No 99 year lease, effect on Hong Kong?

[black angel]

what if in 1898 rather then draw up a 99 year lease for the New Territories Britain and China agreed to a lease in perpetuity like Guantanamo Bay between the US and Cuba, that control of the lands would only be turned out by agreement of both China and the UK

what effect does this have on Hong Kong History? what does HK look like today? is it a colony still? its own country? a full part of the UK? or still does it join China?

 

[thekingsguard]

I imagine Hong Kong would still be a part of the UK, if only to ward off the People's Republic of China across the border. Whether that means that they're still a colony/dominion, or perhaps been integrated directly into Britain - a possibility, given the massive levels of development in Hong Kong. It would be interesting to see what knock on effects that might have on other British colonies, depending on when it happens. We may see Britain retain a collection of former colonies integrated into Britain proper much like France has - I'd be interested to see which colonies might take that route.

I do wonder what the effect might be on the People's Republic of China though - would the lack of Hong Kong effect it's own development or internal politics at all? I doubt we'd see them go to war with Great Britain over it - if it came down to war, nukes would likely fly, and the USA would no doubt intervene to moderate well before then. Would it butterfly the development of the Pearl Delta Megalopolis at all?

 

[EternalCynic]

Macau was ceded to Portugal in perpetuity, and that didn't change history.

 

[AlexG]

Macau was ceded to Portugal in perpetuity, and that didn't change history.

If I remember correctly there were extenuating circumstances specific to Portugal when that occurred....

 

[Reagent]

If I remember correctly there were extenuating circumstances specific to Portugal when that occurred....

Indeed, had the Carnation Revolution not occurred, Portugal will still view Macau as "integral Portuguese territory", and would likely be in possession of Macau today.

 

[EternalCynic]

Indeed, had the Carnation Revolution not occurred, Portugal will still view Macau as "integral Portuguese territory", and would likely be in possession of Macau today.

Portugal actually offered Macau to China in 1974, which it refused. Without the Carnation Revolution it would have met the same fate as Goa. And no one stood up for Portugal in 1961.

Fact is all the other foreign enclaves in China were also under 99 year lease, yet all but one was returned to China prematurely. Any Chinese government will seek the return of its foreign enclaves simply out of nationalism, and no one can blame them.

 

[jeckl]

I think china would just take it any way.

I feel that part of the reason they never bothered was because they were going to get it back any way, so once it stopped being useful; after the US and China make up, they would just walk in and take it.

 

[Alex1guy]

Could Hong Kong be independent? Or would we see Taiwan 2.0?

 

[mcdo]

Fact is all the other foreign enclaves in China were also under 99 year lease, yet all but one was returned to China prematurely. Any Chinese government will seek the return of its foreign enclaves simply out of nationalism, and no one can blame them.

Almost all of them were "returned" to China because they had been captured by the IJA anyway (or were about to be)... it's not really a good example of decolonization.

Anyway, I think it depends on the relation between China and the rest of the world. If China is seen as a useful bulwark against the Soviets, then it will probably be returned. If China is seen as a friendly nation and a potential future important market, then it will be handed over. But I could see it being retained if China was seen as an enemy nation, either as a real part of the Comintern or as a rouge state cut off from the world.

Obviously HK is a not a defensible position. Still, I'm not sure the Goa example is a good one. Britain is a more important power than Portugal. It's a nuclear power, and one that would probably have allies in the US and other Western nations--particularly if it is clear that the majority of HKers would rather not join China.

 

[Reagent]

Portugal actually offered Macau to China in 1974, which it refused. Without the Carnation Revolution it would have met the same fate as Goa. And no one stood up for Portugal in 1961.

I don't think you can really compare the situations in Goa and Macau.

The 1974 was only after the Carnation Revolution as well.

 

[Ato]

A possible way for Hong Kong to remain seperate from China, is for the British to have played to the Chinese legitimacy complex.

A British government could have announced that it was willing to return Hong Kong to China. However seeing as there was an ongoing dispute as to which chinese government was legitimate (see ROC vs PRC), then it would only be right to put it to the inhabitants of the territory as to which Chinese polity they would like to join, via plebscite.

This would of course reduce any PRC delegation to apoplectic rage, a they see the very real possibility that the people of Hong Kong wouldld choose the ROC in such a situation.

The British could then trot out the more palatable alternative. Hong Kong is to become an independant city state (like Singapore). With independance guaranteed by both China an Britain, maybe even the US too.
Hong Kong would also be acknologed to be part of the "greater chinese nation" with preferential diplomatic and economic ties with China.
Perhaps also some vague promises to review unification if the ROC-PRC split is ever resolved.

 

[EternalCynic]

^ Problem with that is Britain had already acknowledged the PRC as the legitimate government of China, and was the first non-Soviet Bloc state to do so. That avenue was closed, period.

IOTL Deng Xiaoping anticipated that Britain would try to play the public legitimacy card, so he flat out reminded Thatcher that Hong Kong was strictly a matter between the two sovereign states of the UK and China. Efforts by Thatcher to include British Hong Kong officials to the negotiating table backfired when the Hong Kong press pointed out they had no democratic mandate.

 

[anotherlurker]

during otl negotiations xiaoping threatened thatcher that he could paradrop some divisions within hours to HK. from the chinese point of view all treaties made by the qing dynasty are illegal and invalid.

here's no way great britain can keep it. the left will love all that saber rattling - "a war for british colonialism? again?"

otl deal is the best outcome for hongkong (one country, two systems) and saves the most face for great britain.

 

[black angel]

during otl negotiations xiaoping threatened thatcher that he could paradrop some divisions within hours to HK. from the chinese point of view all treaties made by the qing dynasty are illegal and invalid.

here's no way great britain can keep it. the left will love all that saber rattling - "a war for british colonialism? again?"

otl deal is the best outcome for hongkong (one country, two systems) and saves the most face for great britain.

the PRC thinks Taiwan is Chinese and has threaten them many many times, and has never acted for the same reason, they won't risk nuclear war with the US for pride.

 

[EternalCynic]

the PRC thinks Taiwan is Chinese and has threaten them many many times, and has never acted for the same reason, they won't risk nuclear war with the US for pride.

But the US security guarantee never extended to European colonies in Asia, just as the US didn't (openly) support Britain against Argentina. In any case an invasion of Hong Kong (unlike Taiwan) will be over within hours, by which time China can present a fait accompli. After that, Thatcher will remember the adage about waging land wars in Asia.

IOTL Deng Xiaoping also anticipated Thatcher will ask Reagan for political support. Deng (allegedly) made a secret deal where he would order a military buildup on China's northern border thus drawing Soviet troops away from Europe, in exchange for Reagan not supporting Thatcher. And when Thatcher *did* request Reagan's assistance, he responded with a very polite and friendly refusal.

 

[black angel]

But the US security guarantee never extended to European colonies in Asia, just as the US didn't (openly) support Britain against Argentina. In any case an invasion of Hong Kong (unlike Taiwan) will be over within hours, by which time China can present a fait accompli. After that, Thatcher will remember the adage about waging land wars in Asia.

IOTL Deng Xiaoping also anticipated Thatcher will ask Reagan for political support. Deng (allegedly) made a secret deal where he would order a military buildup on China's northern border thus drawing Soviet troops away from Europe, in exchange for Reagan not supporting Thatcher. And when Thatcher *did* request Reagan's assistance, he responded with a very polite and friendly refusal.

though rarely talked about the US and Argentina are both member's of the Rio Pact, thus allies in much the same way that NATO links the UK and the US, the US is not an ally of China in that way

not that that matters as the UK has its own Nukes

and last this isn't a game of "Risk" nations don't just attack major powers for the lulz, its a huge huge gamble, Deng was bluffing Thatcher in the 1980s, an attack on a NATO country for not doing what you want when you have no legal right to demand it, thats a non-starter, it'd plunge China's relations with Western Europe and America deep into the ice box, in OTL they had some legal ground to stand on that they might have managed to sell it, in TTL though they don't have the 99 year lease to play on

 

[EternalCynic]

The US in particular was afraid Britain was pushing Argentina into Moscow's arms, and hence was reluctant to openly support Britain. Ironically the only Latin American state to offer more than token support for Argentina was...Cuba.

During the early 80s, China was far more strategically important than Argentina from Washington's perspective. Having emerged from Maoism under a reformist leader, China's development would stymie Soviet ambitions in Asia. So it wasn't a guarantee the US will automatically support Britain. And if the 99 year lease didn't exist, I predict this is what Deng would have done assuming no butterflies:

1. Restate that Britain and other imperial powers imposed an unequal treaty on China
2. Remind Britain, that all other impoerial powers had renounced their unequal treaties after WW2, even though they were legally entitled to continue them
3. Reveal that Truman and FDR had promised the return of Hong Kong to China in 1945, and Britain's resumption of government was illegal
4. Co-opt the Hong Kong business community to voice support for HK's return as an SAR in exchange for preferential access to Chinese markets, and ask them to call Number 10
5. Find a Hong Kong tycoon undergoing financial difficulties and offer a bailout in exchange for his support (this happened IOTL)
6. Create a more tolerant environment for foreign investors in China to boost China's economic credibility
7. Explain the concept of SAR to international investors, Japan, Singapore, and the US, to assure them of the safety of Hong Kong as a financial hub
8. Finally, since all the other foreign enclaves were on 99 year leases, unilaterally announce a date of 1997 when China expects to resume administration of Hong Kong

If Deng plays this out smoothly, any attempt by Thatcher to hang on will be harmful to Hong Kong's economy and will be seen as pettiness. Major investors, including her beloved City, have sunk billions of dollars into Hong Kong and China and they won't stand for her antics.

 

[Simreeve]

Reveal that Truman and FDR had promised the return of Hong Kong to China in 1945

Irerlevant, considering that Truman and FDR had no legal authority whatsoever over the UK & its colonies.


And by the way, talking of "unequal treaties", where's the "equal" treaty to justify China's absoption of Tibet?

 

[black angel]

And by the way, talking of "unequal treaties", where's the "equal" treaty to justify China's absoption of Tibet?

China is different and special of course 6,000 unbroken years of history etc

 

[EternalCynic]

Irerlevant, considering that Truman and FDR had no legal authority whatsoever over the UK & its colonies.

China was put in charge of accepting the surrender of Japanese troops in Hong Kong. Since they surrendered to Britain, China can argue Britain impeded a legal requirement of ending WW2, and must allow Chinese troops to enter Hong Kong to complete this token. Sure it's a legal fiction, but Britain is the last country to complain about legal tricks.

And by the way, talking of "unequal treaties", where's the "equal" treaty to justify China's absoption of Tibet?

No different from China's absorption of every other part of internationally-recognized China in 1949. The first person to congratulate Mao for taking Tibet was...Chiang Kai Shek, who also vetoed any discussion of this matter at the UN.