The writing was on the wall well before it was even handed over. England was in no position to defend the island after the lease on the New Territories ended, nor are they capable of doing anything to prevent the CCP from slowly eroding institutions in Hong Kong now. Everyone else has little to no skin the game to risk anything significant. Their only hope was the belief that the economic development of China would usher in democratic reforms, which hasn't happened.

England never had any leverage in negotiations, so it makes sense that the CCP wouldn't care or honor anything because they correctly predicted that repercussions would be minimal. Over time, the importance of Hong Kong as a financial and economic hub/ gateway to China has waned substantially, so now the instability in the region isn't as costly anymore. The incentives were never there for the CCP to act in good faith.

It is incredibly unfortunate what is happening, but realistically it was only a matter of time before these things happened, the terms they agreed upon weren't much more than window dressing to allow England to exit gracefully.

Britain failed to enact democratic reforms well before the handover [0]. Chris Patton and successive British governments are partly to blame [1].

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong)

[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/28/i-should-have-...

You are right, that was probably the most significant path not taken, though at the time it probably wasn't attended to with 1997 in mind which is why it was left on the back burner. By the time sovereignty negotiations began in the 80s it was probably too late.

What are the geopolitical implications of China breaking agreements like this? I figure governments will trust the word of China even less.

> China agreed not to touch Hong Kong's system politically or economically until at least 2047.

China just kept the good ol' colonial system rolling.

British Hong Kong is not a democracy too. British rule. Hong Kong only have a limited election in 1985 only after the the handover was sealed. The CCP looks at the 1985 election as a British plot to sabotage the handover.

I dont really buy this. HK is apart of China, why should GB be able to dictate Chinese law based on a colony they took from China hundreds of years ago?

> HK is [a part] of China

Politically? Physically? Culturally? Morally? Currently Hong Kong is ruled by China. Many in Hong Kong might prefer something different. If the government in Beijing allowed them to, they might choose complete independence.

> why should GB be able to dictate Chinese law based on a colony they took from China hundreds of years ago?

Why should a government in Beijing be allowed to dictate policy for people in Hong Kong based on the fact that Hong Kong was under control of a different government in mainland China hundreds of years ago before the British (unlawfully) took it from them?

Should the people of Hong Kong have a say in this? The people in Hong Kong have been asking for the right of self-determination. Is there some reason that the people of Hong Kong should not get this right?

As a Hongkonger, I see some similarities of culture between Hong Kong and China, but the differences are materially stronger, even more so than when you compare some countries in Europe.

I can give one distinct example. Our people's definition of patriotism in general is to make things happen so we can be proud of ourselves, that's why 2 million (or 25% of the population) walked out. Instead of "voicing support" so "we" look good despite terrible decisions or actions by the government. Many Chinese are intelligent and good people, they just can't get over this particular bit because of years of education and cross influence while the counter voices are silenced. (Apologies for the generalization, I do make friend with Chinese, this just represent the sample size of all the Chinese people I've interacted with.)

Personally I think nationalism is just an necessary evil because tribes are stronger. I'd rather identify with people having same believe, interests and thought spectrum. So the thought of "this place or these group of people must belong to us" is just beyond me, particularly if the process involves destroying all the value of this place.

I think everyone would be happier if Hong Kong is independent, and we work out a deal that benefits both sides. Too bad we're human, we love power, so CCP reached an illogical conclusion. Hongkongers are now talking about leaving with the main focus the preservation of our cultural identity. Much easier these days with tech.

Serious question. How common is it for a group of people to have this level of self determination? Eg if people in California decided not to be part of the US, can they?

Well, if the people of California all wanted to leave, they could elect a legislature and a Congressional delegation that is pro-secession. This is farther than China will allow Hong Kong.

After this, the California Congressional delegation could introduce a California secession bill. This bill would be debated in Congress.

If they were really serious, the Californians could support a constitutional amendment specifically allowing secession sort of like Article 50 of the EU.

But there are other example of people having this right. The people of Scotland narrowly voted to remain in the UK (but could have left). The people of Northern Ireland have the option to leave the UK. The UK chose to leave the EU. Puerto Rico could probably leave the US (who currently rules them) if they wanted to.

If the people of California decided to secede, they'd have the entirety of the US military giving them 24 hours to reconsider or else. If somehow California fought back and held out for a few years, maybe the US would give up and let them go, but probably not without intentionally destroying every single valuable asset that state has.

As much as people like to paint China as a villain here, a very solid proportion would support similar actions in the US.

> If the people of California decided to secede, they'd have the entirety of the US military giving them 24 hours to reconsider or else

Maybe. Maybe not. I personally think the US military would give them a couple of weeks just like they did last time when certain southern states tried to break away. However whether or not the federal government waits a few weeks isn't the main question.

If the people of California held a vote on whether they should be allowed to secede, zero US military personnel would interfere in any way. After holding such a vote, if the California delegation to Congress wanted to, they could force a vote on whether to allow California to secede.

While I would be very surprised if they were allowed to secede, I bet the people of California could win concessions from the other state governments. California elects nearly an eighth of the house of representatives. Combine their delegation with right-wing republicans who might be more than happy to eject California and the House might just vote to lose California. Through all of this, the military will do nothing. The Senate will be harder to convince, because every state has the same amount of representation.

Texas discussed secession recently, as did a few other States. While we did militarily crush the states who tried to leave in the 1860s, they attacked us first. Then we invaded them and brought them back.

> Politically? Physically? Culturally? Morally? Currently Hong Kong is ruled by China. Many in Hong Kong might prefer something different. If the government in Beijing allowed them to, they might choose complete independence.

This ignorance and arrogance actually makes strong action by the central (Chinese) government even more popular and supported by the Chinese public.

Western opinion has somehow been made to believe that HK was somehow not China. This is ridiculous.

HK is physically, historically, culturally, ethnically, morally a part of China that was seized by a foreign country in the 19th century (hence political separation). In fact, it was not the only piece of China to suffer that fate. That has always been an humiliation and an emotional issue in China (and I include Taiwan in that because this predates the split between PRC and ROC) and it was a very big event when it was "retroceded" back to China by the UK.

China and the Chinese people will not tolerate any interference whatever we might think of their political system (and even whatever they might think of their own political system).

It is pure propaganda in order to destabilise China to claim otherwise and it has certainly worked with a significant portion of the Western public opinion.

The hypocrisy is sometimes laid bare, like during the G7 when it was reported that President Macron said that Northern Ireland was not really part of the UK. This caused an uproar in the UK. Well, HK is arguably more Chinese than Northern Ireland is British.

Please stop with your grandstanding of what is and is not moral. China has a long imperialist history of taking over areas not culturally, ethnically, or morally a part of China. Tibet and Xinjiang are two obvious examples and the fact that it happened in the past doesn't make it better (especially when there is an active push by the PRC today to further assimilate the areas). The fact that they act like they have some right to annex Taiwan is just another example.

That doesn't mean that the UK was right in its actions, but let's not play games here. These were wars waged between two empires. China wasn't some sort of blameless victim. They are not some victim now.

> These were wars waged between two empires. China wasn't some sort of blameless victim

I would invite you to learn the history of the period and place because that's painful to read.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying China wasn't an empire? Are you serious? The China that subjugated huge numbers of neighboring peoples? The China that was ruled by an emperor? The China that treated all neighboring countries as vassals? That China?

Or am I misunderstanding you?

edit: I guess I'll just interpret the downvotes as "yes I was understanding you correctly" and "no you don't really have a response other than hiding behind your twisted worldview where somehow China is a victim and not all the victims of China's actions over the millennia".

PRC can also claim Vietnam with this reasoning, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_under_Chinese_rule

There no equivalence at all between Hongkong and Vietnam... That's beyond ridiculous.

> There no equivalence at all between Hongkong and Vietnam

And there's an equivalence between Tibet and HongKong?

> Hong Kong (not even China!)

Hong Kong is China since 1997 with same nationality law that's the reason its called one country and two systems. Obviously the thin layer between two system is getting thinner, because like any law, basic law can be interpreted to suite the needs of how the two systems should be.

I believe all of this is happening given China does not want to be another USSR. Hong Kong was used as a launch pad to do the same and ruling establishment learning from the past actions in cold war between US and USSR cracked down heavily using the interpretation of basic law to suite their needs. It was inevitable, just the time-line shortened due to the kind of chaos Hong Kong went through with violent protests.

China specifically agreed under the terms of the transfer to allow for Hong Kong's continued independence in domestic matters until 2047. Beijing is in flagrant violations of its international treaty obligations.

The New Territories were under a 99 year lease, but Britain was under no obligation to transfer Hong Kong Island and Kowloon back at any time for any reason. They graciously agreed to return them for China, but in exchange Beijing made explicit promises, which it's openly disregarding.

> They graciously agreed to return them for China

Sorry, but you can't 'graciously' return a colony. It was something they never should have had.

The right to govern extends from the consent of the governed. It's not a question of who "should" own Hong Kong based on some centuries old history. It's a question of who the people of Hong Kong choose to govern them. Had an open referendum been held in 1997, it's almost certainly the case that the citizenry would not have voted to return to the tutelage of the dictatorship in Beijing.

This is something I don't understand as well. Why didn't Hong Kong choose to become an independent state when they had the chance? They could have thrived like Singapore does.

They didn't have a choice. It was either rejoin China or get their water cut off.

Electricity too. That PRC nuclear plant that was in the news? Helps power HK.

Hong Kong is still a more free society. So probably its not a good suggestion to make it worse than what it is already due to heavy handed approach to national security. Please check report in Hong Kong (52 points) [1] and Singapore (49 points) [2] on freedom.

In Hong Kong one can go for protest if its not breaking the National Security Law, in Singapore no one can protest unless approved by Police, recent case highlights it when a student send a tweet to protest when Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison visited Singapore [3].

Hong Kong is still very good when it comes to internet and freedom of expression. Also it follows common law jurisdictions and judges are able to give judgements against the government in many instances. Also Singapore has POFMA [4], which is worse than rules in Hong Kong.

In Hong Kong anyone can form a company and manage it without having a local permanent resident or citizen as Director. In Singapore one cannot form a limited liability company easily unless has a local permanent resident or citizen as Director (for others need a special conditions and permission).

[1] https://freedomhouse.org/country/hong-kong/freedom-world/202...

[2] https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/202...

[3] https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/spf-tweet-pro...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_from_Online_Falseho...

They could thrive only if their Govt rule like Singapore Govt.

I have no love for the CCP but I think this type of caricature simplification is both wrong and not insightful. The CCP members are not some cartoon villains bent on world domination.

The British did not allowed them to choose either. The members of legislative created by the British is based on appointment not elections. The British only decided the reform the legislative after the handover sealed.

The CCP prevented the British from enacting democratic reforms and any self-determination in Hong Kong, under the thread of military invasion. This isn't on Britain, they tried decades prior.

Sounds like a good approach. Why not put it to practice by letting China own Florida for 150 years, then see who Floridians want to join at the end of it.

>The right to govern extends from the consent of the governed.

First I must say that what's happening to HK is tragic, and I very much empathize with their situation, and am not at all in agreement with how the CCP is handling this.

But this is quite the take! I don't know if you're US-based, but by that logic if the Native Americans held a referendum, they would have most certainly not allowed the U.S. government to form on their land.

This is simply a case of Big Stick Ideology, something the U.S. is quite familiar with [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology

[EDIT: No, I'm not suggesting that this is right, just making an observation]

Yes, that is why people feel that what was done to Native Americans was wrong. By which I mean that Americans believe it was wrong. It was also 200 years ago, and no explicit treaty had been signed to another world power granting them rights (the French and Spanish sold them out).

Unless you think it was right and the Big Stick is right, then HK is more than tragic. It is a violation of international treaty and of human rights.

No, I do not think Big Stick is right.

The U.S. has a whole history with Latin America that was a lot less than 200 years ago. I'd argue that many outside of the U.S believe this policy isn't a thing of the past.

>French and Spanish sold them out

I don't find the suggestion that those that were subjugated needed rights granted to them by outside groups, including those that colonized them to begin with.

Again, I'm in agreement that this is wrong, but I also believe that "Rules for thee but not for me" is not a very productive type of diplomacy either.

If that's the case we would see an effort to reverse those wrongs by reverting all the economic benefit that America gained at the expense of Native Americans. All the land and lives taken, and all the wealth and prosperity they could have generated. The total sum if repaid would probably erase a significant part of America from the map.

So it was wrong. But clearly not wrong enough to warrant erasing America and its wealth from existence. Saying sorry and expressing regret is cheap. Actual action is expensive.

As an aside, I wonder what the psychological effects are from growing up in a nation where the public discourse is all about how the nation was unjustly founded. If a significant part of the next generation believes that America's historical foundations are rotten to the core and that its existence is a tragedy, what happens next?

> If that's the case we would see an effort to reverse those wrongs by reverting all the economic benefit that America gained at the expense of Native Americans.

Note that, like LatinX, Native Americans is something only white people say. They call themselves Indians. Activist/government terms usually end up kind of patronizing for some reason.

(And they were called Indians before people from India were called that.)

India has been used in the English language for over 1,000 years, and in Latin and before that Greek for at least 1,500 years before that, along with Indian and its equivalents in other languages.

This was of course well before anyone used the word "Indian" to refer to Native Americans.

Even before America was discovered, "the Indies"/Indians/indios was used to refer to Ethiopia as well as India. They didn't have very clear ideas of where things were but that also suggests it was just meant to refer to any tropical area.

Or you can use backformation and say it's short for Indigenous.

The name India literally derives from the Sindhu river (aka the Indus river), which became Hindu in Persian (S->H is a common sound correspondence between Sanskrit and Persian), and dropped the initial H when getting into Greek. It was also used to refer to some areas beyond India -- (i.e, modern Indonesia or the "East Indies", but the origin of it was from civilizational India.).

I've never heard of India being used to refer to Ethiopia. Ethiopia itself is a phrase of Greek origin, and dates back at least to Herodotus.

Yeah, as a neutral observer, I feel conflicted. What the CCP is doing feels wrong.

But on the other hand, China was forced to agree to the HK situation particularly since they were at a disadvantage militarily and economically to the British empire.

China (CCP) would understandably not be in a mood to comply with agreements they felt coerced into.

I genuinely don't understand the full situation, and I'm not trying to imply that the CCP is in the right.

I'm just trying to understand if the whole "bullied into a disadvantaged agreement" is a valid world view to take.

Hong Kong was built from nothing by the British. Before the British arrived and settled HK, it was but an empty jungle mountains sticking of an estuary on the Ocean. By comparison, the powerhouse of southern China, Guangzhou, was plenty populated. They ceded some empty land to the brits to build a trading port some distance away.

Why would the Communist Party of China have more of a claim to this land than the brits? When HK was ceded and built, the CCP didn't even exist and wouldn't for a few more hundred years. A different power (the Qing empire) controlled the land from afar. They are from a different ethnic group (Manchurian), from modern day northern China / Russia, and have very little to do with the Cantonese people who inhabit southern China.

(I live here)

> China specifically agreed under the terms of the transfer to allow for Hong Kong's continued independence in domestic matters until 2047

Independence in domestic matters is still there in Hong Kong, as it was before 1997 (at that time also chief executive is not elected). Hong Kong earlier worked under common law system and it still has the same system (China system is continental law system). Nationality law was enacted using provisions of basic law which provided a thin layer between one country and two systems. Also this is in response to threats of using Hong Kong as launch pad for attack on China in cold war.

> They graciously agreed to return them for China

Lived long enough in Hong Kong to know it was anything but gracious. UK left because they milked enough from Hong Kong and risking a war with China for a small gains were not worthwhile.

What city in the USSR was equivalent to Hong Kong? I am not aware of any cities in the USSR that enjoyed freedom of the press and an independent judiciary at the level that Hong Kong did prior to the NSL crackdowns.

No however ironically Russians today enjoy vastly more freedom than Chinese citizens.

I think the post might have been referencing how the USSR fractured into a lot of smaller countries.

I have no idea but maybe west Germany?

I think you mean East Germany, but I think you are right... and if Russia came back for East Germany now, there would be a war and it would likely go nuclear, because it is part of a powerful neighboring country. HK's neighbor is who took over.

What does west Germany have to do with Russia?

"basic law can be interpreted to suite the needs of how the two systems should be."

There is no independent judiciary in China, the law is whatever the CCP wants it to be.

In this case, they didn't like what some newspaper was doing, so they had it shut down, and put out the PR spin though thought would work best. That's it.

FYI the 'violent protests' were not very violent, and definitely favourable to the loss of freedoms with the current regime.

One option would be to let the citizens of HK make the decision on those things.