If U.K. was aware about the Tianamen crackdown and that China won't foster democracy of any sort, why would they give away Hong Kong, a democratic island, to a country they know will suppress it? Could they have just done away with the deal? What about Macau?
Why was the U.K. Still Willing To Give Hong Kong To China Even After Tianamen?
- Thread starter TickTock The Witch's Dead
- Start date
RousseauX
Donor
1) Hong Kong was not a democracy under the British, had it being, the negotiating position of HK would have being a lot stronger.
2) Hong Kong was militarily indefensible, China has being in position to just take it pretty much since 1945. Negotiations are there to preserve the economic value of the city.
2) Hong Kong was militarily indefensible, China has being in position to just take it pretty much since 1945. Negotiations are there to preserve the economic value of the city.
Sure, and the PLA tanks are there around 12-24 hours later because Hong Kong is not defended by any heavy forces.
Macau has being under de facto PRC control for decades and the Portuguese has being -trying- to get rid of it since the 1970s.
Last edited:
It's
Banned
1) This would not make a wit of difference to communists. Not a democracy, but HK was free.
2) Agree, but maybe from 1948. (Communists in power from 1949)
One cynical definition of diplomacy is "extracting the highest possible price for permitting that which you have no power to prevent". The British had no power to prevent China from taking Hong Kong whenever it chose so instead concentrated on using the limited leverage that cooperating in ensuring a peaceful and orderly transfer afforded it to ensure the best terms possible. Tiananmen, sad to say, had absolutely nothing to do with this.
Because they couldn't win a straight fight over it, the British government doesn't care enough about chineese democracy to fight a doomed war over it, and it's not worth risking a nuclear exchange. Especially since they have little legal footing to not give back most of Hong Kong.
It's not like the Kuomintang also didn't want the return of Chineese lands that where taken only because China was weak enough.
The PLA is fourteen times as large as the UK military in 1997.
There are more forces in the Guangzhou military district alone (which adjoins HK) than there are in the whole British Army, Royal Navy, and Royal Air Force combined, not to mention that they can walk to Kowloon Bay as opposed to being on the other side of the planet.
Because they were pretty much obliged to after Thatcher's infamous fall in Beijing. The signatures were already on the paper, and revoking it would have been seen as the UK giving the finger to China, which would likely have then led to war. Also, there might have been the lingering and sobering reality of how easily Goa had fallen to India in 1961.
It wasn't a matter of they "wouldn't", it was more because they "couldn't". Deng won the entire proceedings of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and Thatcher couldn't back the colony up - without the agreement, China would have strangled Hong Kong until she gave in. The British position was much worse than many people think.
Of course, nobody asked the good people of Hong Kong. But were the people given a say, it would have been a resounding "no" to reintegration with China - protests against Beijing's tyranny following Tiananmen were some of the most heated and furious in the world, and each June 4 we still hold candlelight vigils in memory of the people who died.
It wasn't a matter of they "wouldn't", it was more because they "couldn't". Deng won the entire proceedings of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and Thatcher couldn't back the colony up - without the agreement, China would have strangled Hong Kong until she gave in. The British position was much worse than many people think.
Of course, nobody asked the good people of Hong Kong. But were the people given a say, it would have been a resounding "no" to reintegration with China - protests against Beijing's tyranny following Tiananmen were some of the most heated and furious in the world, and each June 4 we still hold candlelight vigils in memory of the people who died.
Last edited:
RousseauX
Donor
It does because this means that during handover neogotiations HK doesn't get to have an elected head of government sitting on it, having one means HK's position would have being correspondingly increased.
Chiang could have easily done it in 1945, and what's more, nobody would have cared all that much if he did in 1945 because the division of the globe was occurring at massive scale and chances are nobody was going to even notice if a single city changes hands.
Has anyone ever written a timeline where Mao orders the PLA to 'liberate' the city? Would America have backed Britain in such a scenario?
Because the Brits already agreed that they would hand it over before 6/4 happened with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and Hong Kong wasn't really democratic back then either...
If Britain had actually integrated Hong Kong as part of the UK, then it would be easier for them to hold on, but there's no guarantee there either (like with Goa and Portugal).
If Britain had actually integrated Hong Kong as part of the UK, then it would be easier for them to hold on, but there's no guarantee there either (like with Goa and Portugal).
It came with the 99 year lease. Before 1997, China could easily annex Hong Kong, but the moral high ground would be with the British. After 1997, the UK could possibly keep Hong Kong but the moral high ground would now be with the chinese. I know, it's hard to bother with concepts like moral prerogatives when you have the guns, but in today's world where all countries are linked through in-and exports, a lot of non-aligned countries may look at your record of power versus promises to determine whether you are a trustworthy business partner. So as soon as Communist China stopped at the gates of Hong Kong in 1949, they had to keep abiding by the treaty or loose face. Once the UK accepted that China was keeping their part of the treaty, they too had to obey the 99 year clause, or loose face even more.
Last edited: