> From: Terry and Tracey <foxcroft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Totally off topic
>
> C.H.
>
> I understand that the new territories were British under lease untill
1997.
> But I thought that Hong Kong island itself was supposed to be British for
> posterity. I read this in a few places. If so, why did they give it back?
>
> I was going to post this privately, but seeing a related topic came up on
> the list....
>
> Thanks
>
> Foxy
>
I don't know much about political issues, but I think British had not think
too much about keeping just Hong Kong Island. In the early 80' they only
talked about whether to continue the whole colony or return all to China.
One of the reasons was the agreement that signed in 1841 was so called
"un-fair agreement" (I don't know the right terms in English). China
government think (and it is the fact) that Hong Kong Island was occupied,
they don't really recognize the agreement. On the other hand Hong Kong
Island is very small, it simple does not have big advantage for British to
keep the Island only. By returning the whole to China, British can keep a
better relationship with China and hence some advantage for further
business (such as trading and construction contract... etc.).
C.H.Ling
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|