Originally posted by Seagoon
Rolex,
Yes, the Chinese have played the national "loss of face" card successfully in the past to take control over Hong Kong and Macao. This was despite the fact that the majority of the population of both provinces did not wish to "rejoin" the mainland, with good reason and have since been forced to watch as their rights even under the SAR agreement are gradually stripped away.
Going to have stop you there and call BS. Hong Kong people have never had more rights than under the SAR. We can now vote for the Legislative Council, and their government heads even speak the same language as them now. And with the election of the Chief Executive supposedly being phased in later, we're actually getting more rights.
I know everyone thinks that under the British it was some sort of democracy or something, but I'm afraid not: it was a colony, with the people given zero say in their own governance. Let's go over that point again; it can be a little confusing at first
: That's right! Under the British, Hong Kong people had no say in their government at all. Nada. No vote, nothing. Only after the handover was agreed was any semblance of democracy installed.
Some people were scared about the handover, but the majority either didn't care much or were rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of better ties with the mainland: the fruit of which is in CEPA, and the PRD road link up. You also have to remember than a large number of Hong Kong people have lots of family in the mainland - I know I do.
As to the handover itself - it was inevitable: the vast majority of the territory's land mass was only on loan to the British and due to be handed back in 1997. Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon peninsula were unsustainable without the New Territories, so the British handed it all over. Nothing to do with loss of face, just a business deal - the lease was up. The government never asked the Hong Kong people what they thought about it, but that's life under the British for you.
Now, ongoing unendurable loss of face is being enthusiastically promoted as a reason for allowing China to take over an independent state that has as much right to exist as a sovereign nation as Israel, Bosnia, Bangladesh, Eritriea and any other number of sovereign states formed in the 20th century from land previously controlled by other countries.
Well, one wonders what unendurable loss of face caused the Chinese to invade and occupy Tibet, which had never been part of China, or Inner Mongolia (getting their own back on the Khans perhaps?). One might sympathize over their invasion and continued occupation of Manchuria, especially since most of that country was at least ethnically Chinese, but Turkistan? Rolex, the fact is that the Chinese are imperialists in classical sense, they invade and conquer other weaker neighbors, replace the indigenous culture with their own, and then begin colonizing the conquered territory - and they never leave. And the conquered are in no way better off under their rule.
- SEAGOON
Tibet was mostly about resuming Chinese control over the region that had been ongoing since the 18th Century but had lapsed somewhat after 1911 - it was also partly a strategic move, securing the Western border of China. Afetr all, the Tibetans haven't always been buddhist hippies, and I'm sure their historical viking-style raiding parties were uppermost in the minds of the PRC leaders - especially given CIA involvement in Tibet. And an interesting time for the PLA too, but that's another story.
Manchuria was part of China (although in a surprise result, they aren't ethnically Han Chinese) - indeed the Qing Dynasty were Manchurians. The only reason there was a Manchuria was because the Japanese invaded and annexed it in the 30s. And interestingly enough, it was the Manchurians that annexed Inner Mongolia, before they took over the rest of China (including Tibet and Xinjiang - or Turkistan as you call it) back in the 1700s.
And the thing about Taiwan, that most of you guys seem to miss, is that for most of its modern history (as a fascist dictatorship and during its first steps to democracy in the 1990s), the Taiwanese government have also asserted that Taiwan is a just a province of China: however their aim of taking back the rest of China has always seemed rather more of a pipe dream. It is only with the advent of the oily Ah Bian that any movement towards true independence has started. A move that is certainly not popular with the Kuomintang, or business interests. Indeed, Ah Bian should probably tread lightly: he may not be in charge of the next assassination attempt on him.
So clasic imperialists? I don't think so. They're basically restoring the borders to 1911 ones - which given the turbulent post-1911 history, makes sense, really.
A classic imperialist would spend a lot more time invading places, I would think. Name me five Chinese invasions of foreign countries in the last twenty years. I can name you five American ones...
