What's the longest Britain could have held on to Hong Kong?

[Malone]

Later in her life Margret Thatcher lamented that one of her regrets was not being able to convince the Chinese to extend the British lease on Hong Kong.

Realistically could we have seen a world where Hong Kong was still under British possession? Would China have militarily invaded at some point had the British not agreed to the 1997 hand over or was that just bluster?

 

[Belarus-Chan]

There's the option of ignoring Chinese demands for as long as possible, and then negotiating a handover when the Chinese threaten to invade the colony outright.

Another option is negotiating a few extra years of "transitional" British rule before the lease on the New Territories ends. Could probably prolong the existence of the colony till at most 2000.

Lastly, since Kwoloon and the Hong Kong Island were leased "in perpetuity", Britain has no obligation to give them up. Obviously China would still demand the Brits to give them up, and this could even mean a military confrontation, but they might not want to risk being isolated diplomatically and economically by sanctions and erosion of trust, which could cause a significant recession. Therefore it depends on how much the Chinese are willing to risk. If they back down and the claim remains nonviolent, the Hong Kong Colony excluding Kwoloon could theoretically continue to exist to 2019 and onwards.

 

[Belschaft]

The PRC wouldn't need to invade - 90% of Hong Kong's food supply and 70% of it's water is imported, most of it from mainland China. If Britain refused to hand over the New Territories when the lease ended then this could be cut off.

 

[Simon]

Realistically could we have seen a world where Hong Kong was still under British possession?

Not a chance. Aside from the fact that the lease for the New Territories–without which the originally ceded territories of Hong Kong Island, Stonecutters Island, the Kowloon Peninsula are unviable–was up so they legally belonged to China again, the Chinese considered the Treaty of Nanking to be the original of the unequal treaties and had very strong feelings over seeing them terminated. At the very least you'd likely see an embargo against any British trade with China which was just starting its massive economic expansion.

Would China have militarily invaded at some point had the British not agreed to the 1997 hand over or was that just bluster?

Who needs to send in the military? Transport in say ten thousand civilians–best of all women and children–next to the border, point them towards Hong Kong and tell them to start walking. The British have the choice of either accepting this incursion or ordering the troops on the ground to start machine gunning people en masse, neither of which are really viable options.


If you want to see a continued British administration of Hong Kong then it needs to come from a point of divergence a fair way before the handover negotiations started.

 

[georgy176]

In a scenario (say as part of the Boxer Rebellion settlement) the New Territories lease is converted into a possession in perpetuity like Kowloon and Hong Kong island, the pressure of 1997 return is done away with. Or would that just motivate China at some point after 1949 to threaten or seek a military solution if by X date Hong Kong is not returned?

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

In a scenario (say as part of the Boxer Rebellion settlement) the New Territories lease is converted into a possession in perpetuity like Kowloon and Hong Kong island, the pressure of 1997 return is done away with. Or would that just motivate China at some point after 1949 to threaten or seek a military solution if by X date Hong Kong is not returned?

IIRC, the Chinese wanted to get rid of all the unequal treaties, which meant that they'd want to take back Macau and Hong Kong.

 

[georgy176]

IIRC, the Chinese wanted to get rid of all the unequal treaties, which meant that they'd want to take back Macau and Hong Kong.

Correct. The question then becomes when does China lose patience and issue that ultimatum.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

Correct. The question then becomes when does China lose patience and issue that ultimatum.

I think they'd make a threat in the 60s when Hong Kong had pro-communist protests, and maybe in the 80s? Around the time of the Falklands War would be a pretty good time for them

 

[NHBL]

One possibility that would probably end VERY badly:
Britain never recognizes Communist China, instead recognizing the Nationalists as the legitimate government.
Now the turnover time comes, and there's a few choices:
1. Britain keeps them--status quo.
2. Britain hands them over to the legitimate government, and the rebels on the mainland invade. That could get MESSY.
3. All SORTS of other problems ensue.

 

[Protagoras]

One possibility that would probably end VERY badly:
Britain never recognizes Communist China, instead recognizing the Nationalists as the legitimate government.
Now the turnover time comes, and there's a few choices:
1. Britain keeps them--status quo.
2. Britain hands them over to the legitimate government, and the rebels on the mainland invade. That could get MESSY.
3. All SORTS of other problems ensue.

Yes, this is the only one I see; if the British insist their deal is with the Nationalists, the Nationalists probably don't want Hong Kong (because they can't really defend it from the Communists), so the British could probably get the Nationalists to agree to an indefinite extension in exchange for only minor concessions in return. But the Communist response would be very likely to be very messy.

 

[NHBL]

Yes, this is the only one I see; if the British insist their deal is with the Nationalists, the Nationalists probably don't want Hong Kong (because they can't really defend it from the Communists), so the British could probably get the Nationalists to agree to an indefinite extension in exchange for only minor concessions in return. But the Communist response would be very likely to be very messy.

If Thatcher's in power, the British reaction to Chinese invasion of British territory will also be messy...things could go downhill fast.
The tension between China and the USSR could also work its way in, and minor colonial disputes can escalate...

 

[History Learner]

In a scenario (say as part of the Boxer Rebellion settlement) the New Territories lease is converted into a possession in perpetuity like Kowloon and Hong Kong island, the pressure of 1997 return is done away with. Or would that just motivate China at some point after 1949 to threaten or seek a military solution if by X date Hong Kong is not returned?

It’s not in the Chinese interest to attack a nuclear power.

 

[Cryptic]

Would China have militarily invaded at some point had the British not agreed to the 1997 hand over or was that just bluster?

The return of all formerly uhmm...... "appropriated" territories to at least nominal Chinese sovereignty was a matter of deep national pride and a high level policy goal to the Chinese leadership. My guess is that push come to shove, the Chinese were very willing to invade to accomplish that.

The invasion, however, could be pretty soft and feature a creeping invasion east Ukraine style where the Chinese first attempt to insert paramilitary police, mobilize pro Chinese locals and use food, fuel and electricity boycotts as a carrot and stick. The creeping liberation / invasion would also be accompanied by copious broadcasts emphasizing that Hong Kong would be given broad autonomy with in China. But.... Hong Kong would be Chinese again.

Correct. The question then becomes when does China lose patience and issue that ultimatum.

My guess is that they would loose patience with any foot dragging via creative UK sponsored referendums pretty quickly as they saw the existence of Hong Kong and Macau as a reminder of China's past weakness.

 

[David T]

In a scenario (say as part of the Boxer Rebellion settlement) the New Territories lease is converted into a possession in perpetuity like Kowloon and Hong Kong island, the pressure of 1997 return is done away with. Or would that just motivate China at some point after 1949 to threaten or seek a military solution if by X date Hong Kong is not returned?

A post of mine from a couple of months ago:

***

No matter what its formal status, the PRC can have it whenever it wants.

From the 1887 Sino-Portuguese Treaty of Peking: "China confirms, in its entirety, the second Article of the Protocol of Lisbon, relating to the perpetual occupation and government of Macao by Portugal." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Portuguese_Treaty_of_Peking A recognized perpetual right of the UK to all of Hong Kong would be about as valuable.

 

[Riain]

IIUC Taiwan held Chinas seat on the UNSC until something like 1971, so handing HK to Taiwan between 49 and 71 isn't too implausible, especially as Taiwan becomes more successful and democratic than PRC.

 

[49ersFootball]

There's the option of ignoring Chinese demands for as long as possible, and then negotiating a handover when the Chinese threaten to invade the colony outright.

Another option is negotiating a few extra years of "transitional" British rule before the lease on the New Territories ends. Could probably prolong the existence of the colony till at most 2000.

Lastly, since Kwoloon and the Hong Kong Island were leased "in perpetuity", Britain has no obligation to give them up. Obviously China would still demand the Brits to give them up, and this could even mean a military confrontation, but they might not want to risk being isolated diplomatically and economically by sanctions and erosion of trust, which could cause a significant recession. Therefore it depends on how much the Chinese are willing to risk. If they back down and the claim remains nonviolent, the Hong Kong Colony excluding Kwoloon could theoretically continue to exist to 2019 and onwards.

PRC reminds me of a seductive, jealous lover who demands needs & wants, forcing the conflicted person to cheat on their beloved spouse.

 

[NHBL]

If China tries stopping anything from getting into Hong Kong from the mainland, someone should ask the USSR how well that worked in Berlin. Trying to stop the Royal Navy from escorting ships into Hong Kong would be...unwise.

 

[Dan1988]

If China tries stopping anything from getting into Hong Kong from the mainland, someone should ask the USSR how well that worked in Berlin. Trying to stop the Royal Navy from escorting ships into Hong Kong would be...unwise.

Except that China saw Xianggang as part of its territory that was unjustly taken out of its control due to unequal treaties concluded during the Qing dynasty. In that sense, to the PLA anything is fair game - but Mao specifically told the PLA not to advance in, and during the late 1960s Zhou Enlai ordered pro-Beijing rioters in Xianggang to stop. The PRC will want Xianggang under its territorial jurisdiction, but it preferred to wait until the perfect moment to do so. Even if Attlee's Government wanted to immediately hand Xianggang over to the PRC on a silver platter, Beijing would refuse because it did not want to deal with the treaty issues right away. What would thus happen would basically be treating the whole of HK much like how Macao post-Carnation Revolution was treated, as Chinese territory under British administration, under a new agreement between the PRC and the UK, but only for a temporary time until 1997 (when the New Territories lease expired). Thus post-WW2 Xianggang would be in a transitional period where it gets prepared for eventual handover to Chinese rule. Either way, my answer to the OP is that realistically I can't see British rule over Xianggang lasting past 1997. No amount of convincing or persuasion would change the PRC's mind on Xianggang; what could be negotiated would be how soft or hard the landing would be and in that sense you need a PM other than Thatcher responsible for that (Maggie's behavior in front of Deng was basically dreadful and is a textbook case of how not to talk with Chinese leaders, and made Beijing take a harder line on Xianggang than what could have been).

 

[b0ned0me]

If China tries stopping anything from getting into Hong Kong from the mainland, someone should ask the USSR how well that worked in Berlin. Trying to stop the Royal Navy from escorting ships into Hong Kong would be...unwise.

The two are not really comparable, not least because the U.K. alone is not equivalent to nato. Heck, the Royal Navy abandoned East Of Suez in 1967 because the U.K. was so economically incontinent, and HK is a loooooooong way from Suez. So unless for some reason the US decides to make HK the centrepiece of its Asia policy, China can blockade HK anytime it wants.

 

[A Piece of History]

IIUC Taiwan held Chinas seat on the UNSC until something like 1971, so handing HK to Taiwan between 49 and 71 isn't too implausible, especially as Taiwan becomes more successful and democratic than PRC.

Nope. The PRC repeatedly threatened to invade Hong Kong if Britain gave the people suffrage. They would certainly invade if Britain was trying to play Hot Potato with Taiwan.