India HATES the technology transfer laws, that I agree with - I’ve done a lot of work on that and it is a pain.
They’re also expanding in Latin America, the Maghreb (and maybe other areas of the Arab world),…
Better question: Why hasn’t China collapsed?
They’re waiting to turn in a set of matching cards for the 15 bonus armies first. After all, there’s nothing more annoying than invading Africa and failing to take the whole thing because that one defender sitting in Madagascar keeps rolling sixes.
China does have some issues ahead. There’s the political divide of having a communist government and a capitalist economy. There’s the economic divide between the wealthy east and the poverty-stricken west. And there’s the ticking time bomb of its wildly unbalanced gender and age demographics.
Of course, they also claim Taiwan, and a bit of land that’s controlled by India. I do wonder if China’s illegitimate claims will ever be resolved. Although, they did manage to get Hong Kong and Macau.
Those weren’t illegitimate claims, though.
I’m not exactly an expert in international relations, but Macau was under Portuguese control for over 500 years. I don’t think the Chinese were continually protesting.
The majority of the territory of Hong Kong was only on lease (for 99 years), and Macau was given back voluntarily.
And Taiwan? 
Exactly the point. The British learned this lesson after the American Revolution. They discovered it was cheaper and greater profit to control small areas that allowed them to keep a strong navy. Then they’d just control the trade and profit and let the locals worry about the details.
Besides, China is full of internal problems. They have massive health problems, (WHO reports nearly 3/4 of the population has latent TB). They are full of environmental issues and have nearly a billion people in poverty. The only reason they appear to be doing so well is their huge population. They have 300 million in middle class and above which seems to put them at or above the USA. But that’s conveniently forgetting the other billion poverty stricken classes.
China is also locked in. By deserts to the west and mountains to the south. They also have pesky Vietnam which has always been a pain in the neck. After WWII China was asked if it wanted French IndoChina and turned it down cold. They said, “Vietnamese would never assimilate into Chinese culture and would just be a problem.”
To the north they have Russia and to the East they have North Korea and the sea. Japan, S Korea and Taiwan are MUCH better to trade with than to own.
The majority of the population lived on Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula, which the UK had a perpetual lease on. China had no claim to these people.
Margaret Thatcher sold several million British subjects to a foreign government for preferential treatment for some British businesses.
Well to be honest, that was pretty much her MO, except very often it was selling out just the interests of millions of British subjects to serve the interests of often foreign businesses.
Ironically, Vietnam and China have now become attached in a way that neither government anticipated.
It’s that gender imbalance I mentioned before. There are tens of millions more Chinese men than Chinese women. This means that tens of millions of Chinese men have to look outside of China in hopes of finding a wife. And Vietnam has become the top spot for a Chinese man to find a foreign wife.
So I guess we’re going to see how well Chinese and Vietnamese can assimilate to each other’s culture.
[insert your own “Me love you long time!” joke here]
Right, but their stated claim to the territory (Macau) before it was handed off doesn’t seem like it was very legitimate, to me.
I’ve no love for the old witch, but to be honest, what chance did she have? The NTs had to go back by treaty - no choice there - which meant if the Chinese government chose it could cut off water and power to all those millions. In the worst case they could have marched over the border and occupied. It was almost certainly the only thing that she, or anyone else in her position, could have done at the time - more a case of her being bested in a cleft stick. (Nitpick, they weren’t subjects at the time of the Joint Declaration.) And Patten did his best to get another million an escape route, something for which he earned my admiration.
And while the lease on Hong Kong island and Tsimshatsui was perpetual, it was signed under duress, and I can see how a subsequent government was keen to revoke it.
In the case of Macau I accept that the claim was definitely less strong, but the prep work of ceding the territory back to China was voluntary on the side of the Portuguese government as part of decolonialisation in the 70s.
Look at the effort and expense Thatcher went to in order to keep the Falkland Islands under British control. Why didn’t she make a similar effort for Hong Kong?
Sure, Hong Kong would have been vulnerable with the New Territories. But let’s face facts, China could have overrun the entire Crown Colony at any point if it had wanted to. Hong Kong Island would have been no more isolated than West Berlin was during the Cold War.
Well as another nitpick, the treaty was of disputable validity, as I believe the communist government when it took over repudiated foreign treaties made by its predecessors.
But I agree - the whole kit and kaboodle was going to go back. That’s Realpolitik. However, every Hong Konger (?) could have been granted a full British passport. There’s no evidence any significant number would have moved to the UK.
Most territorial treaties I can think of were signed under duress. It’s kind of the nature of the beast. Mexico didn’t exactly voluntarily abandon it’s claim to Texas, did it?
Does that mean tens of millions of Vietnam’s men are now looking elsewhere for women?