Chinese markets are collapsing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

You all fail to see the danger here. It's not about the markets at all. China needs to keep the 7% growth in order to maintain domestic stability. It's people are all on the east coast, and continue to flock away from the countryside. Slowing down is the first step towards a stall and a stall or recession spells potential destabilization. The downside of a one party system.

---

I can't speak for others but I assumed it was obvious that China's growing economy all these years, whilst the rest of the world economy has shrunk, was just a big bubble.

Also, lets be honest, we all want to see the one-party system collapse and be replaced by democracy. Loss of economic credibility is an important part of that process, and a necessary one.

Quote:

---

Also, lets be honest, we all want to see the one-party system collapse and be replaced by democracy. Loss of economic credibility is an important part of that process, and a necessary one.

---

Just like all of us want to invade and occupy every hotspot in the world as part of the morally-upright 'Western-man's burden'? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Just like all of us want to invade and occupy every hotspot in the world as part of the morally-upright 'Western-man's burden'? :rolleyes:

---

I didn't say I wanted to do that, I said that it was one solution to the current situation in the Middle East and Africa.

The China issue is far more clear cut, however, because the West DOES want to see the one-party state collapse and be replaced by a multi-party democracy. Large numbers of Chinese want that too.

As an aside, it just occurred to me that we could have given Hong Kong to the ROC instead of the PRC. It wasn't practical in 1997 but it might have been if we hadn't drawn down the RN from the 1970's onwards.

Quote:

---

The China issue is far more clear cut, however, because the West DOES want to see the one-party state collapse and be replaced by a multi-party democracy. Large numbers of Chinese want that too.

---

The "West" ostensibly wants this for Russia as well. However, we have a far greater interest in not seeing the Eurasian landmass collapse into parochial anarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I didn't say I wanted to do that, I said that it was one solution to the current situation in the Middle East and Africa.

The China issue is far more clear cut, however, because the West DOES want to see the one-party state collapse and be replaced by a multi-party democracy. Large numbers of Chinese want that too.

As an aside, it just occurred to me that we could have given Hong Kong to the ROC instead of the PRC. It wasn't practical in 1997 but it might have been if we hadn't drawn down the RN from the 1970's onwards.

---

Even the US, the biggest backer of the ROC, recognises the PRC as the inheritor of the country "China". Not even the KMT seriously pretends that the modern ROC can practically inherit the treaties made by the old ROC. The RN is irrelevant to this fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

As an aside, it just occurred to me that we could have given Hong Kong to the ROC instead of the PRC. It wasn't practical in 1997 but it might have been if we hadn't drawn down the RN from the 1970's onwards.

---

Interesting idea. I think though that the One-China concept was universally adopted in the west by then, so doing what you suggested would have given diplomats and lawyers serious headaches.

To clarify, in 1997 the UK recognised the PRC as the legal successor to imperial China and didn't formally recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state at all. There are contacts between UK and Taiwan of course, but a spade isn't called a spade to avoid upsetting the commies.

Reversing the One-China policy and giving Taiwan possessions on the mainland would have been epic, worthy to watch while sitting in a chair with popcorn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

As an aside, it just occurred to me that we could have given Hong Kong to the ROC instead of the PRC. It wasn't practical in 1997 but it might have been if we hadn't drawn down the RN from the 1970's onwards.

---

At a guess, everyone would cuss and swear at the UK for almost upsetting the apple cart, and Taiwan and PRC would patch up some face saving way for Taiwan to either refuse the dangerous gift or hand it over to PRC. Possibly the US president would try to look important by making a big noise about brokering the deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Interesting idea. I think though that the One-China concept was universally adopted in the west by then, so doing what you suggested would have given diplomats and lawyers serious headaches.

To clarify, in 1997 the UK recognised the PRC as the legal successor to imperial China and didn't formally recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state at all. There are contacts between UK and Taiwan of course, but a spade isn't called a spade to avoid upsetting the commies.

Reversing the One-China policy and giving Taiwan possessions on the mainland would have been epic, worthy to watch while sitting in a chair with popcorn.

---

Oh, certainly we had the "One China" policy, which had switched from the ROC to the PRC decades ago.

If you sit and think for a minute though it's a somewhat absurd policy, it made some sense up until 1987 when the ROC was under martial law but it's not really defensible now. the PRC is an oppressive and corrupt state which repeatedly abuses its own people, and has abused Hong Kong since handover, suppressing its nascent democracy - and China is not a friendly nation. On the other hand you have the ROC, which is a multi-party democracy with universal suffrage and it IS a friendly nation.

The handover of Hong Kong to the PRC is one of the great shames of British Colonialism and we only did it because were were economically and militarily weak. Had we still had the bulk of the Empire in 1997, or had the Commonwealth evolved into a more cohesive supranational body similar to the EU then I think we would have asked to extend the lease, or held a plebiscite and told the PRC they had to abide by the outcome (which would not have favoured them).

Compare the "sod off" attitude HMC takes to Argentina and the Falklands - because we can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Oh, certainly we had the "One China" policy, which had switched from the ROC to the PRC decades ago.

If you sit and think for a minute though it's a somewhat absurd policy, it made some sense up until 1987 when the ROC was under martial law but it's not really defensible now. the PRC is an oppressive and corrupt state which repeatedly abuses its own people, and has abused Hong Kong since handover, suppressing its nascent democracy - and China is not a friendly nation. On the other hand you have the ROC, which is a multi-party democracy with universal suffrage and it IS a friendly nation.

The handover of Hong Kong to the PRC is one of the great shames of British Colonialism and we only did it because were were economically and militarily weak. Had we still had the bulk of the Empire in 1997, or had the Commonwealth evolved into a more cohesive supranational body similar to the EU then I think we would have asked to extend the lease, or held a plebiscite and told the PRC they had to abide by the outcome (which would not have favoured them).

Compare the "sod off" attitude HMC takes to Argentina and the Falklands - because we can.

---

One thing is for certain. The government in Taipei would not thank the UK for handing over Hong Kong to them. To satisfy our taste for being high and mighty about liberal democracies, we would have upset just about everyone in the region and anyone who has any links with the region. Even the Hong Kongers would have hated us for stirring things up unnecessarily when the practical reality was there for all to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

One thing is for certain. The government in Taipei would not thank the UK for handing over Hong Kong to them. To satisfy our taste for being high and mighty about liberal democracies, we would have upset just about everyone in the region and anyone who has any links with the region. Even the Hong Kongers would have hated us for stirring things up unnecessarily when the practical reality was there for all to see.

---

Perhaps, but I don't think the Hong Kongers are grateful for what we did do.

As you say, there are principles and realities. It's important to recognise in the case of Hong Kong, though, that what we did did not serve the people of Hong Kong OR conform to our principles and for this above all else we should be ashamed.

You have a strange perception of Hong Kong's experience under mainland hegemony.

You have a strange perception of what our "principles" are for international relations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

You have a strange perception of Hong Kong's experience under mainland hegemony.

You have a strange perception of what our "principles" are for international relations.

---

I think the main point is that everybody would always be better off in the British Empire.

Maybe not, but the only one you would be better off in ended 700 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Perhaps, but I don't think the Hong Kongers are grateful for what we did do.

As you say, there are principles and realities. It's important to recognise in the case of Hong Kong, though, that what we did did not serve the people of Hong Kong OR conform to our principles and for this above all else we should be ashamed.

---

You'd be surprised at their main preoccupation, which AFAICS is stability wherever possible so they can carry on making a living. Giving the colony to the ROC would have been the worst possible result for them. Remaining a British colony or handing over to the PRC would have sufficed for their requirements. There aren't too many things the British need to be ashamed of wrt Hong Kong, when compared with the alternative, and the handover was certainly not one of them. The democracy movement in Hong Kong is mainly confined to students. The anti-mainland sentiments aren't based on a desire for democracy, but on xenophobia on the part of Hong Kongers.

Wow that's a lot of local knowledge on Hong Kong...

Tell me, how do they feel about the PRC reversing the democratic reforms of the last British Governor? Could you also tell me how they feel about the PRC's iron control of the selection of the head of the Hong Kong Executive?

Everybody's first priority is making a living, that's why economic hardship always comes before popular revolution. That doesn't mean Hong Kong's people are remotely happy, or that they're all xenophobes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I think the main point is that everybody would always be better off in the British Empire.

---

Well that seemed obvious.

No, Hong Kong would be better off as a democratically governed British Protectorate, like the Channel Islands or Mann.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Wow that's a lot of local knowledge on Hong Kong...

Tell me, how do they feel about the PRC reversing the democratic reforms of the last British Governor? Could you also tell me how they feel about the PRC's iron control of the selection of the head of the Hong Kong Executive?

Everybody's first priority is making a living, that's why economic hardship always comes before popular revolution. That doesn't mean Hong Kong's people are remotely happy, or that they're all xenophobes.

---

I can tell you that last year's protests weren't popular. I can also tell you that the centre of those protests wasn't Hong Kong island itself, as the government buildings aren't actually all that important to the everyday life of Hong Kongers. The centre was the single main road that links Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories. Occupation of that road thereby disrupting the commercial life of the territory, was the protestors' main effort. Given that a large part of the territory's commerce and infrastructure is based on that road, you tell me how popular that was.