AHC: Independent Hong Kong

Status
Not open for further replies.
How could Hong Kong possibly become an independent city state like Singapore?

As far as I understand, Singapore declared independence because of racial tensions between Chinese and Malays and Kuala Lumpur's fears of Singapore's economic and speculated future political dominance within the Federation.

Could the British foster a separate identity for Hong Kong, perhaps with earlier democratic reform? Are the pro-Beijing sentiments of the business elite inevitable? Would China have to be in a worse state than IOTL, possibly thanks to a more chaotic Cultural Revolution, perhaps with a consolidation of the Gang of Four's power?
 
Hong Kong's primary value to China is as an entrepot. The value of Hong Kong is diminished if China itself was easier to trade with. Therefore, if you wish for an independent Hong Kong, you'd have to butterfly away China's capitalism. Maybe if the Cultural Revolution ended with all of Mao's enemies (including Deng) dead, imprisoned or exiled, then you'd see an independent Hong Kong, as an independent Hong Kong in this case would have more value to the mainland than one integrated with China.
 
Hong Kong's primary value to China is as an entrepot. The value of Hong Kong is diminished if China itself was easier to trade with.

Do you mean an independent Hong Kong's primary value to China is as an entrepot?

Also say the British cultivated a separate cultural identity to mainland, mandarin-speaking Han, could that affect China's want to make it part of them. I know they have a drive to unite the country, ethnic, cultural and religious differences be damned, but could it at least make them hesitate?
 
Britain would definitely have had to introduce democracy earlier. Much earlier, not otl's 'ooo, weve got to hand over the colony now, so lets pretend we're the good guys'.

Maybe some democracy by the late 50s, full internal autonomy about 1970, independence guaranteed by Britain in the late 1970s. Then when the lease runs out, Hong Kong is far more viable, economically and politically.
 
Britain would definitely have had to introduce democracy earlier. Much earlier, not otl's 'ooo, weve got to hand over the colony now, so lets pretend we're the good guys'.

Maybe some democracy by the late 50s, full internal autonomy about 1970, independence guaranteed by Britain in the late 1970s. Then when the lease runs out, Hong Kong is far more viable, economically and politically.

That sounds pretty good. Now why would Britain be thinking that far ahead?
 
That sounds pretty good. Now why would Britain be thinking that far ahead?

The Suez Crisis goes badly and all hell breaks loose in Malaya, showcasing the problems with Britain's power projection abilities in the late 1950s. This problem forces Britain to start allowing Hong Kong some degree of autonomy, as can easily run the place on their own but cannot assure its security if the PRC was to get into any fights with Britain, a point made clearer still after China's first nuclear bomb test in June 1964.

Britain's problems in the late 1960s see them focus on their efforts at home, and as a result Britain gives larger degrees of autonomy to Hong Kong in the 1970s, noticing that Singapore and Malaysia are doing quite alright for themselves. This causes China to be massively inward looking at the time, and an immense power struggle in the late 1970s after Mao's death. The chaos in China causes the idea of Britain giving the colony back to China to be dismissed out of hand. Hong Kong instead evolves through the 1980s, aiming to be fully independent by 1990. The British Government of the time agrees in theory, but sees the problem posed by China's militant government, which starting the early 1980s starts talking of taking Hong Kong and Macau back by force, as making it impossible to create an independent Hong Kong.

Somewhat ironically, the dilemna is solved by the United States. After restorations of relations with the Republic of China in 1992 following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the destruction of Subic Bay and Clark Air Base in the Philippines by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, the United States elects to move its East Asia bases to Taiwan in 1992, and the year after that Hong Kong proposes the use of the territory as a naval installation in return for the United States and Hong Kong guaranteeing its sovereignty. Hong Kong sweetens the deal by beginning the construction of a facility on their own, and also begins negotiations with the UK over formal independence. China objects, but it doesn't seem to matter in Hong Kong, where even the overwhelming Chinese majority has little love to the People's Republic.

The deal is finally done in February 1994, with Hong Kong becoming an independent nation on July 1, 1997, with its security guaranteed by the United Kingdom and the United States, with the half-built naval base at Tui Min Hoi being transferred to the United States Navy and the Royal Navy on that date as well - by which point its construction has been finished.
 
The Suez Crisis goes badly and all hell breaks loose in Malaya, showcasing the problems with Britain's power projection abilities in the late 1950s. This problem forces Britain to start allowing Hong Kong some degree of autonomy, as can easily run the place on their own but cannot assure its security if the PRC was to get into any fights with Britain, a point made clearer still after China's first nuclear bomb test in June 1964.

Britain's problems in the late 1960s see them focus on their efforts at home, and as a result Britain gives larger degrees of autonomy to Hong Kong in the 1970s, noticing that Singapore and Malaysia are doing quite alright for themselves. This causes China to be massively inward looking at the time, and an immense power struggle in the late 1970s after Mao's death. The chaos in China causes the idea of Britain giving the colony back to China to be dismissed out of hand. Hong Kong instead evolves through the 1980s, aiming to be fully independent by 1990. The British Government of the time agrees in theory, but sees the problem posed by China's militant government, which starting the early 1980s starts talking of taking Hong Kong and Macau back by force, as making it impossible to create an independent Hong Kong.

Somewhat ironically, the dilemna is solved by the United States. After restorations of relations with the Republic of China in 1992 following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the destruction of Subic Bay and Clark Air Base in the Philippines by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, the United States elects to move its East Asia bases to Taiwan in 1992, and the year after that Hong Kong proposes the use of the territory as a naval installation in return for the United States and Hong Kong guaranteeing its sovereignty. Hong Kong sweetens the deal by beginning the construction of a facility on their own, and also begins negotiations with the UK over formal independence. China objects, but it doesn't seem to matter in Hong Kong, where even the overwhelming Chinese majority has little love to the People's Republic.

The deal is finally done in February 1994, with Hong Kong becoming an independent nation on July 1, 1997, with its security guaranteed by the United Kingdom and the United States, with the half-built naval base at Tui Min Hoi being transferred to the United States Navy and the Royal Navy on that date as well - by which point its construction has been finished.

I like the start, but don't see the UK actions causing China to be inward looking.
 
Also say the British cultivated a separate cultural identity to mainland, mandarin-speaking Han, could that affect China's want to make it part of them. I know they have a drive to unite the country, ethnic, cultural and religious differences be damned, but could it at least make them hesitate?

I've been to Hong Kong a bunch of times. They're way, way, way more Chinese than they are anything else. The whole "separate identity" thing is rather overblown in my opinion.
 
I've been to Hong Kong a bunch of times. They're way, way, way more Chinese than they are anything else. The whole "separate identity" thing is rather overblown in my opinion.

Having lived in Beijing, and then visited HK, I have to say the two places, and their people are very different indeed. If the Brits could realise this and work on it, they could create a bigger problem. They could also do what they did in Malaya and import a bunch of Indians (more than they did IOTL). That should screw up the ethnic balance a bit.
 
Having lived in Beijing, and then visited HK, I have to say the two places, and their people are very different indeed. If the Brits could realise this and work on it, they could create a bigger problem. They could also do what they did in Malaya and import a bunch of Indians (more than they did IOTL). That should screw up the ethnic balance a bit.

I think itwiuld be better to compare Hong Kong to a nearby port city. It is like you saying that New Yorkers and Los Angelenos are not both american because of the lifestyle differences.
 
The Suez Crisis goes badly and all hell breaks loose in Malaya, showcasing the problems with Britain's power projection abilities in the late 1950s. This problem forces Britain to start allowing Hong Kong some degree of autonomy, as can easily run the place on their own but cannot assure its security if the PRC was to get into any fights with Britain, a point made clearer still after China's first nuclear bomb test in June 1964.

Britain's problems in the late 1960s see them focus on their efforts at home, and as a result Britain gives larger degrees of autonomy to Hong Kong in the 1970s, noticing that Singapore and Malaysia are doing quite alright for themselves. This causes China to be massively inward looking at the time, and an immense power struggle in the late 1970s after Mao's death. The chaos in China causes the idea of Britain giving the colony back to China to be dismissed out of hand. Hong Kong instead evolves through the 1980s, aiming to be fully independent by 1990. The British Government of the time agrees in theory, but sees the problem posed by China's militant government, which starting the early 1980s starts talking of taking Hong Kong and Macau back by force, as making it impossible to create an independent Hong Kong.

Somewhat ironically, the dilemna is solved by the United States. After restorations of relations with the Republic of China in 1992 following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the destruction of Subic Bay and Clark Air Base in the Philippines by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, the United States elects to move its East Asia bases to Taiwan in 1992, and the year after that Hong Kong proposes the use of the territory as a naval installation in return for the United States and Hong Kong guaranteeing its sovereignty. Hong Kong sweetens the deal by beginning the construction of a facility on their own, and also begins negotiations with the UK over formal independence. China objects, but it doesn't seem to matter in Hong Kong, where even the overwhelming Chinese majority has little love to the People's Republic.

The deal is finally done in February 1994, with Hong Kong becoming an independent nation on July 1, 1997, with its security guaranteed by the United Kingdom and the United States, with the half-built naval base at Tui Min Hoi being transferred to the United States Navy and the Royal Navy on that date as well - by which point its construction has been finished.

I'll take this
 
How could Hong Kong possibly become an independent city state like Singapore?

As far as I understand, Singapore declared independence because of racial tensions between Chinese and Malays and Kuala Lumpur's fears of Singapore's economic and speculated future political dominance within the Federation.

We didn't declare independence- we got expelled from the Federation.

Having lived in Beijing, and then visited HK, I have to say the two places, and their people are very different indeed. If the Brits could realise this and work on it, they could create a bigger problem. They could also do what they did in Malaya and import a bunch of Indians (more than they did IOTL). That should screw up the ethnic balance a bit.

See the difference is that in Malaya the majority of Indians were Tamils, imported as indentured labour for the plantations- the local Malay population was deemed unsuitable for manual labour by the British. There's no need for this volume of labour in Hong Kong, firstly because Hong Kong wasn't running a resource extraction economy and secondly, because the British didn't see the Chinese as unsuited to manual labour.
 
Agreed- how different are Hong Kongers to the citizens of Guangzhou?

Same dialect, deeply similar cultural practices, ethnicity checks out for the most part too. They're pretty much identical except Hong Kongers tend to be more politically outspoken.
 
Same dialect, deeply similar cultural practices, ethnicity checks out for the most part too. They're pretty much identical except Hong Kongers tend to be more politically outspoken.

The influx of Mandarin speakers into all southern cities is starting to upset the Canto/Mandarin balance a bit though, and the governments goal is still a unified China, so I don't know how against the dissolving of Canto culture they are.
 
Maybe a still living Bruce Lee causes Hong Kong's global cultural impact to grow more and faster earlier than OTL, sparking something of an even more separate Hong Kong identity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top