Comment by rich_sasha
7 months ago
I imagine whoever got the 99 year lease is feeling pretty pleased about it - that's basically forever as far as they can tell.
On the other hand, I bet the UK in 1997 would have hoped for a longer lease on Hong Kong.
Hong Kong island was ceded to the British in perpetuity. The 99 years lease of the New Territories (not Hong Kong, technically) was an additional unequal treaty that the Qing were forced into on top of it, after they also had to give up Kowloon. The British could have asked for 150 years too, who'd have stopped them?
Now the same happens to Britain in reverse. There is no benefit for any state to give up territory for nothing in return, why would they be "pretty pleased" about it? Also not only is Britain ceding its territory but they're actually paying rent to keep a base on what was previously their own land! It almost feels like China is involved in this because the number doesn't sound like something Mauritius would come up with on their own. See other 99 year leases the CCP is involved in, they're obsessed with this number:
https://ceylontoday.lk/2023/08/31/over-1200-acres-of-sri-lan...
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-says-no...
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/05/25/asia-pacific/ch...
> It almost feels like China is involved in this because the number doesn't sound like something Mauritius would come up with on their own. See other 99 year leases the CCP is involved in, they're obsessed with this number
Err 99 leases are common in lots of places. 99 years is a bit more than a lifetime so not many people care much about what happens afterwards. And it is a lot shorter than in perpetuity which would look bad for whoever is granting it.
> In England during the sixteenth century it was common practice to make leases for a term of three lives or a period of 99 years. It is presumed to be upon the theory that the lease should last thru three generations as it has been common practice to accept thirty-three years as the span of a single generation.
https://archive.org/details/longtermlandlea00mcmigoog/page/n...
1 reply →
The forced dispossession of the islanders of their home was a crime against humanity by the UK in the first place. This is righting an abysmal wrong
1 reply →
The Chagos Islands were't lawfully "their own land" according to an International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling from 2019, which probably had something to do with this change.
The article posts one reason why they'd give it up: they feel the ongoing issue of the Chagos Islands is hurting their ability to get diplomatic support in other international matters that are far more important to them.
Sea level rise may mean that a 99 year lease is longer than the island will be habitable.
At what point does sea level rise remove a countries EEZ claim.
Seems that it's a real issue -- https://www.reuters.com/investigations/sinking-tuvalu-fights...
Also decreased oil consumption as a result of renewable energy sources (decreasing the Middle East's importance) and climate change opening up northern shipping routes (decreasing the SE Asia - Suez Canal importance).
In 99 years, being able to exert influence in the region will likely be less important to global trade.
Erm, even if the coast is flooded, Mauritius is a big island with plenty of land well above sea level.
The discussion is about Diego Garcia.
I’ll take that bet.
You should move to Nantucket island then, lots of prime real-estate there
1 reply →
Even if that lease was permanent I doubt the PRC would just let it be. The time limit just meant they could just wait instead of having to negotiate or invade.
I've seen few mentions that PRC actually expected UK to extend the lease, and was surprised when UK didn't...
Probably not. In 1997 they were happy to court the $$ associated with opening up this huge new market of 1b+ "middle class" consumers.
Id argue they still aren't sufficiently butthurt about it. The UK has sufficient grounds to reclaim HK since china has very much failed to uphold its agreement to keep hong kong democratic for at least 50 years. I guess that's why the CPC goes on gaslighting rants about "whole process democracy" like Jesus CPC. You just had to wait 20 years, what the hell is the rush?
One of the reasons UK didn't contest it in 1997 was that it couldn't. UK "owned" Hong Kong island, which is a tiny bit of territory. Most of what is called Hong Kong was actually leased from China for a definite term, and the lease was coming to an end, fair and square. Hong Kong island was handed over as part of the package.
Hong Kong island is, I would imagine, in no way sustainable as a standalone territory, if China were to be hostile.
China threatened to cut off water. UK did not have any meaningful way of keeping HK without strong US support.
Even if they were legally entitled to reclaim it under law, I don't see the British re-invading China at this point.
I think China is increasingly driven by the ego of Xi Jinping and not the internal machinations of party politics.
He is 71 and getting older.
A lot of crazy things look more reasonable when you've had absolute power for a decade and aren't overly concerned about consequences in 20 years.
14 replies →
Based on the UKs failure to retake HK despite the broken agreement, how long do you think that base will be there?
They could take it back whenever they wanted and we’d do nothing.
> UKs failure to retake HK despite the broken agreement
I don’t think the UK law works that way. There may be compensation or other consequences, but it’s unlikely the whole agreement is null and void.
Real life example: I rented a house in UK, paying monthly rent. The heating system and hot water broke down in winter, and it took them three months to fix. It was clear breach of contract, landlord is responsible for the heating system and must fix withing 48 hours.
I was not allowed to break up the contract and leave, and I even went to court over it - my compensation was really pathetic.
In what universe does the UK have grounds to have anything to do with governing a region 6000 miles away from home that it seized during the Opium War?
I would love for China to have democracy, but Great Britain really doesn't have any moral high ground on the issue nor any business having anything to do with the government there.
If you think they aren't sufficiently butthurt about it, I'd counter that by saying "what can they realistically do about it?" The answer is "absolutely nothing." You want them to invade or something?
They can write a nastygram or something but any of the promises involved with the transfer really mean nothing. An analogy would be asking the next owner of your car to not play any Britney Spears on the radio. Good luck enforcing that.
Shouldn't people of Hong Kong decide that?
https://theworld.org/stories/2016/08/30/there-s-movement-tur...
3 replies →
> In what universe does the UK have grounds to have anything to do with governing a region 6000 miles away from home that it seized during the Opium War?
A universe that respects the right of the people who live somewhere to chose the government they want? We've all seen the protestors waving British flags there.
Abolishing the right of conquest in the early 20th century was one of the great achievements of humanity, and that is not diminished by the impossibility of making it retroactive.
> If you think they aren't sufficiently butthurt about it, I'd counter that by saying "what can they realistically do about it?" The answer is "absolutely nothing." You want them to invade or something?
> They can write a nastygram or something but any of the promises involved with the transfer really mean nothing.
There's a whole spectrum of diplomatic measures the UK could do short of all-out war. Trade restrictions. Hell, full diplomatic recognition of Taiwan is a great option.
2 replies →
[dead]
>china has very much failed to uphold its agreement to keep hong kong democratic
That would be a curious failure indeed given that Hong Kong wasn't democratic under the British to begin with. It was a crown colony ruled by an appointed governor. The Brits of course never had any legitimate claim to an island they took after a war whose objective was to force opium into China. If they still have dreams of empire I'm sure China would be delighted to see them try though and see how it goes this time.