Talk:Concessions in Tianjin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Hong Kong

"it could ideologically never allow such 'imperialism' on its sovereign territory, yet it would allow Hongkong te come close to the end of the lease on part of its territory.."

HK is irrelevant here as this is not a general article on concessions of an article on HK. HK is not in Tianjin. The PRC did not purposely "allow" HK to be held by the British. The stated goal was always to have it returned. It just didn't find itself strong enough, both internally and externally, until the 1980s to force Britain to give up its claims. And HK did not "come close to the end of the lease". It came to the end of the lease.--Jiang 18:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• The crux of the Chinese position was always to consider its sovereignty over all of China one and indivisible, so to consider all unequal treaties equally unvalid (force majeure). Britain was long resigned to comply with the expiration of the lease, and indeed proved prepared to go further, returning territories it had been conceded in perpetuity; as a successfull diplomatic bargaining position, this was made conditional on the post-transfer conditions for its former subjects in HK, a falrly advantageous outcome for all parties concerned. The PCR found the existence of HK extremely convenient in socio-economic terms, so it was quite willing -and wise- to waite for the lease's expiration, without conceding an inch on the principle, which now is entirely targeted at Taiwan. Fastifex 09:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to back up your belief that the PRC "found the existence of HK extremely convenient in socio-economic terms, so it was quite willing -and wise- to waite for the lease's expiration" with legitimate sources and reword the statement so it is relevant to Tianjin.

Further, the Taiwan issue has nothing to do with foreign imperialist incursions, at least not currently. It is an issue "left over from China's civil war of the late 1940s".--Jiang 12:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)