>>>>I clearly remember and old B&W newscast in the UK, years ago, back in the 60s, with a load of Chinese students protesting in London. They all were holding up the book by its corner and chanting, in unison, "Down with British Imperialism!". Can't think why, as by that time most colonies had become independent, or close to it.
>>>
>>>They must have been referring to Hong Kong. It appears that a hand-over to China was not a done deal back in the 60's.
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hong_Kong#Transition_to_PRC_rule
>>
>>Interesting thing about HK. Not everyone realises that HK was ceded to GB forever, but the so-called "New Territories" around HK were only leased up to 1997. As I understand it, of course HK couldn't have survived as a colony without the NT's support so when the NTs returned to the PRC, HK would have had to "fall" to them too, even if GB had risked war to hold on to it.
>
>As I heard it told back then, Hong Kong had had a "99 years" term for the agreement, which was understood in the western world to mean perpetual. Unfortunately, the Chinese either had a different interpretation or decided to interpret it literally.
>
>Was that the wrong story?... sounded quite sensible to me.

No, like I just said, the NTs were leased for 99 years (up to 1997), but HK was ours "in perpetuity". Of course, back then no-one knew that China was going to become a super power and GB could push them around back then. So, without the NTs all food, water - everything, would have needed to be shipped or airlifted in. We would have needed like a "Marshal Plan" but I don't expect there would have been much international cooperation or sympathy.