- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #321
They've just slammed shut the gate on democracy as well. To be able to run in elections now you must "love the country and respect the CCP".
China - Geostrategic & Geopolitical.
- Thread starter ngatimozart
- Start date
-
- Tags
- china geopolitics geostrategy prc
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
The "one country - two systems" principe was to have exist for 50 years until 2047, in accordance with the Sino-British Joint Declaration. But in less than 25 years after the hand-over of Hong Kong, it is sadly very obvious that the Chinese government did not kept their word. The people of Hong Kong can not do anything about it, resistance is futile. They can only refuge to somewhere else (Taiwan or maybe the UK) or get to be assimilated if they stay.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #323
Yep, the CCP are definitely Earth's version of the Borg.
Which means "slavishly follow all CCP policies". See the clause on indiscriminately disagreeing with the government, which will doubtless be interpreted to mean any disagreement.
The conversion is going to happen quickly for HK. In less than 3 years nothing of the older freer Hong Kong will be left.
What is interesting is why right now. Guessing they are choosing now, peak China?
What is interesting is why right now. Guessing they are choosing now, peak China?
I wonder why anyone thought that China was going to keep their word? Because they promised and asked nicely?
Peak China, relations with neighbors and the West already strained. I guess that this kind of self-assertiveness is seen as an instrument to further extend their goals and position while the neighbors still try to digest the situation and the West is still considering options.
Because there was no other option. China had threatened to take Hong Kong by force in the 1980's, knowing Britain could not stop them. The only thing that made them wait was Thatcher pleading with them, that it would not help China internationally.
I don't know why people would ever think China (CCP) was a benign actor. Its not. However historically they have been severally limited by internal and external issues and their own capabilities.
The main idea people were clinging on to is China is interested in profit. However recent events show that isn't the case at all. China would gladly hurt its own people to make a statement and hurt its economy too. Many in China had hoped the CCP would perhaps tolerate things in order to make money and make china rich. Clearly the CCP now believes China is rich enough.
supersupersoldier
New Member
Britain could have defended Hong Kong if Britain wanted to. Britain defended Falklands from Argentina. Britain had nukes. China would not risk a nuclear war with Britain over Hong Kong. The reason Britain handed Hong Kong to China in the 1980s was during the period of good relation between China and the West to bring down USSR. At the time the West was the main supplier of military hardware to China. At the time the US broke diplomatic relation with ROC and established diplomatic relation with PRC.
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
Well the UK leased Hong Kong from china in 1898 for 99 years, so that ended in 1997, they didn't bought it.
So the UK had to return Hong Kong to china, and as a bonus china also got the brand new Chek Lap Kok Airport.
Factually untrue — read up of what China has done and prior battles on the same terrain before commenting. Let me share a few pointers:
One, the terrain is not easy to defend. Go look up the Battle of Hong Kong (8–25 Dec 1941) in World War II. In 1941, the 16,000-strong Hong Kong defence force, made up of troops from Canada, Britain, India, Singapore and Hong Kong only lasted 17 days. On the same morning as the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan attacked the British Crown colony of Hong Kong. Japanese warplanes pounded the airport and their ground forces poured across the frontier from China and into the mainland portion; and the Japanese kept advancing. After three days of combat, the Commonwealth forces had been pushed from the mainland and back to Hong Kong.
Two, on 25 Nov 1950, the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army (CPVA) changed the Korean war and forced the US Eighth Army and X Corps (which were operating independently of each other at that time) to transition to the defence. With the advantage of surprise and numerical superiority, the CPVA launched multiple synchronized attacks that ultimately expelled friendly forces from North Korea and on 4 Jan 1951, Seoul would change hands for the third time within a six-month period. Before it could organize an effective line of defence, the US Eighth Army had withdrawn a total of 275 miles (which qualifies as the longest retreat in US military history).
Three, over 145,000 troops from the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand served in the Korean War, together with a small number of South African soldiers attached to Commonwealth units, and non-combatant personnel from an Indian Army medical unit. Total British casualties have been officially determined as 1,078 dead and 2,674 wounded.
Four, do you have any idea of how tiny UK’s army is compared to most of the larger armies in Asia? Examples of large armies in Asia include China, Korea, India and Pakistan. The PLA is so much larger than the British Army that there is no contest, if a battle had erupted in 1997.
Go look around the forum and have a think about the quality of most of the posts by members, here. No one is going to accept this statement at face value in this context.
You have got to be kidding. We don’t do kindergarten discussions here.
Yes, the kiddy version of the story.
Last edited:
Oh yes? What military hardware was the West selling to China at that time?
You might rethink the rest of the post too. It's just as nonsensical
oldsig127
supersupersoldier
New Member
The lease was a misconception. China ceded Hong Kong to Britain for perpetuity in 1842 at Treaty of Nanking. Hong Kong was never leased. Up until the handover in 1997, Britain had ruled Hong Kong for 156 years.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
@supersupersoldier Just to add something in here, since somehow you compared China with Argentina. It took most of Royal Navy and British Military resources to make a war with Argentina.
Military comparison between Argentina and China (even 1997 PLA condition), is comparing Tiny David and three Goliath. RN task force already facing difficulty with Argentinian AF that only used Mirage III and A-4 that mostly only using dumb bombs. That's Air Force already able to sink several Frigates and Transport ships. Argentinian handful of Super Etandard with only Few Exocet already sink Destroyer and the Task Force main Transport that also being prepared for emergency carrier. RN task force already streatch to the limit looking for Argentina two (2) Type 209 submarine.
You are right though one one thing, China doesn't need to go to nuclear war for Hong Kong, their conventional armed forces can overwhelmed British Defense in a week, even with 1997 PLA standard. They have many times in numbers of Fighters, Long Range Bombers, anti ship missile, and Submarine that can overwhelmed anything that UK can bring. Even if somehow in 1997 RN can muster similar size task force as 1982 Falkland (which they can not).
Learn on how Falkland campaign very close turn in to disaster for UK, Learn more on PLA force in 1997 compared to Argentinian force in 1982. Learn that in any reality 'alone' UK has no chance to fend off PLA in 1997.
Yes, the leased one is New Territory, not Hong Kong islands. My suggestion learn why British leased new territory. Without new territory there's no supply of waters and food for Hong Kong. Without New Territory, Hong Kong Islands can't support themselves. That's one of big factor that make UK decide to give back Hong Kong islands too, and not just new territory.
Military comparison between Argentina and China (even 1997 PLA condition), is comparing Tiny David and three Goliath. RN task force already facing difficulty with Argentinian AF that only used Mirage III and A-4 that mostly only using dumb bombs. That's Air Force already able to sink several Frigates and Transport ships. Argentinian handful of Super Etandard with only Few Exocet already sink Destroyer and the Task Force main Transport that also being prepared for emergency carrier. RN task force already streatch to the limit looking for Argentina two (2) Type 209 submarine.
You are right though one one thing, China doesn't need to go to nuclear war for Hong Kong, their conventional armed forces can overwhelmed British Defense in a week, even with 1997 PLA standard. They have many times in numbers of Fighters, Long Range Bombers, anti ship missile, and Submarine that can overwhelmed anything that UK can bring. Even if somehow in 1997 RN can muster similar size task force as 1982 Falkland (which they can not).
Learn on how Falkland campaign very close turn in to disaster for UK, Learn more on PLA force in 1997 compared to Argentinian force in 1982. Learn that in any reality 'alone' UK has no chance to fend off PLA in 1997.
Yes, the leased one is New Territory, not Hong Kong islands. My suggestion learn why British leased new territory. Without new territory there's no supply of waters and food for Hong Kong. Without New Territory, Hong Kong Islands can't support themselves. That's one of big factor that make UK decide to give back Hong Kong islands too, and not just new territory.
supersupersoldier
New Member
Super Frelon helicopters now called Z-8. Dauphin helicopters now called Z-9. Radars used on Luhu destroyers. Crotale now called HQ-7.
Last edited:
France was selling helicopters and radar. Is France "The West"? Individual nations will do as they will but a trickle of hardware from France does not make "The West" the main supplier of military hardware to China.
oldsig
A large part of the Royal Navy, but only a very small proportion of the RAF was able to get involved, because of geography, & the same for the army. Most of the army couldn't get to the Falklands, & only a few percent of it fought there.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
...although I can't imagine getting to Hong Kong would have been any easier. The idea of the UK repelling the PLA back then strikes me as rather absurd.
You don't have to believe me, you can believe Thatcher herself from her own memoirs.
Thatcher reveals Deng's threat to seize Hong Kong in a day
DENG Xiaoping threatened China could seize Hong Kong in a day, former British prime minister Lady Thatcher has revealed.
www.scmp.com
The Brits wouldn't have tried. This wasn't another Korea. The Chinese would have taken HK in 24 hrs, its not that big of a place and mainland China isn't just nearby, its everywhere. Chinese would have air superiority in seconds, tanks could drive in, ships wouldn't even have to leave port to fire.
The Chinese were convinced by thatcher, to simply wait. They were prepared to hand it off in 1997, followed by a vague and unenforceable arrangement about two systems. China did not see out the agreement, IMO I think everyone doubted that they would wait the full term. When the hand over occurred lots of Hong Kongers left, as they felt China would crack down straight away.
COVID, political mess in multiple countries, other more concerning issues, peak China. They have decided now is the time to act. They are right, no one is going to stop them, they have had 20+ years to get people into the right places, take control of key areas, and be much stronger than they were in the early 1980's. They didn't even have to run tanks into town. They just simply changed the law and made it impossible for people to resist. There is of course military power available, but in this case they can probably handle this with the police and other capabilities. Arguably Thatcher got the best deal they could have hoped for, peaceful hand over, 20+ fairly peaceful years, with slowly stricter freedoms. That is much better than tanks rolling in.
But in the process, China improved its image. It is seen as more benign than say Russia or other threats. So China got what it wanted on multiple fronts.
Given we are looking at peak China over the next 5 years or so, I would expect other situations to resolve themselves over this period.