Hi Adrian,



I will reply to you paragraph-by-paragraph.



1. Great Britain did do all that and it acted no worse (and mostly better) than every other major power in the world at the time. GB did not 'appropriate' from countries, it traded, and all major transactions were duly recorded and are still available to historians today. Not that such trading (by any side) would pass muster in today's world, I'll give you that.



2. Your second paragraph is the stuff of fantasy. What really happened is that GB's Commodores, Admirals, and Navy Captains saw the level of drug addiction in China, and realizing that it was having a negative impact on their trade and those trading partners, the Royal Navy seized all opium, every week, throughout that era, and burnt the poppy fields -- to prevent Chinese labourers and Chinese farm owners from killing themselves with the drug. THAT is what the so-called 'Opium Wars' were all about. Chinese labourers and farmers were dying before they could complete the contracts for goods that they had signed with British traders. And that's bad for business, bad for the Chinese economy, and bad for the traders who had travelled thousands of miles to trade with the Chinese, and bad for Navy Captain careers. The Royal Navy saved Chinese people who were important in the trading relationship from dying (by the drug of their own choice) by incarcerating them 'cold turkey' until they overcame their addiction, then they were released to resume their life.



I agree that it sounds high-handed from our more enlightened 21st-century, but many Chinese lives and a trading relationship were saved because the RN seized 'all the opium' and rationed it out at the lowest possible level to preserve Chinese lives.



3. Before the British ever saw China there were 3-million opium addicts. While the British were there, there were 3-million opium addicts. After GB left China, there were 3-million opium addicts.



4. GB sent warships to China to protect British trading ships that Chinese drug dealers (warlords) attacked and burned to the waterline because they had seized all the warlord's opium. The reason British traders seized the opium was because the mutually-agreed-upon trade terms weren't being kept -- money had been paid, and goods not received -- because addicts kept dying and warlords were taking over the farms/ranches/silk production facilities and then not delivering the goods.



Which, back in the day, was how trading relationships worked. If you were paid and didn't deliver, they sent troops to enforce delivery.



In the case of China's trade with GB, warlords and drug dealers got in the way, inflicting severe casualties on British traders, therefore, those British traders who managed to stay alive through those attacks, asked the Royal Navy to enforce the terms of the contracts. And tacit approval was given by the Chinese government to have the RN enforce order in and around Hong Kong, as the Chinese government wasn't equipped to do so in that part of China.



China's warlords later forced the Chinese government to legalize opium to, a) prevent the RN from attacking them (as the warlords were losing almost every battle, although not at first) and, b) to make other land available to them, further inland, so they could enjoy more security and have more access to more customers for their evil drug.



Conflating all this to, "It also led to Hong Kong being ceded to Britain, a territory whose last British governor was Lord Patten," is the largest leap of logic ever seen.



Hong Kong was a vestige of the British Empire, and every other jurisdiction of the British Empire was consequently ceded by Great Britain to local governance at a time appropriate for both parties.



GB ceding Hong Kong to local governance was the LAST such event, not the first return of territory.



As of now, all former colonies of GB (including the former colony of America) are now under local governance. But that only became possible when those jurisdictions became ready to accept the reins of power.



Hong Kong, as with other GB colonies, was nothing more than a trading outpost for the British Empire and as GB has had no real interest in Hong Kong since trade between the two powers dwindled in the 20th-century, there was no reason to keep a trading outpost there. Therefore, when it became clear that China was able to govern Hong Kong, it was returned to China by the British crown.



A final note on this: The relationship between the British crown and the government of China was very cordial and complementary before, during, and after the time of conflict. What was notable was that local Chinese warlords attacked British trading ships and killed many of their crews, and attacked and killed many Chinese who were trading with the British. It is also true that the Chinese government was afraid of the warlords (for good reason) and so were the Royal Navy.



For that reason, China's government authorized GB to conduct what later became known as the 'Opium Wars' under very strict rules of engagement, to the detriment, it was hoped by both sides, of the local warlords.



History shows us that the warlords inflicted heavy losses on all sides.



The lesson to be learned from this, IMHO, is that if anything, the Chinese government and the British crown should've worked even closer together to deal with the unbelievably powerful warlords who worked the area at the time.



IMHO, 10-times more effort should've been expended to deal with the warlords, and the British crown should've invited at least one important Chinese government official onto each and every RN ship in or near China, to advise and authorize the RN captain on his best course of action in any given situation.



As for the present Hong Kong protesters, the movement appears to be foreign-led, designed to embarrass the Chinese government, and in the worst case, to prevent Hong Kong's full integration with the rest of China. Which should be the obvious result of the GB crown returning Hong Kong to the government of China.



Best regards, JBS