Ownership of Hong Kong

Hello all, I'm looking for some arguments to support the motion "Hong Kong should have never been given back to China" I've had no luck finding info about this, so any help?

Thanks

You'd be hardpressed to find an argument in support of such a resolution because it is hard to justify the breaking of a contract that was signed and agreed upon by the two entities, but...

You can argue that if popular support was against any amalgamation with China, there would be grounds for the British to reconsider their contract on the basis that the indepedent citizens and governors of Hong Kong do not agree with the conditions present in the treaty that was written up almost 100 years ago, if not longer, and that Britain has an obligation to bring it to a referendum, and respect the wishes of the citizens depending on the outcome.

Thats the only reasonable argument I can think of.

At 10/23/2009 3:46:08 AM, Volkov wrote:
You'd be hardpressed to find an argument in support of such a resolution because it is hard to justify the breaking of a contract that was signed and agreed upon by the two entities

By that reasoning, if my current government sold itself to China, even if the clause was 'for slavery' or some such I would be legally bound to the decision. Contracts are between willing parties. The residents signed no such contract.

At 10/23/2009 4:14:10 AM, Puck wrote:
By that reasoning, if my current government sold itself to China, even if the clause was 'for slavery' or some such I would be legally bound to the decision. Contracts are between willing parties. The residents signed no such contract.

Which is why I noted my argument in favour below, which goes along those lines.

But, anyways this is too populist of a stance for me; by your reckoning, all contracts signed between states must have the approval of the population. This means any free trade deals, any co-operation on military, economic, environmental and political fronts, down to the smallest agreement, must be ratified by the population.

We elect governments to do these things for us, and turf them when we don't like what happened. That is how democracy works, without being jumbled up in popular opinion all the time. The difference though is that Hong Kong never would have had the chance to democratically choose against it, which I agree is wrong; but the Chinese smartly offered democracy to Hong Kong in order to by-pass any resentment in this case.

Hmm..Hard topic.

1) Britain, and insofar as that NATO, should have maintained a base of operations in Asia to put pressure on China

2) Britain should not have handed it's citizens to a Communist state without Democracy. The fact that tens of thousands emigrated because of communism proves people were afraid of the Communist Chinese government.

3) Hong Kong is an important economic area for China (Look at stats for more on this). Britain shouldn't have given this economic opportunity to a state such as China.

At 10/23/2009 4:14:10 AM, Puck wrote:
By that reasoning, if my current government sold itself to China, even if the clause was 'for slavery' or some such I would be legally bound to the decision. Contracts are between willing parties. The residents signed no such contract.

The residents moved to Hong Kong willingly. mostly from China, can be noted.

Thanks guys, this is what I've come up so far:
1. The contract for HK was made between 2 different parties (China was still in it's Imperial phase, the Communist Party was in power when HK was taken) and was not approved of democratically (millions left HK etc.)

2. China cannot handle it's own country, why should they be given Hong Kong? (Look at some Chinese cities that degenerated during the 99 years, vs. Hong Kong in those 99 years)

Any ideas or comments?

At 10/24/2009 7:11:51 PM, Norphin wrote:
2. China cannot handle it's own country, why should they be given Hong Kong? (Look at some Chinese cities that degenerated during the 99 years, vs. Hong Kong in those 99 years)

This is contentious, because Chinese cities during when this treaty was written up were crappy to begin with, versus the huge juggernauts that exist now and in the 1990's. China's economic power has also been magnified many times, and the inclusion of Hong Kong doesn't necessarily mean Hong Kong's own economy will falter, especially given the fact that the Chinese rulers gave HK the basic equivalent of "Home Rule" in the UK.

Hong Kong should not have been passed over to China because,

1: Britain was under no obligation to do so, Hong Kong Island, Kowloon Peninsuala, Stone cutters Island had been ceded to Britain. Only Lantau Island (the new territories) was subject to a 99 year lease.

2: China is a dictatorship, it suppresses basic freedoms, lacks free and fair elections.

3: The residents of Hong Kong had not expressed the desire to join China.

4: Hong Kong was/is worth a shed load of moolah.

At 10/25/2009 2:59:15 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Hong Kong should not have been passed over to China because,

1: Britain was under no obligation to do so, Hong Kong Island, Kowloon Peninsuala, Stone cutters Island had been ceded to Britain. Only Lantau Island (the new territories) was subject to a 99 year lease.

Yeah, China refused to give Britain those portions because the treaties were "unfair" I think