Giving Islands to Foreigners - Hong Kong and the Falklands

[Takhisis]

TF did say that he found the UK lowering its standards to those of a backwards military dictatorship was what he found disturbing. I would say that's quite the condemnation for the Argentine military regime.

 

[Commodore]

TF did say that he found the UK lowering its standards to those of a backwards military dictatorship was what he found disturbing. I would say that's quite the condemnation for the Argentine military regime.

Not really. It's more like he's saying he thinks it's okay for a nation like Argentina to do stuff like that but not the UK.

And as Akka already stated, defending yourself from foreign invasion does not lower you to the level of the invader. That is some serious false equivalence and victim blaming right there.

 

[Traitorfish]

Since they're basically fantasies, I don't see it as a big issue that modern constructs override old constructs

But not retroactively. Rome does not become Italian because Mussolini imagined that Italy was Roman. The past has already happened, we can't amend it after the fact to suit our own preferences. In this case, Great Qing or even Great Ming does not become "China" because later people imagined it in those terms, let alone because foreigners have chosen to translate several different concepts with the same clumsy word.

well that's because they were conquered

"Conquest" is too polite a word for what happened to Poland, but, yes, Poland was annexed by other powers. As a result, there was for a very long time no Polish national state. (If it's appropriate to call the Commonwealth a Polish national state; another debate.) "Poland" was a geographical or ethnological expression, occasionally an administrative one, but not a geopolitical one.

I don't really understand what you mean

National continuity, we can accept for argument's sake, is a question of continuity of identity. Statial continuity is a question of institutional continuity. The continuity of nation-states, therefore, is a question of the continuity of both identities and institutions, that there must be a particular set of people who identify as a nation, that there must be a particular set of institutions that these people identify as national in character, and these institutions must continue to exist and to be identified as national. We don't see that in China: identification of Qing institutions as national in character is spotty, limited and heavily qualified, and those institutions were all rubble by the 1920s anyway. The modern national institutions of China were built from the bottom-up, out of the rickety civil administrations which the Communists and Nationalists had pieced together in their respective territories. Even if it were possible to trace a thread of national essence through institutions continuity, no such continuity exists between Great Qing and the People's Republic of China.

no but they are here now

But they were not participants in any of the treaties which put the British in possession of Hong Kong, is my point, and it's not been a particularly subtle or arcane one, which means that there was no entity which regarded itself as "China" involved in those negotiations. The only people who imagine they were dealing with anything called "China" were the British, who were not known for their great ethnological subtlety. (Asked the people of "Hindoostan".)

well sure, but I didn't argue that self-determination is compatible with ideas about nationality

If you're going to intervene into a debate that's already ongoing, you're going to have to accept that some of the groundwork has been laid. The argument was presented that the Hong Kongese were of essentially Chinese character, and therefore Hong Kong was rightful Chinese territory: I have suggested that this reasoning does not stand up to scrutiny.

You are speaking as if it were the UK that initiated military operations. If the Argentinians felt the Falklands were their territory, why didn't they try to engage the UK in negotiations directly or take the issue before the UN? Had they done either of those and the UK responded by deploying warships and troops, you might have a point. However, instead of negotiations, the Argentinians chose the military route. The UK was just responding to foreign aggression and defending its citizens and what was (and still is) recognized as sovereign territory of the UK.

Consider, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, a sovereign state of (at the time) some two million people. Iraqi forced entered Kuwait on 2nd August, 1990, but Coalition forces did note engaged Iraqi forces until 16th January 1991, and did not enter Kuwait until 24th February 1991, over six months after the invasion. In contrast, the Argentinians occupied the islands on 2nd April, 1982, and British forces engaged on 21st April, less than three weeks later.

Now, I readily grant that there is a difference between these scenarios, that in Iraq, the Americans were intervening on behalf of an independent country and so a greater degree of coalition-building was required, which naturally takes longer. But that does not seem sufficient to explain the disparity, to explain why the Americans, a nation with an admittedly unfair representation for being a bit trigger happy, were willing to spend months pursuing a diplomatic resolution, whereas the British didn't have any more patience than it takes an aircraft carrier to reach the South Atlantic. There were, it is evident, multiple options open to the British, and I favour which one results in the fewest corpses when the dust settles.

As I said, international diplomacy is not a bar-fight. "He punched me so I punched him" is a dubious enough logic when measured in broken teeth, but barbaric when measured in thousands of human lives.

Yet I don't see you criticizing the Argentinians for starting the war in the first place. If you just find war universally disturbing, then it is a bit inconsistent of you to criticize one belligerent of a given conflict and not the other. Especially when the belligerent you refuse to criticize was the aggressor.

Obviously Argentina was the aggressor. And obviously I'm critical of brutish right-wing military dictatorships. It didn't seem necessary to point either of these things out.

 

[Akka]

National continuity, we can accept for argument's sake, is a question of continuity of identity. Statial continuity is a question of institutional continuity. The continuity of nation-states, therefore, is a question of the continuity of both identities and institutions, that there must be a particular set of people who identify as a nation, that there must be a particular set of institutions that these people identify as national in character, and these institutions must continue to exist and to be identified as national. We don't see that in China: identification of Qing institutions as national in character is spotty, limited and heavily qualified, and those institutions were all rubble by the 1920s anyway. The modern national institutions of China were built from the bottom-up, out of the rickety civil administrations which the Communists and Nationalists had pieced together in their respective territories. Even if it were possible to trace a thread of national essence through institutions continuity, no such continuity exists between Great Qing and the People's Republic of China.

Following this reasoning, France is a new country that appeared 70 years ago. You learn something new every day.

As I said, international diplomacy is not a bar-fight. "He punched me so I punched him" is a dubious enough logic when measured in broken teeth, but barbaric when measured in thousands of human lives.

"he punched me so I punched him" would be invading a part of Argentina as retaliation for it invading the Falklands.
What happened was not that, it was liberation of an occupied territory.

That you equate liberating your own soil and your own inhabitant with a bar fight where both are guilty is just mind-boggling.

 

[Traitorfish]

Following this reasoning, France is a new country that appeared 70 years ago. You learn something new every day.

No, there's pretty solid institutional continuity from the Fifth Republic to the ancien régime. There have been regime changes, some of them pretty radical, but there wasn't any point where the apparatus of government was completely demolished and rebuilt from scratch. France appears unstable because the French have made a hobby of deposing their rulers, but they're actually one of the more stable countries in Europe so far as their basic civil institutions are concerned.

In China, there was an effective absence of national civil government between the collapse of the Hongxian regime in 1916 and the establishment of the Nanjing government in 1926; the modern Chinese national government was built from the ground-up between over the following two decades. There's really nothing equivalent to this in modern French history.

"he punched me so I punched him" would be invading a part of Argentina as retaliation for it invading the Falklands.
What happened was not that, it was liberation of an occupied territory.

That you equate liberating your own soil and your own inhabitant with a bar fight where both are guilty is just mind-boggling.

When I said that "international diplomacy is not a bar-fight", the key word was "not".

 

[Akka]

No, there's pretty solid institutional continuity from the Fifth Republic to the ancien régime. There have been regime changes, some of them pretty radical, but there wasn't any point where the apparatus of government was completely demolished and rebuilt from scratch. France appears unstable because the French have made a hobby of deposing their rulers, but they're actually one of the more stable countries in Europe so far as their basic civil institutions are concerned.

In China, there was an effective absence of national civil government between the collapse of the Hongxian regime in 1916 and the establishment of the Nanjing government in 1926; the modern Chinese national government was built from the ground-up between over the following two decades. There's really nothing equivalent to this in modern French history.

That's just pointless grasping at technicalities. Let me switch the argument to France being a country dating back to 1799 then. Yay, doesn't change the point and still completely absurd.

When I said that "international diplomacy is not a bar-fight", the key word was "not".

And you said that to blame the UK reaction, implying that it behaved like in a bar fight, so that's exactly my point.
I have a hard time believing you twisted this just by accident.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's just pointless grasping at technicalities. Let me switch the argument to France being a country dating back to 1799 then. Yay, doesn't change the point and still completely absurd

That you do not understand the point does not make it absurd.

There is a near-total political rupture between Great Qing and the People's Republic of China. Continuity is a convenient legal fiction, and one that's only sporadically upheld, given Western opposition to the annexation of Taiwan by the PRC. There is no sound basis for arguing that today's Chinese state was identical to the "China" imagined by Western observers in the nineteenth century, and so for arguing that the Chinese state has some historic "national" claim to the territory.

And you said that to blame the UK reaction, implying that it behaved like in a bar fight, so that's exactly my point.
I have a hard time believing you twisted this just by accident.

Don't stretch the metaphor, is what I was saying. International diplomacy is a question of thousands, sometimes millions of lives; pride is a vice, not a principle. Bloody "self-defence" is not always preferable to bloodless diplomacy.

 

[Akka]

That you do not understand the point does not make it absurd.

That it is absurd doesn't mean I'm not understanding your point.

There is a near-total political rupture between Great Qing and the People's Republic of China. Continuity is a convenient legal fiction, and one that's only sporadically upheld, given Western opposition to the annexation of Taiwan by the PRC. There is no sound basis for arguing that today's Chinese state was identical to the "China" imagined by Western observers in the nineteenth century, and so for arguing that the Chinese state has some historic "national" claim to the territory.

It's exactly what I said : grasping at technicalities. Political changes, even as cataclysmic as what China lived at the beginning of the XXth century (or what France lived through the Révolution) doesn't mean that suddendly the nation disappear and another different nation takes its place. Nationhood continuity is not linked to its political continuity.
So yeah, it can be technically argued that the state of China which signed the treaty wasn't the same than the one that got Hong-Kong back, but that's just lawyering the point - the nation was the same, and still had the historical and cultural claim.

Don't stretch the metaphor, is what I was saying. International diplomacy is a question of thousands, sometimes millions of lives; pride is a vice, not a principle. Bloody "self-defence" is not always preferable to bloodless diplomacy.

Pride is not a principle, but protecting your territory is. Argentina wasn't about to relinquish its conquest, and just giving up your land and your people means you're a failed state, not that you're somehow "wise".

 

[Traitorfish]

That it is absurd doesn't mean I'm not understanding your point.

How can you understand something that's absurd?

Let's just compromise and say that my point is absurd and that you don't understand it. Everyone wins!

It's exactly what I said : grasping at technicalities. Political changes, even as cataclysmic as what China lived at the beginning of the XXth century (or what France lived through the Révolution) doesn't mean that suddendly the nation disappear and another different nation takes its place. Nationhood continuity is not linked to its political continuity.
So yeah, it can be technically argued that the state of China which signed the treaty wasn't the same than the one that got Hong-Kong back, but that's just lawyering the point - the nation was the same, and still had the historical and cultural claim.

Revanchism is not a sound basis for international diplomacy. We had a war about that, back in the forties. The anti-revanchists won.

Pride is not a principle, but protecting your territory is. Argentina wasn't about to relinquish its conquest, and just giving up your land and your people means you're a failed state, not that you're somehow "wise".

How do you that Argentina was immune to diplomatic pressure, when it was not tried? As I pointed out, the United States, hardly a nation of pacifists, allowed Iraq six months between the invasion and counter-invasion of Kuwait. Do we really believe that the Argentine junta more aggressively expansionistic than the Ba'athists?

 

[Borachio]

But on the other hand, can't irredentism, when it's a claim to land inhabited by one ethnicity but under the authority of another, be considered legitimate?

 

[Takhisis]

According to Mr. Balfour…

 

[Borachio]

Touché

 

[innonimatu]

How do you that Argentina was immune to diplomatic pressure, when it was not tried? As I pointed out, the United States, hardly a nation of pacifists, allowed Iraq six months between the invasion and counter-invasion of Kuwait. Do we really believe that the Argentine junta more aggressively expansionistic than the Ba'athists?

That is not a fair comparison. The US was not even under any obligation to defend Kuwait. Bush had to create approval at home, and to send enough military forces to the region, before attacking.

 

[Traitorfish]

But on the other hand, can't irredentism, when it's a claim to land inhabited by one ethnicity but under the authority of another, be considered legitimate?

That surely depends on how the people in that territory feel about it?

My impression is that the ideal outcome for most Hong Kongese would have been an independent city-state, like Singapore, which in fairness to Thatcher (and there's something I don't say a lot) was briefly considered.

That is not a fair comparison. The US was not even under any obligation to defend Kuwait. Bush had to create approval at home, and to send enough military forces to the region, before attacking.

That's true, but as I said, that explains why the Americans took ully six months to commit to war, not why it took the British merely three weeks.

 

[Akka]

How can you understand something that's absurd?

I'm that awesome.

Revanchism is not a sound basis for international diplomacy. We had a war about that, back in the forties. The anti-revanchists won.

It's not about revanchism, it's about getting back part of your country.

How do you that Argentina was immune to diplomatic pressure, when it was not tried? As I pointed out, the United States, hardly a nation of pacifists, allowed Iraq six months between the invasion and counter-invasion of Kuwait. Do we really believe that the Argentine junta more aggressively expansionistic than the Ba'athists?

The comparison is completely stupid, Kuwait wasn't part of the USA.
You can bet that if Iraq had invaded Hawaii, the USA wouldn't have waited six monthes to get it back.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's not about revanchism, it's about getting back part of your country.

The comparison is completely stupid, Kuwait wasn't part of the USA.
You can bet that if Iraq had invaded Hawaii, the USA wouldn't have waited six monthes to get it back.

If violence didn't solve your problem... Well, you just haven't been violent enough.

Probably not. But if somebody occupied the Guano Islands? Maybe.

The Falklanders were an ungarrisoned dependent territory with a marginal population and no real strategic value. Hawaii is a US state with a substantial population which is the strategic center of the American presence in the Pacific, reflected in a significant concentration of US. It's really not equivalent.

 

[Camikaze]

The situations of Hong Kong and the Falklands are clearly different as a matter of international law. To the extent that abiding by international law is thought to be a good, treating the two territories differently is therefore desirable. Of course, there might be an argument that flagrantly ignoring international law may have been the more moral option in the case of Hong Kong, or that not blindly insisting on UK's strict legal rights would have been the more moral option in the case of the Falklands, but it's clearly not the case that the starting point for considering the two cases is identical.

Also, if that was a Freudian slip, it would not be because I equate British with English, but because I no longer really think of the U.K. as being my country, as Nicola Sturgeon being in the media all the time has come to color my view of Scotland; that most Scots reject the union and the English. This may not be true, but that's all I ever really hear.

That doesn't sound a particularly patriotic thing to say.

 

[Akka]

Revanchism is about RETALIATION. And if you wish to continue with the nitpicking, it's about "lost territory", while the Falklands were "occupied territory".
Seriously, you're not at your usual level of discussion here. You've been grasping at straws and it feels you're more about "not losing the debate" than making a honest argument.

 

[SMcM]

That doesn't sound a particularly patriotic thing to say.

Well maybe not. But the discussion about patriotism was never about how patriotic I am- I broughtit up because in my view Labour was making false claims about Jeremy Corbyn's 'patriotism'. Anyway, that debate isn't for this thread.

 

[luiz]

I didn't make any further posts in this thread because Akka covered my position perfectly.

Also, a good post by Camikaze. Hong Kong and the Falklands are in no way comparable under international law and treaties; so not only are the situations entirely different from a moral POV, they're also entirely different from a legal POV.

Countries should immediately and forcefully defend their territory and people when they are attacked with no provocation by a foreign power. That's literally the first function of a state, the first reason we pay taxes and cede part of our own autonomy.

So if a candidate for head of government says he wouldn't defend some of the country's territory and people in the event of an attack by a foreign power, I say he is not only "not patriotic" but also that he is a traitor.

When this particular traitor also happens to be best buddies with terrorists and dictators enemies of his country, matters are only made clearer.