> I’m not aware of the UK kidnapping anyone to stand trial in a foreign jurisdiction.
That's because the UK kidnapped the entirety of hong kong.
> On exploitation, in 1945 Hong Kong was bombed out rubble
Isn't that because that's where the colonizing brits were? You know the ones the japanese wanted to remove from asia?
> and in 1997 it was a first world city that had a higher GDP per capita than the United Kingdom.
The rise of Hong Kong's GDP entirely tracks the opening of china. Meaning the UK had nothing to do with hong kong's rise.
Also, it's a joke to compare a city ( hong kong ) to a country ( UK ). I see it done too many times in traditional and social media. Hong kong's GDP per capita is lower than london's. Using your logic, does it make that an exploitation?
> The rise of Hong Kong's GDP entirely tracks the opening of china. Meaning the UK had nothing to do with hong kong's rise.
Hong Kong was richer than Spain in 1980. China didn’t open for trade until the 80s. When Nixon went to China international trade was so low the leadership had to raid the entire country’s foreign reserves to get enough dollars to travel to the US. Hong Kong’s prosperity was not based on the China trade between 1945 and 1980.
People really can't help themselves: "Also, it's a joke to compare a city ( hong kong ) to a country ( UK ). I see it done too many times in traditional and social media."
Also is that supposed to be impressive? I've never associated economic strength or wealth with 20th century spain.
> China didn’t open for trade until the 80s.
Wrong. They opened up in the 60s. They tested trade with Japan first in the 60s before opening up relations with the US in the 1970s.
There is a reason why hong kong's standing improved in the 60s and continued to do so.
> Hong Kong’s prosperity was not based on the China trade between 1945 and 1980.
Yes it was. Hong kong's only value is as an entry point/port into china. There is nothing inherently noteworthy about hong kong. It has no resources and only a few million people.
We know it wasn't based on the UK since from 1842 til china's liberation and opening up, hong kong was a dirt poor colonial outpost where only the british and a few chinese lackey's were wealthy. We know it had nothing to do with hong kong for the reasons I noted. So the only remaining option is china's opening up.
Lets put it this way, if china was still the colonized china of pre-ww2 or if china was the china of 1945-1965ish, then hong kong would still be relatively poor.
That's because the UK kidnapped the entirety of hong kong.
> On exploitation, in 1945 Hong Kong was bombed out rubble
Isn't that because that's where the colonizing brits were? You know the ones the japanese wanted to remove from asia?
> and in 1997 it was a first world city that had a higher GDP per capita than the United Kingdom.
The rise of Hong Kong's GDP entirely tracks the opening of china. Meaning the UK had nothing to do with hong kong's rise.
Also, it's a joke to compare a city ( hong kong ) to a country ( UK ). I see it done too many times in traditional and social media. Hong kong's GDP per capita is lower than london's. Using your logic, does it make that an exploitation?