Much of Hong Kong only belonged to UK because of a 99-year lease which the Chinese choose not to renew. Don’t think the remainder that did belong to UK by treaty would have been viable. Don’t think the Brits really had a choice. Perhaps they thought that in 50 years mainland China might not be so bad.
“Much of Hong Kong only belonged to UK because of a 99-year lease which the Chinese choose not to renew.”
Yes, only one part of Hong Kong was leased. The oldest parts were ceded in perpetuity to UK.
The Chinese did not decide to not renew the lease. It’s a common misunderstanding that this is what happened.
The Joint Agreement does not even mention the lease, or the Treaties that ceded Hong Kong to the UK.
The ChiComs would never base the agreement on the lease ending because their position is the lease was never valid and they never recognized the lease.
In addition, they were never the lease holder.
It’s important to know that Hong Kong’s administration was not turned over to the PRC because a lease ran out.
It was an agreement, an international treaty, under UN auspices between UK and PRC.
PRC and UK each had onbligations and these obligations have been breached.
Hong Kong is therefore independent and this should be the US and UN position.