DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

[the bear]

Just as a some what random aside [from] the newspaper "Southern Weekend"[:]

" . . . even a thumb-sized bomb could wipe out Taiwan."

* * * In almost all of my random discussions on Taiwan during my China wanderings someone would always come out with the line "we could settle the issue with a bomb in 3 minutes". * * *

If the PRC government were of the same mind as the people conversing on the train, and if the PRC government used such a bomb or such bombs on Taiwan, and if neither the United States nor Taiwan nor Taiwan's people responded in any substantial or meaningful military way whatsoever, and if the United States did not take any meaningful or substantial political or economic action on the matter (in other words, removing any U. S. or Taiwan responses from the picture), and if China afterwards easily conquered and occupied Taiwan, would that settle the issue?

There would be no Taiwan to occupy. It would be a smoking ruin. But on the plus side, no one would want it, so yes the issue would be settled.

[LURKER]

China waited 50 years for the portuguese and the British to "tire" of their colonies in Macau and HK?

The cities were given back to China with all due process at the expiration of their lease. That's it.

This isn't quite accurate. Regarding Hong Kong, Hong Kong Island was ceded "in perpetuity," which means "forever."

Article III.

It being obviously necessary and desirable that British subjects should have some port whereat they may [maintain] and refit their ships when required, and keep stores for that purpose, His Majesty the Emperor of China cedes to Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, &c., the Island of Hong-Kong, to be possessed in perpetuity by Her Britannic Majesty, her heirs and successors, and to be governed by such laws and regulations as Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, &c., shall see fit to direct.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking

I'm not sure why this misconception among Westerners - especially Britons - that Britain was obliged to return Hong Kong to China is so widespread. I suspect though that it makes what was in fact a cowardly surrender seem less shameful, especially when contrasted with the British Government's eagerness to use the rather less valuable conflict over the Falklands as a demonstration of its strength.

Macao, however, was a different case. The Portuguese were reluctantly granted the use of the city, but they were forced to pay tribute for the privilege. As the centuries passed, though, Portugal - while declining itself relative to the other Great Powers - was strong enough relative to China to ignore Chinese concerns. In 1951, Macau became according to Portuguese law an Overseas Province.

When the Portuguese dictatorship was overthrown in 1974, though, the new leftist Government regarded Portugal's overseas possessions as archaic reminders of a shameful past, and agreed to give up Macao and indeed all of Portugual's Empire.

[Charlie Jack]

Just as a some what random aside [from] the newspaper "Southern Weekend"[:]

" . . . even a thumb-sized bomb could wipe out Taiwan."

* * * In almost all of my random discussions on Taiwan during my China wanderings someone would always come out with the line "we could settle the issue with a bomb in 3 minutes". * * *

If the PRC government were of the same mind as the people conversing on the train, and if the PRC government used such a bomb or such bombs on Taiwan, and if neither the United States nor Taiwan nor Taiwan's people responded in any substantial or meaningful military way whatsoever, and if the United States did not take any meaningful or substantial political or economic action on the matter (in other words, removing any U. S. or Taiwan responses from the picture), and if China afterwards easily conquered and occupied Taiwan, would that settle the issue?

There would be no Taiwan to occupy. It would be a smoking ruin. But on the plus side, no one would want it, so yes the issue would be settled.

I have to confess that I hadn't considered that Taiwan might be a smoking ruin. I figured the Chinese might want to spare some of it.

When I wrote that question, I had a suspicion that the world (again, taking the U. S. out of the picture) would perhaps communicate to China the sentiment I've heard some kids here say to each other: "I don't want be your friend." I even wondered whether some nations (again, setting the U. S. aside) might undergo such a change in attitude towards China that they would begin to limit their dealings with that country, perhaps substantially so, and who knows, might even begin to arm themselves better, and perhaps prepare themselves for conflict in other ways. I thought of Japan in particular, but not only Japan. Had I considered the scenario you described, i. e., one in which there would be no Taiwan to occupy, I guess I would have suspected an even less China-friendly attitude on the part of some nations.

But it was only a suspicion. Maybe the issue would be settled, as you say.

[urodacus]

China waited 50 years for the portuguese and the British to "tire" of their colonies in Macau and HK?

The cities were given back to China with all due process at the expiration of their lease. That's it.

This isn't quite accurate. Regarding Hong Kong, Hong Kong Island was ceded "in perpetuity," which means "forever."

Article III.

It being obviously necessary and desirable that British subjects should have some port whereat they may [maintain] and refit their ships when required, and keep stores for that purpose, His Majesty the Emperor of China cedes to Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, &c., the Island of Hong-Kong, to be possessed in perpetuity by Her Britannic Majesty, her heirs and successors, and to be governed by such laws and regulations as Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, &c., shall see fit to direct.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking

I'm not sure why this misconception among Westerners - especially Britons - that Britain was obliged to return Hong Kong to China is so widespread. I suspect though that it makes what was in fact a cowardly surrender seem less shameful, especially when contrasted with the British Government's eagerness to use the rather less valuable conflict over the Falklands as a demonstration of its strength.

Macao, however, was a different case. The Portuguese were reluctantly granted the use of the city, but they were forced to pay tribute for the privilege. As the centuries passed, though, Portugal - while declining itself relative to the other Great Powers - was strong enough relative to China to ignore Chinese concerns. In 1951, Macau became according to Portuguese law an Overseas Province.

When the Portuguese dictatorship was overthrown in 1974, though, the new leftist Government regarded Portugal's overseas possessions as archaic reminders of a shameful past, and agreed to give up Macao and indeed all of Portugual's Empire.

Thank you for the clarification.

I have always (well, since at least as far back as 1980) been under the impression that there was a hand-back date, so (like you) I wonder where the misconception arose.

When did the timetable for the actual return get drawn up? Maybe that has some clues.

[Mucha Man]

I have always (well, since at least as far back as 1980) been under the impression that there was a hand-back date, so (like you) I wonder where the misconception arose.

When did the timetable for the actual return get drawn up? Maybe that has some clues.

Because the New Territories did have a 99 year lease. The Treaty of Nanjing was but one of three treaties that gave the British control of the HK area.

[mike029]

I have always (well, since at least as far back as 1980) been under the impression that there was a hand-back date, so (like you) I wonder where the misconception arose.

When did the timetable for the actual return get drawn up? Maybe that has some clues.

Because the New Territories did have a 99 year lease. The Treaty of Nanjing was but one of three treaties that gave the British control of the HK area.

From my understanding part of the reason the British decided to hand Kowloon and HK Island back when the New Territory lease was up to avoid basically the destruction (or more appropriately, implosion) of HK. Considering half the population of HK lives in the New Territories, a massive amount of people moving into Kowloon and HK Island at once would be too much to handle. Plus they would have to secure a new border (between Kowloon and New Territories and the water in the east of HK island) that was never patrolled before and didn't have the proper infrastructure to patrol effectively.

[bohica]

China waited 50 years for the portuguese and the British to "tire" of their colonies in Macau and HK?

The cities were given back to China with all due process at the expiration of their lease. That's it.

This isn't quite accurate. Regarding Hong Kong, Hong Kong Island was ceded "in perpetuity," which means "forever."

Article III.

It being obviously necessary and desirable that British subjects should have some port whereat they may [maintain] and refit their ships when required, and keep stores for that purpose, His Majesty the Emperor of China cedes to Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, &c., the Island of Hong-Kong, to be possessed in perpetuity by Her Britannic Majesty, her heirs and successors, and to be governed by such laws and regulations as Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, &c., shall see fit to direct.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking

I'm not sure why this misconception among Westerners - especially Britons - that Britain was obliged to return Hong Kong to China is so widespread. I suspect though that it makes what was in fact a cowardly surrender seem less shameful, especially when contrasted with the British Government's eagerness to use the rather less valuable conflict over the Falklands as a demonstration of its strength.

I think it's pretty clear that the reality of the 20th century means Britain and the other colonial powers had to give up their ill-gotten colonies regardless of whatever Unequal Treaties they imposed earlier. Sure the Treaty of Naking said "in perpetuity", just like Taiwan was also ceded "in perpetuity", but Japan nonetheless had to give up Taiwan after WWII. New treaties can always be written to supercede old ones. "Cowardly surrender"? Gosh if it's that big of a indignity for Britain I guess they and China are now even.

[bohica]

From my understanding part of the reason the British decided to hand Kowloon and HK Island back when the New Territory lease was up to avoid basically the destruction (or more appropriately, implosion) of HK. Considering half the population of HK lives in the New Territories, a massive amount of people moving into Kowloon and HK Island at once would be too much to handle. Plus they would have to secure a new border (between Kowloon and New Territories and the water in the east of HK island) that was never patrolled before and didn't have the proper infrastructure to patrol effectively.

To save Hong Kong? is that why the Brits colonized the place? Actually the reason British handed back HK Island and Kowloon along with New Territory is because Deng told the Brits to hand the whole thing back or else. New Territory being inseparable from the rest of HK aside, it' kind of a ridiculous notion that Britain could point to some Unequal Treaty from centuries earlier as the reason they should still own a colony half way around the world from Britain after they've already given up the majority of the colonies of the British Empire in Asia, Africa, and elsewhere, and after China was so nice to wait until the lease on New Territory has expired to ask for it and rest of Hong Kong back.

This of course didn't prevent Britain from asking for the next best thing, which is to continue British civil administration on Hong Kong post hand-over. As if China can have "sovereignty" on Hong Kong, while Britain would still be running the place. That is really a stupid idea and of course it was emphatically shot down by Deng. I'm surprised the Brits even asked for it, like they were expecting anything other than to get laughed at and outright rejection.

[mike029]

From my understanding part of the reason the British decided to hand Kowloon and HK Island back when the New Territory lease was up to avoid basically the destruction (or more appropriately, implosion) of HK. Considering half the population of HK lives in the New Territories, a massive amount of people moving into Kowloon and HK Island at once would be too much to handle. Plus they would have to secure a new border (between Kowloon and New Territories and the water in the east of HK island) that was never patrolled before and didn't have the proper infrastructure to patrol effectively.

To save Hong Kong? is that why the Brits colonized the place? Actually the reason British handed back HK Island and Kowloon along with New Territory is because Deng told the Brits to hand the whole thing back or else. New Territory being inseparable from the rest of HK aside, it' kind of a ridiculous notion that Britain could point to some Unequal Treaty from centuries earlier as the reason they should still own a colony half way around the world from Britain after they've already given up the majority of the colonies of the British Empire in Asia, Africa, and elsewhere, and after China was so nice to wait until the lease on New Territory has expired to ask for it and rest of Hong Kong back.

This of course didn't prevent Britain from asking for the next best thing, which is to continue British civil administration on Hong Kong post hand-over. As if China can have "sovereignty" on Hong Kong, while Britain would still be running the place. That is really a stupid idea and of course it was emphatically shot down by Deng. I'm surprised the Brits even asked for it, like they were expecting anything other than to get laughed at and outright rejection.

The Brits colonized HK to make money in China. Duh. If the place implodes, they lose all their money.

Also, I highly doubt the British were afraid of the 1983 Chinese military. Starting a war with Britain means starting a war with the US, so I doubt that would have ever happened. It's about MONEY, like it always is. It's better to have an HK where westerners can base operations for China than having to operate within China.

If you were the Brits and had spent the last 150 years building HK into the AMAZING city that it is today and economic center of Asia, would you want to give that up to the CCP? To compare HK to any Mainland city (or even Taipei for that matter) is ridiculous. So the Brits are just supposed to use all their skills, money, and drive to build up HK, just to give it back free of charge to the CHINESE?

Considering all the UK money (and other western money) tied up in HK, I would want the British to retain Kowloon and HK Island, considering that's the center of HK. However, if the place implodes from overpopulation (from people NOT wanting to live in New Territories, China), everything (including all investment) goes down with it. The next best option is British administration, which didn't happen, and then the third best option is "Special Administrative Region". Look at how many people went to apply for BN(O) passports before the handover as some clue about the 'right to self determination' that people always talk about when talking about TW and Mainland.

Finally, using the logic of "the British shouldn't base their current territorial claims on past treaties", China should stop claiming the entire South China Sea just because it was mapped by the Yuan Dynasty 800 years ago.

[Mucha Man]

...I think it's pretty clear that the reality of the 20th century means Britain and the other colonial powers had to give up their ill-gotten colonies regardless of whatever Unequal Treaties they imposed earlier. Sure the Treaty of Naking said "in perpetuity", just like Taiwan was also ceded "in perpetuity", but Japan nonetheless had to give up Taiwan after WWII. New treaties can always be written to supercede old ones. "Cowardly surrender"? Gosh if it's that big of a indignity for Britain I guess they and China are now even.

And that folks is as good a summary as you'll find of the illogical, special pleading, double standard, mendacious nature of the modern Chinese on their history and territorial claims.

First there is the acknowledgement of 20th century western moral standards that compelled former empires to give up their colonies. Ignored of course are the Chinese imperial claims on Taiwan and Tibet. Somehow, 20th century realities don't matter much when China wants back land it controlled centuries ago, or as mike astutely says, was once drawn on a map by Chinese explorers.

Then there is the straight out confusion over treaties. Taiwan was ceded in perpetuity and would have remained part of Japan had the latter not lost WWII. There was nothing inevitable about the loss. While it is true a new treaty can be written there has to be some compelling reason for that. Even a fee simple land right could go back centuries and yes any western court would accept a 17th century deed as a valid claim. But again, China only accepts rules when they are to its advantage.

Finally, the appeal to the unequal treaties, the greatest collective sulk the world has ever seen. But again, not the slightest bit of self-awareness that they themselves have imposed new unequal treaties on Tibet, HK, and would do so to Taiwan too. Nor of course that this is the way the world has always worked: you lose a war and you pay. But as always, the Chinese are permanent victims, and when they are putting the boot in the face of someone else, it is to be ignored or forgiven as they just need to get "even".