Hacker News Reader

Comment by dontcarethrow2 | Hacker News Reader

From a simpletons perspective, I don't understand why we get to have a say of how a country reclaims its former territory. Especially from Westerners(not even land connected) who have no claim whatsoever. Why do we have a negative outlook on our former empires colonizing the world while at the same time doing everything possible to retain profits/power from these bad things we shouldn't be doing? Very hypocritical to simpletons. Someone is shutting off our outpost, ofcourse we won't let it go without kicking and screaming to get everyones attention to what?

View on HN

On of the reasons, perhaps a less important reason ethically but nonetheless, is that China has breached the terms of the territorial handover agreement.

The agreement does not grant China full control to do whatever it likes over the territory at this time.

So legally, in response, Westerners in the form of the UK still have some kind of duty towards the people there.

A second reason, which I rank higher ethically, is that just by virtue of people existing, we still have a duty to demand better treatment for people who are being treated badly, especially when it's an imposed political event (and therefore can be changed) which is going to radically change their lives for the worse as they see it. Landmass connection or not.

We have an answer for this: self-determination. If the population of HK democratically voted to rejoin China it would be a different story.

The key word there is former. We don't get a "say", there is an equal opportunity for influence because it is the former territory.

> From a simpletons perspective, I don't understand why we get to have a say of how a country reclaims its former territory.

The handover of Hong Kong from Britain to PRC in 1997 is based on the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, which is being violated [1]. PRC is violating an international declaration it signed, which at least Britain has a say.

Putting aside the international nature of Hong Kong, other nations should take a part in some extreme cases, such as to push back on concentration camps and genocide, be it in Nazi Germany or modern day PRC.

[1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-britain...

P.S. As other comments said, Hong Kong (transferred from Qing to Britain in 1841, 1860, and 1898) has never been a former territory of PRC (formed in 1949). It is also arguable if Britain should give Hong Kong to ROC instead of PRC.

The universal declaration of human rights declares the right to self determination. I don't think it's hypocritical for the United States to preach principles of human rights.

The right of self determination is only theoretical because in law it's always overridden by the right of territorial integrity.

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

But just imagine how crazy it would be if every place could declare itself independent. Would states count? What about cities?

Why would it be crazy? Local autonomy is a very important concept. That's why many regions want more of it. (Eg. Catalonia in Spain, Scotland in the UK, and HK in China.)

There's also the tradition of cities being "free" as in they were not feudal land.

Of course self-determination doesn't mean complete total independence. Sometimes cities/regions/states lack the ability to control their currency supply (see the problem with in the Eurozone due to the differing interests of Germany and Greece), but inclusive institutions should maximize the ability of the member to work within the institutional framework to have its problem addressed. And that's why democracy is such an institution, and in theory other institutions built on democracy have this ability too. Of course it needs many things for it to work well. (For example empathy of the other members.)

The universal declaration of human rights is a meaningless declaration with no actual teeth to the true powers of the world.

Was it former territory? China has seen various power takeovers since the start of British rule in Hong Kong. In 1842, was ruled by the Qing dynasty, in 1912 it became the Republic of China, and in 1949, the Chinese Communist Party took over, leaving Taiwan to the Nationalist government. So you could also argue that Hong Kong should have been returned to Taiwan. Not that that could have happened, but it's not clear cut, IMO.

Interesting argument, but I think at time of the handover Taiwan was not recognized as a state by most major powers (including UK), or do I remember this wrongly?

No, it wasn't. My point was more the ambiguity of territorial claims.

Republic of China (1912–1949)

They ruled China for 37 years. I'm sure they had diplomatic relations

Hong Kong should return to the Taiwanese government. The legitimate government of China

"Before the Nationalist government was ousted from the mainland, the Republic of China had diplomatic relations with 59 countries, such as Australia, Canada, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Panama, Siam, Soviet Union, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Vatican City. Most of these relations continued at least until the 1970s, and the Republic of China remained a member of the United Nations until 1971."

It was done sooner than agreed upon date and lead massive protests on the scale that the world has never seen. Better half of 2019 was HK protests signalling China that the people of HK do not want assimilation.

China struck HK 2 months ago with the new law at the weakest point in recent history with the pandemic.

Would the same reasoning apply if England decided to colonize India again?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com