Avoiding Lost Decades: A Modern History (1979-2019)

[Electric Monk]

Avoiding Lost Decades #2: The Hong Kong Problem



Major Events Regarding Hong Kong During 1979-1984

March 1979
Sir Murray MacLehose meets then vice Premier Deng Xiaoping. Deng's remarks include phrasing that the investors need not worry.

May 1979
Conservative Party wins election in the United Kingdom

May 1980
New British Dependent Territories Citizens status introduced against Hong Kong protests.

April 1981
Lord Carrington delivers the British position on Hong Kong to Deng Xiaoping.

October 1981
Conservative backbenchers revolt, and the British Nationality Act fails.

December 1981
Hong Kong insists on a referendum over their status to the British government via back-channels. With Thatcher's Conservative government looking increasingly shaky she refuses, as has been the position of the United Kingdom for decades.

October 1982
Thatcher's visit to China. Thatcher retains the position of the British government, in that Hong Kong Island and Kowloon are British soil and that the New Territories are under lease until 1997 and it would be perfectly reasonable to extend said lease.

The two sides do not see eye-to-eye, and Thatcher takes a strong position on Hong Kong[1].

The 5th session of the 5th National People's Congress does not amend the constitution.

January 1983
Former Prime Minister Edward Heath visits China for unofficial talks. Xiaoping is unwilling to alter his claim upon Hong Kong.

February 1983
With no assurances of Hong Kong's capitalist system surviving, the British seek support among their allies on the Hong Kong issue. The United States recently improved their relations by somewhat settling the Taiwan problem, but relations between China—although good—are quite shallow.

President Ronald Reagan still believes the Republic of China is the real government of China, despite reducing arms sales to them, and so he decides to support Britain on the Hong Kong Issue. Something about d**m commies thinking they can just run the British out of town.

March 1983
Americans begin exerting pressure on China through diplomatic channels.

April 1983
Under growing pressure from expanding protests in the streets of Hong Kong and her own Conservative backbench, along with Chinese refusal to compromise on any part of the Hong Kong transfer issue[2] Thatcher is forced to allow a referendum in Hong Kong.

American diplomatic pressure on China grows.

Previously improving American-Chinese and Sino-Japanese relations take a turn for the worst. The Japanese are following the American lead.

May 1983
The Hong Kong Referendum sees a vast majority of Hong Kong citizens vote to remain/become British subjects. As this was not a surprise to anybody, its main value is as propaganda tool by the British.

August 1983
With Typhoon Ellen ravaging the city formal talks begin again between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China.

Americans leak to the Chinese that they are thinking of establishing diplomatic relations with the Republic of China, and increasing arms sales again. The Chinese are upset with the Americans but President Reagan stands firm. Tensions escalate in the strait of Taiwan.

Under American prodding the Japanese enter quiet talks with China over full support for their Special Economic Zone project, but only if they leave Hong Kong alone.

October 1983
British Parliament declares Hong Kong handover is off the table. Thatcher promptly does an end run around her own Conservative caucus with elements of the Liberal and Labour Parties, and the British Parliament subsequently announces its non-interference in Hong Kong negotiations.

November-December 1983
As Chinese military exercises take place near Hong Kong and Taiwan a series of protests break out. Although there are a fair number of protesters most are concerned with different issues—it can best be seen as a broad anti-government protest, with various issues concerning various groups.

Deng Xiaoping is forced to crush the protests, but video leaks out to Western news organizations. Thatcher's hand is forced on the Hong Kong issue.

January 1984
British Parliament begins wholesale reorganization of British overseas possessions adopting the French idea of making territories essentially part of the British isles, just with a little more distance. Thatcher is now fighting on several fronts, and is determined

The Chinese are unwilling to lose face but Deng Xiaoping's modernization plan rests on getting Western support for his Special Economic Zones and it seems clear that the British can get the Americans and Japanese to support their position, especially after the protests.

In return for a New Territories lease extension, the British government will accept China's non-acceptance of British sovereignty over Hong Kong Island and Kowloon (and Macao, at this point). Furthermore the British will substantially support China's Special Economic Zones via government support, will not publicly dispute China's historical claims, and will provide major technical support for projects at China's discretion—though those will be compensated for.

The Chinese refuse the offer.

February 1984
Under heavy pressure from Hong Kong and her own backbench, as well as being determined not to back down over this issue Thatcher makes Hong Kong part of the United Kingdom and makes all Hong Kong subjects British citizens with full travel rights.

The Chinese turn off water and power to Hong Kong.

Over the next 48 hours the deal is accepted by the Chinese when it's made clear that the British will do whatever it takes not to abandon Hong Kong—especially given the lack of Chinese assurances about their fate.

The deal, however, is explicitly written as a British cave-in with a hypothetical good deal for the British leaked to the media, making the then-announced deal seem like the British gave in to Chinese demands in order to get water and power. As the Chinese demand for all of Hong Kong never went beyond quiet diplomatic talks the media sees this as a mixed bag for both sides, but perception coalesces around "Hong Kong wasn't worth that deal" outside the United Kingdom itself.

As this was part of the deal, the Chinese are reasonably satisfied and declare their One China policy even more explicitly—the Taiwanese government understands the point.

Deng Xiaoping increases the pace of reform, by expanding and adding Special Economic Zones and focusing more on the military. The Hong Kong situation has weakened Xiaoping and strengthened both the reform movement and the anti-reform movement.



[1] ITTL she followed the economic "big bang" approach, and this has generated enough butterfliesto change her outlook on Hong Kong. Not that much, but just enough to take a harder stance.

[2] ITTL the One China, Two System stuff has not been passed—no Special Administrative Regions.
----------
Quick fix:

Hong Kong Property Market Down 10%. B1. November 18, 1983.

China Compromises On Hong Kong Problem. A2. February 24, 1984

Should be 1982 in the first one.

For the second one, new headline:


Britain Backs Down, But Keeps Hong Kong. A2. February 3, 1984

 

[Bishop]

The British are playing every card they have at this point. Reagan likes Thatcher, and doesn't particularly care about China as long as he gets full UK backing on other issues

You really are forgetting something about U.S-China relations, the Americans want China as a ally against the Soviet Union. During this time, if the Soviet Union marched west, China marches north. America saw China as a valuable ally against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union had a large amount of men facing the chinese border which the Americans wanted to leave to the chinese.

I'm sorry, but you've completely misjudged the situation.

 

[Bishop]

I don't understand this, you have a good TL with the Japanese just avoiding the bubble, but now you're simply making more changes that don't necessarily have to happen and this is one situation that you've made strong miscalculations with.

 

[Electric Monk]

You really are forgetting something about U.S-China relations, the Americans want China as a ally against the Soviet Union. During this time, if the Soviet Union marched west, China marches north. America saw China as a valuable ally against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union had a large amount of men facing the chinese border which the Americans wanted to leave to the Chinese.

Eh. You're overestimating how much faith the US placed in China. Were relations normalizing between the two? Sure, but it didn't really speed up until ~1985 OTL and given China's problems with the USSR there was never any threat the Chinese would say to the USSR "Go conquer Western Europe, we won't attack you".

Regardless of American-Chinese relations China isn't going to draw down their USSR border forces, or sign peace treaties with the USSR.

That said, perhaps you're right that the US wouldn't place as much pressure on the China as I have them do.

I don't understand this, you have a good TL with the Japanese just avoiding the bubble, but now you're simply making more changes that don't necessarily have to happen and this is one situation that you've made strong miscalculations with.

And that's the main focus, but you were interested (mildly obsessed? ) with the UK retaining Hong Kong & China so I've gone into more detail.

Is it likely? Perhaps not. But it's certainly possible that a UK determined to keep Hong Kong does in fact keep it.

ETA: However they do need a reason. I used no Two Systems, but that's probably not enough. What about some good old fashioned government repression? Perhaps a backlash against Deng Xiaoping's reforms? If there's a small scale Tiananmen Square type incident but if it gets into the news the British bargaining hand becomes pretty darn strong.

The Chinese may simply take the long view, and revisit the issue in fifty years.

 

[Bishop]

And that's the main focus, but you were mildly obsessed with the UK retaining Hong Kong & China so I've gone into more detail.

Is it likely? Perhaps not. But it's certainly possible that a UK determined to keep Hong Kong does in fact keep it.

The reason I've kept this up was because of the sheer asbishness of the first post, if you just stayed with Japan in your first post and kept out of other countrie's politics which required many more POD that don't concern Japan then things would be far more likely.

Why did you have to talk about Hong Kong in your first post then if this is mainly about Japan?

 

[CalBear]

This TL has simply jumped the believability shark.

It started at the very outer edge of possible with Japan avoiding the '90s crash (something that requires Japan to alter the very foundation of its economy, the foundation that allowed for the economic growth that made Japan an economic powerhouse in the first place). Now it also requires the Chinese Communist Party to meekly surrender one of the central teaching of the Party dating to before the Long March for no reason at all.

Without even serious consideration I can come up with plenty of reasons for this to fail

* Polititical (and likely, physical) survival of the Leaders in Beijing. There are consequences for failure in China that extend well beyond loss of position.

* Political survival of the BRITISH Tory government. Make ALL the residents of Hong Kong and any other remaining Crown possession full British citizens? Yea, the electorate would LOVE that, nothing like a massive influx of immigrats (excuse me, just plain folks moving) to improve the labor market. This would bring down any Prime Minister who proposed it.

* Defend the New Territories and Hong Kong from the PLA with UK forces. Utter impossibility. If you took the entire Royal Army and moved it to the region you would stll have less than 175,000 men, with maybe 1/3 of those being trigger pullers. The PLA could LOSE 500,000 men taking Hong Kong and survive very nicely, thank you. The same goes for the RAF, despite it's unit for unit superiority, it caps out at around 150 fighters (including RN Sea Harriers that were in service at the time). I'm not sure that the RAF even has enough AAM's to shoot down the PLAAF's inventory of fighters & attack aircraft (in 1995 the PLAAF had over 3,000 J-6 (aka improved MIG-19) fighters, obsolete as the day is long, but enough to form an aluminium cloud over Hong Kong).

* Political cost of DEFENDING HK. How long would the Electorate stand for massive losses before the Government fell? As an example withness the reaction of the voters in the UK (or U.S. for that matter) to the rather light, relatively speaking, losses suffered duing the 2nd Iraq war. The Royal Army would suffer a couple thousand KIA in the first HOUR defending HK.

* Economic damage to the UK . The U.S. deployment in Iraq, which is supporting around the same number of troops as noted above for the Royal Army & RAF has a price tag of roughly $1,250,000,000.00 per day. The Defense Budget of the United Kingdom would support this rate of expenditure for right around 60 days. A single year's budget for the deployment would be around $480 Billion (or 40% of the total Budget of UK). The Current military Budget of the UK is about 7.5% of the gross spending. Defending Hong Kong bankrupts the UK in about 10 years (if not less).

Pure ASB.

ASB T/L's can be fun. They also have their place here on the board.

 

[TheMann]

This TL has simply jumped the believability shark.

It started at the very outer edge of possible with Japan avoiding the '90s crash (something that requires Japan to alter the very foundation of its economy, the foundation that allowed for the economic growth that made Japan an economic powerhouse in the first place). Now it also requires the Chinese Communist Party to meekly surrender one of the central teaching of the Party dating to before the Long March for no reason at all.

Without even serious consideration I can come up with plenty of reasons for this to fail

* Polititical (and likely, physical) survival of the Leaders in Beijing. There are consequences for failure in China that extend well beyond loss of position.

* Political survival of the BRITISH Tory government. Make ALL the residents of Hong Kong and any other remaining Crown possession full British citizens? Yea, the electorate would LOVE that, nothing like a massive influx of immigrats (excuse me, just plain folks moving) to improve the labor market. This would bring down any Prime Minister who proposed it.

* Defend the New Territories and Hong Kong from the PLA with UK forces. Utter impossibility. If you took the entire Royal Army and moved it to the region you would stll have less than 175,000 men, with maybe 1/3 of those being trigger pullers. The PLA could LOSE 500,000 men taking Hong Kong and survive very nicely, thank you. The same goes for the RAF, despite it's unit for unit superiority, it caps out at around 150 fighters (including RN Sea Harriers that were in service at the time). I'm not sure that the RAF even has enough AAM's to shoot down the PLAAF's inventory of fighters & attack aircraft (in 1995 the PLAAF had over 3,000 J-6 (aka improved MIG-19) fighters, obsolete as the day is long, but enough to form an aluminium cloud over Hong Kong).

* Political cost of DEFENDING HK. How long would the Electorate stand for massive losses before the Government fell? As an example withness the reaction of the voters in the UK (or U.S. for that matter) to the rather light, relatively speaking, losses suffered duing the 2nd Iraq war. The Royal Army would suffer a couple thousand KIA in the first HOUR defending HK.

* Economic damage to the UK . The U.S. deployment in Iraq, which is supporting around the same number of troops as noted above for the Royal Army & RAF has a price tag of roughly $1,250,000,000.00 per day. The Defense Budget of the United Kingdom would support this rate of expenditure for right around 60 days. A single year's budget for the deployment would be around $480 Billion (or 40% of the total Budget of UK). The Current military Budget of the UK is about 7.5% of the gross spending. Defending Hong Kong bankrupts the UK in about 10 years (if not less).

Pure ASB.

ASB T/L's can be fun. They also have their place here on the board.

Hold on here.

WHERE does he say a crap load of troops go to HK? He didn't. China wanted it back, and the UK refused.

Secondly, what happened in his case with Japan is a radical overhaul of the banking and financial systems, which eventually happened in the 1990s post zatieku anyways. Here, a big problem appeared much earlier, and the corruption and financial backdoor dealings got stopped. That just keeps things growing, but not seeing it go into overdrive with the bubble economy.

Third, political issues. Hong Kong was not Chinese territory to begin with, and Xiaoping was smart enough that he could stomach losing face with the West if it would make the situation for the country better. China in the early 1980s needed capital to really get into the world economy, and if the Brits have the ear of Reagan - who was viciously anti-communist - who is gonna provide that capital? The Japanese? Remember how long that Japan's memories are. Europe? Probably would side with the Brits. Canada? Forget it.

On the issue of integrating Hong Kong, Thatcher didn't take s**t from anybody, which was a good and bad thing. She proved that rather well in the Falklands by kicking the s**t out of the Argentines. China is a much bigger enemy, but is China going to go to war over a small island? Especially when that small island is helping your economy immensely? Neither side will want to back down (if anything, part of this is because Deng is as much a hardass as Thatcher is) but in the end, they both back off to an extent. Deng loses some power here, but he also gets enough respect back that the SEZs can start drawing investment.


As far as the immigrant stuff is concerned, how many immigrants were already in the UK in 1984? Hong Kong was about 5 million people at the time, and about 90% Chinese. So, you stack in another 4.5 million immigrants, and an economically prosperous gateway. I don't think the political cost would be all that serious, especially considering Hong Kong's prosperity.

 

[Electric Monk]

It seems that I've been beaten down by everyone who doesn't believe negotiations between China and the UK can wind up in the UK favour, instead of massively in the Chinese favour as happened OTL.

I'm not entirely sure how/why China is held is such esteem and the UK is not (since they're both rational actors, at least if China wants to participate in the world economic community) but hey, I can take a hint.

I guess I'll come back to this in a bit when I do some retooling.

(Oh and avoiding the 90s crash in Japan, CalBear? Bad monetary policy and an underlying structure that could have used reform. Nothing complicated or implausible to change, and if I just wanted to avoid the crash it would be a butterfly in the Bank of Japan. I have grander (grandiose ) plans)



What about an independent Hong Kong? Would that be possible/reasonable? Say that China doesn't pass the One China, Two Systems stuff and they get stuck in the early eighties with some protester crushing so the British don't want to deal. Hong Kong citizens filp, and leave and China takes enough of a hit so they decide that the British controlling it is unacceptable but a neutral Hong Kong city-state will work.

Or is China insane enough to want Hong Kong no matter the damage?

 

[Electric Monk]

Due to comments making me aware that China is far less rational than I thought during the early 1980s we're going to have to eliminate Teaser #2 and Post #2. Oh and I suppose Teaser #1 will concern Taiwan, instead of Hong Kong, unless somebody helps me out with at least keeping Hong Kong as an independent city-state.

(I will still maintain that the UK could have taken a hardline position, and that because of President Reagan's support for Taiwan the USA could certainly have backed them up on it. I reluctantly admit that Chinese insanity can outweigh those two factors.)

I would prefer not to subject 6 million free(ish) people to a brutal dictatorship with no particular regard for their lives (so if anyone has ideas to keep Hong Kong at least a Singapore style neutral city-state I'm all ears) but if I'm stuck with it, I'm stuck with it.

Next post will talk more about the economic reforms of Japan, and continue past 1985.

 

[Dan1988]

Actually, I think where you are going with HK has been great so far, EM. Regarding the independent HK: have you ever heard of the Hong Konger Front? That is exactly what they want, because they claim that Hong Kongers haven't had a say in their future.

 

[Electric Monk]

Actually, I think where you are going with HK has been great so far, EM. Regarding the independent HK: have you ever heard of the Hong Konger Front? That is exactly what they want, because they claim that Hong Kongers haven't had a say in their future.

Thanks, but looking into it China does seem basically insane in the 1980s (by the 90s they're more concerned with economic prosperity). Perhaps in the 1990s Hong Kong can wind up independent, but it looks as if the British aren't going to keep it.

 

[Dan1988]

^Well, I think that Deng is a reasonable person. Despite claiming HK, I think that there could be a way for a lease renewal to take place. Otherwise, the brouhaha with the New Territories would require an earlier POD beyond the scope of this - but I think that given the circumstances of the 1980s I think that Deng and Thatcher could work something out, even if its behind the scenes and hanging a sign on the door saying "NO PRESS ALLOWED".

 

[Electric Monk]

^Well, I think that Deng is a reasonable person. Despite claiming HK, I think that there could be a way for a lease renewal to take place. Otherwise, the brouhaha with the New Territories would require an earlier POD beyond the scope of this - but I think that given the circumstances of the 1980s I think that Deng and Thatcher could work something out, even if its behind the scenes and hanging a sign on the door saying "NO PRESS ALLOWED".

If you have something to back you up, great, at this point all I can find is Thatcher being reasonable and Deng being nuts.

I'm thinking at the moment that China doesn't pass the Two Systems thing (student protests? forcing a crackdown?), and therefore Hong Kong isn't (even mildly) reassured that they get to keep capitalism.

The British are therefore forced not to deal, and the situation effects the 15-year lease agreements on Hong Kong property agreements causing major problems for the city.

By 1990 the British are resigned to not keeping Hong Kong, but determined that China doesn't get it. Unlike the Republic of China it would be absurdly easy for China to invade Hong Kong.

However in 1989 China deals instead of cracking down (as they got hurt in ~1982 by crushing protesters, and IOTL it was a close decision to use force in 1989) and new slightly more liberal China is willing to deal on Hong Kong.

Further 1990 Hong Kong has seen perhaps a million people leave (instead of a million by 1995) or more, and is suffering a major recession. China wants the economic benefits of Hong Kong more than actually directly controlling the city, but they remain unwilling to let the British keep it.

Perhaps the United Kingdom acknowledges they don't own Hong Kong Island/Kowloon forever and is given a 99 year lease on all of Hong Kong, on the condition they promptly transfer said lease to a (non) independent Chinese Hong Kong—same way as the Republic of China is listed as Chinese Taipai.

 

[Dan1988]

^Sounds interesting. I'd like to see a TL regarding that. Bonus points if it involves Japan in some way - IIRC Japan is in OTL one of the biggest investors in the Chinese economy, and around the turn of the last decade the government finally started to address the old wounds of WW2.

 

[Electric Monk]

^Sounds interesting. I'd like to see a TL regarding that. Bonus points if it involves Japan in some way - IIRC Japan is in OTL one of the biggest investors in the Chinese economy, and around the turn of the last decade the government finally started to address the old wounds of WW2.

Well it would be part of this timeline, assuming the pro-China forces find it more plausible.

 

[Electric Monk]

Any thoughts on altering Japanese attitudes towards immigration?

I was thinking the Japanese government is willing to do some tough political things and lets in a whole bunch of, say, Hong Kong Chinese in the 1980s as a calculated attempt to get needed capital & deepen ties to China. A rapid influx of non-labour immigration might provoke a backlash in the beginning, but it may also break the ingrained, if mild, racist attitudes that the Japanese hold.

Once you let in a bunch of Chinese allowing Japanese descended South Americans is the next step, and after that I imagine South Koreans followed by other Asians & probably English speakers from the Commonwealth/USA is next.

That said, I'm not sure how plausible this is. It would require the government to be willing to stick through with unpopular reform, and it would need a fairly fast adaptation of Japanese culture. Not impossible, but there'd to be a solid reason—my current one is simply the government looking at birth rate trends and having some guts.

 

[birdy]

Once you let in a bunch of Chinese allowing Japanese descended South Americans is the next step, and after that I imagine South Koreans followed by other Asians & probably English speakers from the Commonwealth/USA is next.

Prehaps Russians as well, fleeing Post cold war instability.

I quite like this TL, of course i happen to be a Brit wanker and coincidently like scenarios where Japan avoids the lost decade.

 

[Electric Monk]

Prehaps Russians as well, fleeing Post cold war instability.

I quite like this TL, of course i happen to be a Brit wanker and coincidently like scenarios where Japan avoids the lost decade.

The Russian Mob allied to the Japanese Yakuza with strong ties to the Hong Kong Triads—the world of organized crime is unstoppable!

The British are in fact going to do better in this timeline (although perhaps not as well as if they had kept Hong Kong ) for a couple reasons.

 

[CalBear]

Any thoughts on altering Japanese attitudes towards immigration?

I was thinking the Japanese government is willing to do some tough political things and lets in a whole bunch of, say, Hong Kong Chinese in the 1980s as a calculated attempt to get needed capital & deepen ties to China. A rapid influx of non-labour immigration might provoke a backlash in the beginning, but it may also break the ingrained, if mild, racist attitudes that the Japanese hold.

Once you let in a bunch of Chinese allowing Japanese descended South Americans is the next step, and after that I imagine South Koreans followed by other Asians & probably English speakers from the Commonwealth/USA is next.

That said, I'm not sure how plausible this is. It would require the government to be willing to stick through with unpopular reform, and it would need a fairly fast adaptation of Japanese culture. Not impossible, but there'd to be a solid reason—my current one is simply the government looking at birth rate trends and having some guts.

Sure, no problem at all. Simply reverse 30 centuries of culture and tradition in a stroke. You are planning to recreate an economy basis by the addition of a Central bank (which in itself would be a massive shift in the Japanese economy and would likely stifle the conditions that allowed the economic miracle in the first place) so changing the deep seated traditions of an entire people should be simple.

Things don't change that easily, not in the short term. Want to effect a cultural change? Try eliminating the Tokugawa bakufu around a year after the battle of Sekigahara and allowing the Portuguese to take over the Islands. Better yet, allow the Mongol invasion to succeed.

Things don't change because they would be nice, or simply to create a "happier" future. I would be delighted if Hong Kong was still British, and if Macau was still Portuguese. I would be even happier if the PRC was a liberal democracy, unfortunately, that simply isn't in the cards. The PRC is what it is, a ruthless dictatorship using the veil of communism as justification for controlling most aspects of its citizens lives. Far too many people see the PRC as just another emerging economy, a larger version of Japan or South Korea, it isn't. The CCP allows some open market, as long as it creates foreign income, the moment that stops, the permission will stop. The PRC government isn't Shanghi or any other development zone, the PRC leadership is Tainanmen Square. This is the real world & it has to be accepted as such. Any timeline has to take this into account or it needs to go to ASB land.

Eliminating the Keirestu and Shunto from Japanese business is effectively impossible if you want the economic growth that existed leading up to the Bubble. The Bank/Manufacturer relationship was WHAT ALLOWED Japanese companies to grow so quickly and to assume market dominant positions that permitted them to survive the 90's downturn.

Altering the Japanese cultural traditions governing outsiders will be at least an order of magnitude harder than altering the economy. It isn't that the Japanese do not understand the outside world (their business leadership probably understands foreign markets better than many of their local competitors understand their own neighbors), nor do they fear it; either of these would be easy to alter, it is that the culture as a whole likes the way things are and sees no reason to change. The people didn't see the need to change pre-Bubble, during the Bubble, or after the Bubble. Japan is a homogenuos society, it has been for at least two millenia, and like most such societies it will not change in a generation (or six).

I truly wish you luck with this T/L. Making it track will be incredibly difficult if you want to stay in the real world.

 

[TheMann]

It seems that I've been beaten down by everyone who doesn't believe negotiations between China and the UK can wind up in the UK favour, instead of massively in the Chinese favour as happened OTL.

I'm not entirely sure how/why China is held is such esteem and the UK is not (since they're both rational actors, at least if China wants to participate in the world economic community) but hey, I can take a hint.

Not from these quarters. They are right in saying that if China was willing to fight for it the UK couldn't beat them, but China was not that dumb. They needed the hard currency to get into the world economy, and if the brawl over HK blew up real bad they wouldn't get it, and would be stuck without it. Deng knew this and so did Thatcher, which is why from where I sit its quite easily possible for HK to stay British. It would have to come with major economic help to China, but I think Deng could stomach losing face as long as it helped his country.

Bishop is Chinese as I understand it, so he's definitely gonna side with the PRC.

(Oh and avoiding the 90s crash in Japan, CalBear? Bad monetary policy and an underlying structure that could have used reform. Nothing complicated or implausible to change, and if I just wanted to avoid the crash it would be a butterfly in the Bank of Japan. I have grander (grandiose ) plans)

CalBear is essentially saying that the bank/manufacturer relationship is why Japan got going in the first place. He is right on that front, but he's forgetting that there is a lot of money in there, the vast majority of it not corporate. That's why so many Japanese were furious in the early 90s demanding reform, and why Japan Post's bank accounts have so much in them. The big corporate banks lost trillions - literally - and practically all of it came out of the hands of the Japanese. Here, you have such corruption caught early, and as a result the Japanese, who were disgusted with corruption to begin with, played hardball.