these agreements reflect the preferences of those in power at the time and are contingent on it remaining convenient.

That's the point I was making originally btw.

HK relies on Chinas word. Taiwan doesn't.

China's treatment of HK was supposed to be regulated by a treaty with the UK - but as you point out it was under the sovereignty of China.

That's pretty different to Taiwan which has never been under the sovereignty of China.

> That's pretty different to Taiwan which has never been under the sovereignty of China.

You see, if China agreed with your statement diplomacy would be a lot easier. But few things anger the Chinese more than asserting that it does not have sovereignty over Taiwan, the only other one I can think of is that Tibet should be free to be its own country.

Sure, this is true.

But Taiwan has a functional, large military, friends in Washington and economic consequences to an invasion.

HK had umbrellas and a few strongly worded newspaper columns.