WI: Britain grants Hong Kong independence in 1996, to avoid it going to China in 1997

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, the Alaska lease was ignored by America when the Bolsheviks took over, I don't see why Britain couldn't do the same. After all this is not the China they made the treaty with. There is no Qing Dynasty anymore.

To protect it there would need to be a substantial British deterrent force. In the event of the war the British plan would be to deny a quick victory to China, which would be disastrous diplomatically for the PRC. Perhaps a UN demilitarized zone could be requested as well.
Wait, what? America bought Alaska outright, unless you come from some alternate reality.
 
I made a wikibox on this quite recently. Basically, you'd need Britain to have a really good reason for not giving HK back to China - maybe the Gang of Four take over after Mao, or a military junta in the 80s or 90s. Then you have to justify the UK not just keeping it for themselves - perhaps a referendum or pressure from the USA. From thereon, an independent Hong Kong would probably be hugely dependent (at first) on British and American backing to hold out against China, otherwise it just goes the way of Goa or Tibet in the early days. However, I'd say its very possible that given time, the city being such a vital lynchpin in the international economy will ultimately end up commercial suicide to take Hong Kong.
In terms of the New Territories, yeah they're technically leased but they will be probably legally attached to the new Republic anyways and if British and American forces are there en masse in the late 90s, the PLA can't do much about it. It was pretty terrible in the 90s even IOTL, but if China has gone down the drain to the extent that Britain wants to tear up the Joint Declaration, its armed forces will probably take the phrase 'paper tiger' to a whole new level. Again though, if HK is left out in the cold on independence then they really are finished.
How are you going brainwash the entire American population to start WWIII over Hong Kong, though?
 
World War 2 started over Poland, is that any different.
Poland was something worth fighting over.

Hong Kong is a city, that if it doesn't have access to Mainland commerce, has no reason to exist (like if New York City for some reason was cut off from the US).
 
Obviously yes.

Germany attacked Poland in violation of its previous diplomatic commitments, in the face of British and French security guarantees, using nakedly obvious falsehoods as its casus belli.

No one- absolutely no one - in the international community believes that Hong Kong is a sovereign nation.
In this situation the PRC, unpleasant as its government is, would have every right under international law to respond to the British attempt to renege on its treaty obligations. It would also be reclaiming territory that everyone more or less agrees was stolen through naked imperialism in the first place (the Qing don't have to be saints for the Opium War to have been morally dubious at best.)

In no way does it resemble Poland in 39.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Well, the Alaska lease was ignored by America when the Bolsheviks took over, I don't see why Britain couldn't do the same. After all this is not the China they made the treaty with. There is no Qing Dynasty anymore.

To protect it there would need to be a substantial British deterrent force. In the event of the war the British plan would be to deny a quick victory to China, which would be disastrous diplomatically for the PRC. Perhaps a UN demilitarized zone could be requested as well.
Alaska was purchased, not leased.
 
Alaska was purchased, not leased.
Guantanamo was leased, the Cubans want the USA out, the USA doesnt want to leave and points at the signed agreement and pays the money on time, the Cubans refuse to recognize the ols deal and dont touch the money the USA wires them.

It will be interesting to see what happens when this lease runs out.
 
The other point to make here is that while the British can just about make a legal case for granting independence to Hong Kong island- it was ceded to them, and technically they were under no obligations to return it- if they violate the leasing agreement with the New Territories they are effectively announcing to the world that they feel free to abandon any binding treaty or commercial deal they dislike at any time.

This will do... interesting... things to their credit rating, just to start with.

Also, Britain can't return Hong Kong to Taiwan.They recognised the PRC as the legitimate Chinese government in 1950. Inviting Taiwan to take Hong Kong would be to invite a rebel group to reclaim territory on the mainland, which will lead to immediate Chinese occupation of HK and war in the South China Sea.

If the KMT government is already on the mainland and in position to take control of Hong Kong, the timeline is so radically different that the original question becomes meaningless. Besides which, in that case the British would have been negotiating the handover with the KMT in the first place.


This question is simply a non-starter sorry.
 
Would China respect this, or would they immediately invade the Republic of Hong Kong?

Well, they wouldn't invade immediately; they would first give them an ultimatum (with perhaps some sweeteners about a special status, but an ultimatum nevertheless). If that failed and Hong Kong couldn't be starved out, then of course they would invade. But the whole scenario is utterly implausible, anyway. Everyone accepted that Hong Kong would revert to Chinese control in 1997 (and yes, all of Hong Kong; in the real world you can't separate the New Territories from the rest). If the UK tries to go back on this, it will get no support from other nations. None. The truth is that Hong Kong was the PRC's for the asking from 1949 on. Indeed, in 1949 the US refused to commit itself to the defense of Hong Kong because that would mean war with Communist China: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...rt-of-republic-of-china.399443/#post-13237514

The notion that the PRC would give up on what it had long regarded as its own territory because to do otherwise "wouldn't look good" is ridiculous. The only reason it didn't take over Hong Kong well before 1997 was that (1) it knew it would get Hong King eventually, and (2) there were certain advantages to the PRC of having a capitalist Hong Kong--but these could be preserved with "one country, two systems."
 
Guantanamo was leased, the Cubans want the USA out, the USA doesnt want to leave and points at the signed agreement and pays the money on time, the Cubans refuse to recognize the ols deal and dont touch the money the USA wires them.

It will be interesting to see what happens when this lease runs out.

It won't "run out": "The 1903 Lease for Guantanamo has no fixed expiration date." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base Basically, the US will keep it as long as it wants to, unless the Cubans have the power to force it out (very unlikely).
 
People are forgetting that the People’s Republic of Hong Kong would be inviting the People’s Republic of China to ensure its legal rights to the New Territories lease and Hong Kong.

This is just common sense given UN requirements on decolonisation and independence, even if the PRC chooses not to use it.
 
Guantanamo was leased, the Cubans want the USA out, the USA doesnt want to leave and points at the signed agreement and pays the money on time, the Cubans refuse to recognize the ols deal and dont touch the money the USA wires them.

It will be interesting to see what happens when this lease runs out.

The USA does not breach the terms it need to comply in this example.
 
Congratulations on creating an Chinese Danzig, now Beijing can whip up the propaganda about muh century of humiliation and restoring Chinese greatness. A distinct Hong Kong identity is plausible, but this state would depend on the support of a non-Chinese Great Power even more than Taiwan.
 
I have to think that the world would care more about Hong Kong than other minor areas simply because of how rich the territory is.
 
I have to think that the world would care more about Hong Kong than other minor areas simply because of how rich the territory is.

Precisely for this reason the world will (if necessary) pressure the British to give up Hong Kong to the PRC peacefully with guarantees of keeping its capitalist system. Not of course that the UK needed any pressure to decide that way.
 
David T is quite right: Hong Kong is a hugely visible city on the economic and (even more so in the nineties) cultural stage.

This is why China must go in.

This isn't like a tiny scrap of Himalayan glacier that India and China can each claim possession of but avoid really straining over.

This is the single greatest symbol of Western colonialism in China. This is a city that is absolutely integral to the financial system of China and Asia. This is a city of huge emotional importance for the PRC's leadership- Deng supposedly claimed that he could not die until he saw Britain leave Hong Kong.


And the idea is that Britain will suddenly redraw the map and give the territory independence like it's still an imperial power and China will go along with this?

No. Any leader of the PRC who publicly gave up on decades- a century! - of telling the Chinese people they'd get Hong Kong back would fear a palace coup.

There is simply no way that this is happening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top