Kwang-Chou-Wan: the French Hong Kong

Sir Isaac Brock · Feb 21, 2006

So, what if de Gualle had never agreed to return the French enclave of Kawng-Chou-Wan to Chiang's ROC in 1945 but had held on to it with the intension of handing it back in 1999. How would this have changed the history of Sino-French relations, and the region in general?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwang-Chou-Wan

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy · Feb 21, 2006

It would have been more of a French Macao. The lease would have ended in '97, not '99 (1898+99, just like the New Territories).

It would have provided an alternate to Hong Kong when the Nationalists would have lost the mainland and to the US when Saigon would have fallen. Franco-Chinese relations would not have been damaged too much. Today the city would have a sizeable Vietnamese minority and the same status as Hong Kong and Macao.

Sir Isaac Brock · Feb 21, 2006

VoCSe said:
It would have been more of a French Macao.

Because it isn't large enough to be a major economic hub like HK?

The lease would have ended in '97, not '99 (1898+99, just like the New Territories).

My bad.

It would have provided an alternate to Hong Kong when the Nationalists would have lost the mainland

As in Nationalist refugees, or the ROC government?

and to the US when Saigon would have fallen.

So I'm guessing you mean Vietnamese refugees would flood there?

Franco-Chinese relations would not have been damaged too much.

How would the French have governed the place? Would it be a wildly capitalistic place like British Hong Kong, a den of gambling like Macao, an authoritarian but wealthy place like Singapore, or something else?

Today the city would have a sizeable Vietnamese minority and the same status as Hong Kong and Macao.

And Montreal and Paris would have much larger Chinese communities filled with French-speaking migrants who left Wang-Chou-Wan just before the handover to the PRC, much like the Hong Kong flood that landed in Vancouver around 1996. Aka Hongcouver.

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy · Feb 21, 2006

Sir Isaac Brock said:
Because it isn't large enough to be a major economic hub like HK?

My bad.

As in Nationalist refugees, or the ROC government?

So I'm guessing you mean Vietnamese refugees would flood there?

How would the French have governed the place? Would it be a wildly capitalistic place like British Hong Kong, a den of gambling like Macao, an authoritarian but wealthy place like Singapore, or something else?

And Montreal and Paris would have much larger Chinese communities filled with French-speaking migrants who left Wang-Chou-Wan just before the handover to the PRC, much like the Hong Kong flood that landed in Vancouver around 1996. Aka Hongcouver.

Since France didn't do much with it in 1898-1946 I presume it doesn't provide the same opportunities. Besides, Hong Kong has a very big headstart.

I meant refugees, the government would go to Taiwan.

Technically it would still be part of China, so I'm thinking the French might give it some sort of internal autonomy. The economy could end up more similar to that of Hong Kong than that of France.

Wendell · Feb 21, 2006

Economic policy would factor into the fate of the colony considerably.

Wendell · Feb 21, 2006

VoCSe said:
It would have been more of a French Macao. The lease would have ended in '97, not '99 (1898+99, just like the New Territories).

It would have provided an alternate to Hong Kong when the Nationalists would have lost the mainland and to the US when Saigon would have fallen. Franco-Chinese relations would not have been damaged too much. Today the city would have a sizeable Vietnamese minority and the same status as Hong Kong and Macao.

Actually, according to Wikipedia, the lease of the area in question was agreed to in 1900.

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy · Feb 22, 2006

Wendell said:
Actually, according to Wikipedia, the lease of the area in question was agreed to in 1900.

No, that's when it "was placed under the authority of the governor general of French Indochina." It was "annexed" (leased) in 1898.

I love splitting hairs.

Hendryk · Feb 22, 2006

VoCSe said:
It would have provided an alternate to Hong Kong when the Nationalists would have lost the mainland and to the US when Saigon would have fallen. Franco-Chinese relations would not have been damaged too much. Today the city would have a sizeable Vietnamese minority and the same status as Hong Kong and Macao.

I agree with this hypothesis. The place would likely have remained a backwater until 1949, but at that point would have seen its population swell with those mainland refugees who couldn't make it to Hong Kong, which would have gone some way towards jump-starting its economy. Then a second wave of refugees would have come from Vietnam in 1954, mostly members of the Chinese community; and a third wave, this time ethnic Vietnamese fleeing the war and the Communist advance, would have arrived in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Between 1978 and 1997, the place would probably have served as a jumping board for illegal Chinese migrants on their way to France.

So, while it wouldn't have been a major trading place such as Hong Kong, it would have been a respectable city in its own right, looking by 2006 like a Shenzhen prime.

Wendell · Feb 22, 2006

VoCSe said:
No, that's when it "was placed under the authority of the governor general of French Indochina." It was "annexed" (leased) in 1898.

I love splitting hairs.

From Wikipedia:

Following the annexation, a 99 year lease agreed to by France and China and in January 1900 Kwang-Chou-Wan was placed under the authority of the governor general of French Indochina. Industries included shipping and coal mining.

It still does not explicity state when the lease began.

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy · Feb 22, 2006

Wendell said:
From Wikipedia:

It still does not explicity state when the lease began.

Well they wouldn't wait 2 whole years.

Wendell · Feb 22, 2006

VoCSe said:
Well they wouldn't wait 2 whole years.

But a formal annexation could take two years

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy · Feb 23, 2006

Wendell said:
But a formal annexation could take two years

There's a difference between lease, occupation, and annexation. Wikipedia gets it wrong saying it was ever annexed, it was occupied. The reasons I'm saying it was leased in the same year are: 1) it doesn't take that long to negotiate "we'll keep it until..." (even peace treaties are negotiated faster) and 2) the New Territories, Weihaiwei (both occupied in 1898), Kiaochow (occupied in 1897), and Port Arthur (occupied in either 1897 or 1898) were also leased in 1898. An analogy with 2) is very reasonable, especially in light of 1).

I told you I love splitting hairs. I'm also very good at it. You won't find a better hair-splitter on this board.

Case closed, back to the original discussion.

I think that if there are 3 foreign possessions on the coast of southern China, rather than 2, some economic union might take place between them.

Hendryk · Feb 23, 2006

VoCSe said:
I think that if there are 3 foreign possessions on the coast of southern China, rather than 2, some economic union might take place between them.

I'm not so sure about that. While it would have made sense in a free-trade paradigm, in those days the colonial logic was rather to keep each sphere of influence tightly separated, especially the British and French ones. In Shanghai, unless I'm mistaken, there was no trading agreement between the French and international (British/American) concessions, even though they were directly next to each other.

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy · Feb 23, 2006

Hendryk said:
I'm not so sure about that. While it would have made sense in a free-trade paradigm, in those days the colonial logic was rather to keep each sphere of influence tightly separated, especially the British and French ones. In Shanghai, unless I'm mistaken, there was no trading agreement between the French and international (British/American) concessions, even though they were directly next to each other.

True, but we're talking post-1946 here. Colonialism is dying.

Martel · Feb 23, 2006

A French colony in China certainly wouldn't be the same as Macao. Portugal is a much poorer country than France, so the investment in the area would be much greater. Also I suspect that the refugees from Indochina would tend to be the wealthier classes, bringing more money into the colony. It probably wouldn't be as huge as Hong Kong for various reasons including English as the most common international business language, Hong Kong's long pre-eminence as the main port of entry for China, and smaller Chinese cities nearby. Still it would be a major center for business.
As far as Sino-French relations, I don't see it as a major sticking point. If it became one, France would pretty much have to drop the colony unless they had US backing to keep it. OTL France had better relations with Mao than anyone in the West. De Gaulle actually recognized the PRC long before Nixon, and France played a key behind-the-scenes role in rapproachment. I don't see Mao throwing away the good will of France and potentially risking war with the US simply to grab a tiny little scrap of land. If he didn't pressure Portugal, he wouldn't go after France.

benedict XVII · Feb 23, 2006

I would look at a mix between Monaco and the French West Indies to get an idea as to how France might manage the enclave: low taxes, secondary financial center, cute archictecture, somewhat laidback but with style, a certain dose of corruption, quite a bit of interethnic mingling, etc. People who want to do business would go to Hong-Kong, people who want to gamble and f*** hookers would go to Macao, and people who want to enjoy a good life would go Kwang-Chou-Wang.

Wendell · Feb 23, 2006

VoCSe said:
There's a difference between lease, occupation, and annexation. Wikipedia gets it wrong saying it was ever annexed, it was occupied. The reasons I'm saying it was leased in the same year are: 1) it doesn't take that long to negotiate "we'll keep it until..." (even peace treaties are negotiated faster) and 2) the New Territories, Weihaiwei (both occupied in 1898), Kiaochow (occupied in 1897), and Port Arthur (occupied in either 1897 or 1898) were also leased in 1898. An analogy with 2) is very reasonable, especially in light of 1).

I told you I love splitting hairs. I'm also very good at it. You won't find a better hair-splitter on this board.

Case closed, back to the original discussion.

I think that if there are 3 foreign possessions on the coast of southern China, rather than 2, some economic union might take place between them.

Why would an economic union there be formed?