Britain refuses to give back hong kong

terence

Banned
Hong Kong Reality Check

The PLA could have walked into HK anytime after 1948. It was common cause that the Territory was indefensible. Why didn't the Chinese take it back or even demand a speed up of the handover? Simply that HK was their only channel to the West from 1948 to 1980 and was useful economically and politically. They only ever insisted that it was "Chinese Territory obtained by unequal treaties". The place neatly changed from being "The colony of Hong Kong" to "The territory of Hong Kong" to please China.
In the 70s and 80s as the handover got close there was a lot of debate about what to do. Depending on who was actually calling the shots in Beijing, several options arose. First HK Island and Kowloon up to Boundry Street were ceded to Britain "In perpertuity". Trouble is , Boundry Street is a short walk from Nathan Road . The Island and Kowloon are not viable on their own in a modern world. There was discussion about a 50 year or even 99 year renewed lease on the NT. There was even the theory that "Gow Sip Gow" (Ninety-nine in Cantonese), actually meant "for ever".
The bottom line is that with the changes in China in the 80s--HK has actually taken over China, rather than the other way around.
As to how the UK may have handled a precipitate takover see "The eye of the Tiger' by Douglas Hurd, a one-time British Foreign Minister
 
Is this a serious proposal?

That the United Kingdom kill 40 or so MILLION people to retain Hong Kong, a location that is indefensible and unsupportable in anything except the very short term? (Take a look at the multiple sites the PLA Rocket Forces have weapons deployed, you'll probably be surprised; I know I was. Now do the overlay game for the weapon sites and figure out how many people live within the effect zones and/or the fallout zones from the groundbursts.)Especially when NONE of the PRC weapons can strike the UK (except the SLBM weapons on the Xia, which would be blown to Mars as soon as it began to flood tubes by either an American, British or Russian SSN, maybe by all three).

That is INSANE.
That's Why I Suggested a Conventional Attack, Especially if it Used The Newly Activated B-2 Spirit ...

China's ONLY ICBMs at The Time were between 20-25 DF-5 (CSS-4)s ...

A Properly Conducted Stealth Mission could Take Down The Missiles without Any Chance of a Hostile Launch, Particularly because of their 30-60 Minute Fueling Time!

:eek:
 
That's Why I Suggested a Conventional Attack, Especially if it Used The Newly Activated B-2 Spirit ...

China's ONLY ICBMs at The Time were between 20-25 DF-5 (CSS-4)s ...

A Properly Conducted Stealth Mission could Take Down The Missiles without Any Chance of a Hostile Launch, Particularly because of their 30-60 Minute Fueling Time!

:eek:
The People's Republic Of China Doesn't Release Information On Where It Holds Its ICBM's.

How Would The United Kingdom Be Able To Conduct A Well Co-Ordinated Strike To Destroy Them Without Knowing Where To Strike?
 
The People's Republic Of China Doesn't Release Information On Where It Holds Its ICBM's.

How Would The United Kingdom Be Able To Conduct A Well Co-Ordinated Strike To Destroy Them Without Knowing Where To Strike?
Satellite Images, are your Friends ...

In The 16 Years Since their Initial 1981 Deployment, NATO Planners have Probably had Plenty of Time to Locate The Requisite Missile Field(s) ...

BTW, LOVE The Typing Style, you Should do it Much More Often!
 
It was in everyone's best interest to hand Hong Kong back over to the Chinese. If Britain didn't hand it back over, it would possibly start up a Cold War between the UK and the PRC. And if that were to happen it would leave a hell of alot of Hong Kong residents stuck right in the middle of it without any way out.

But even if the UK decided against handing HK back or the lease was extended, would it really make that much of a difference. HK would be in exactly the same position it is in now. Basically everyone would still be a UK national (as they are now through BN(O)), they would enjoy a huge degree of autonomy (as they do now and did before) and the ethnic Chinese in HK would enjoy unrestricted travel rights to the Mainland (as they do now and did even before the handover through their Home Return Permit).

But if there was a Cold war between the 2 nations then I'm guessing there would be a huge uproar by both supporters of the PRC and supporters of the UK. The UK would probably be forced to grant them residence in the UK(as they did with all of their other territories after they handed back HK) and alot of HK residents would flee to either the Mainland or the UK but alot would stay. Then, I'm guessing, it would be in the same postion that Taiwan is - uncertainty about it's sovereignty but treated as autonomous.
 
I gave my 2 cents one month ago...

Oh, I belatedly discover this, as a Hong Konger, let me offer my two cents: Thatcher as a rightwing Westerner, didn’t understand (or give a damn) the meaning of Unequal Treaties toward Chinese, for us those treaties mean national humiliation. No Chinese leader would agree to extend those treaties. Had Thatcher not demanding extension of “Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory”, Union Jack may still flying over Hong Kong today.

OTOH, CCP was pragmatic toward Hong Kong most of the time: they could have taken HK easily anytime after 1949 but they didn’t, because in the middle of Cold War, Hong Kong could serve as a window that opened to the West, in terms of goods, people and information. Officially this policy called “make a long-term plan and make full use” (「長期打算,充份利用」). After Sino-American rapprochement, this window function was becoming a bit less needed, but you can’t take International Relations for granted. In 1982, Chinese economic reform was just four years old. It was understandable for the shaky faith toward China of Hong Kong capitalists and masses.

Therefore, let’s say in 1982, Thatcher listened to some of the Whitehall Sinologists’ advice before head for Beijing. Didn’t demand extension of Unequal Treaty, promise Deng that if China demands return of Hong Kong, British would agree and handover process would be last twenty years. British would not change the political system without the Chinese government consent. Sino-British compromise on Hong Kong was made*. China would formally demand the handover of Hong Kong sometime after mid-90’s, when economic reform started to bear fruit.

*Since the detail of Chinese decision making process was still classified, we don’t know how willing Deng would back down if Thatcher not asked for extension of Unequal Treaty. My guess it would not be completely ASB.

At the moment I was leaning to something of a break-down over Hong Kong in the early 80s (perhaps Thatcher, as you say, doesn't demand extension of the Unequal Treaty but equally doesn't just hand HK over) and HK suffers somewhat by the late 80s/early 90s—suffers enough that the Chinese are willing to let HK be as (Taiwan style) as long as the British don't have it.

Thus nobody gets what they want, particularly, and therefore nobody looks too bad in the international community.

Since you seem to be the only Hong Konger around how would the populace of the city treat being like Taiwan? Basically independent, but no seat at the UN.

PRC would not tolerate any form of Hong Kong Independence! Had the Thatcher-Deng talk broke down, PLA would cross the border right away. CCP was extreme paranoid of every British decolonization moves (like took away all Hong Kong treasury back to UK, or gave Hong Kong people democracy before left), so they would gave Britons no time. At first it would look like the Fall of Saigon all over again, but PRC keep their own words, they impose “One Country Two Systems” no political and economic crack down (they still need investments). After initial panic, Hong Kong economy rallied, and boom resumed till Tiananmen Square protests of 1989…
 
Top