Maggie Thatcher and Hong Kong

Doug Bandow look back at the British deal made by Margaret Thatcher with China on the terms for the handover of Hong Kong in 1997. "Tragic though this outcome is, the worsening dictatorship cannot be blamed on Thatcher. And there was little she could have done to have saved China or Hong Kong. Moreover, there is good news: history rarely offers permanent verdicts. We have no idea what will follow Xi," he writes. (Negotiating Hong Kong: playing chicken with millions of lives Responsible Statecraft 07/15/2020)

He describes the options that the UK faced if it had tried to set up Hong Kong as a permanent colony - which would have been a real anachronism in the world of 1997! - or to try to support it as an independent country.

Noting that the recent developments produced what looks like an "ugly reality", he describes the practical limitations in the throwback colonial option, but these would also apply to an independence option guaranteed by Britain:

Beijing would have responded angrily but likely avoided war. In 1997, when the lease formally expired, China’s GDP was little more than half of the UK’s and about a tenth of America’s. Beijing had not fared well militarily when seeking to teach Vietnam “a lesson” in 1979. Although the PRC was a nuclear power, so were London and Washington, which would have been on Thatcher’s speed dial to back up the British.

More important, the PRC was only beginning its economic Long March, reforming its economy and entering foreign markets. Conflict would have interrupted that process, with long-term negative impacts. The pragmatic Deng likely would have played the long game, avoiding a direct confrontation until he or his successor was sure of winning.

In the meantime, however, Hong Kong would have become an increasing burden on the United Kingdom, which probably would have been locked out of the newly expanding Chinese market. The right mix of verbal threats and military deployments by Beijing would have forced the UK to maintain a battle-ready garrison with sufficient back-up — perhaps an aircraft carrier permanently berthed in the harbor — just in case. Doing so would be difficult and expensive for London.

Beijing could have isolated the colony and systematically harassed British rule. The result would not just have inconvenienced residents and burdened London. Many foreign companies would have avoided settling in Hong Kong; some established firms would have left for safer and more hospitable havens elsewhere, such as Singapore. [my emphasis]

After Britain's experience with the massive decolonization following the Second World War, it's not surprising that they decided not to rerun the experience with Hong Kong.

With Trump relying on anti-China agitation for his reelection campaign, it's worth paying attention to various kinds of chicanery on the government's part in that regard. The very creepy Attorney General William Barr is threatening businesspeople over "appeasement" of China, threatening prosecutions for espionage. The Financial Times reports (Kadhim Shubber, Barr warns against corporate America's China 'appeasement' 07/16/2020):

Campaign aides believe Mr Trump can regain lost ground against Democratic rival Joe Biden by casting himself as tough on China, part of an effort to draw a contrast on the subject with the policies of the Obama administration, where Mr Biden served as vice-president.

Mr Barr took particular aim at large US technology companies and Hollywood, insisting that business leaders who pander to Beijing's demands would only reap short-term rewards.

Attorney General Barr delivers remarks on China policy in Grand Rapids, Michigan PBS Newshour 07/16/2020: