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

Status
Not open for further replies.
1996 is way, way too late to do this. They might possibly maybe get away with it in 1956 but not much later than that.
 
Last edited:
1996 is way, way too late to do this. They might possibly maybe get away with it in 1956 but not much later than that.

No, there was never a time they could have gotten away with it. In 1949, with the Cold War raging, the US rejected the idea of defending Hong Kong, as this would risk "major military involvement in China and possibly global war." https://books.google.com/books?id=BGITDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA45 That was one reason the UK was so quick to recognize the PRC--it realized that it held Hong Kong on Beijing's sufferance.
 
No, there was never a time they could have gotten away with it. In 1949, with the Cold War raging, the US rejected the idea of defending Hong Kong, as this would risk "major military involvement in China and possibly global war." https://books.google.com/books?id=BGITDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA45 That was one reason the UK was so quick to recognize the PRC--it realized that it held Hong Kong on Beijing's sufferance.

I am no surprised as you can see from the quote I was highly skeptical of even that.
 

MatthewB

Banned
Hong Kong's water and electricity depended upon the New Territories; without them the city would die.
And the New Territories were leased.
Not from the still newish communist government in Beijing, they weren’t. Hong Kong is much older than anything Mao threw together.

The time to make Hong Kong independent was in the 1960s, same as Singapore, or before, with security guarantees from Britain and the USA.
 
That's completely irrelevant, I'm afraid. The Fifth Republic of France inherited the debts and possessions of the Fourth Republic; New Zealand inherited its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi from the British Crown; The People's Republic of China is the recognised international heir of the Qing Government, just as the Republic of China was before it.

If the UK wants to ever do a pound's worth of trade in China again- and it does- then it must recognise that the lease is now to the PRC.

And if it made Hong Kong independent in the sixties- at a time, mind you, when there was serious civil unrest in the city due to nationalists who wanted reunification with Beijing- then that city state would have no capacity whatsoever to defend itself against the immediate occupation by the PLA. Even at the height of the Cultural Revolution that was true.

The only 'security guarantee' that was remotely meaningful was the threat of nuclear annihilation, and there is no British or American government who would be prepared to deploy nuclear weapons in support of Hong Kong in the 1960s.

And as I skimmed over it, let's return to the point that the only time in Hong Kong's history where there has been anything even approaching a sizable local nationalist movement is the past ten years.
 
And if the Mainland embargoes Hong Kong, it collapses economically.

If say, New York City was embargoed by the rest of the country, it'd implode instantly since there's no more economic rationale for it.
 
Not from the still newish communist government in Beijing, they weren’t. Hong Kong is much older than anything Mao threw together.

The time to make Hong Kong independent was in the 1960s, same as Singapore, or before, with security guarantees from Britain and the USA.

And then Xianggang gets invaded by Beijing, security guarantees or not. That's the paradox - independence means that it automatically becomes part of the PRC, and there's nothing the West can do about it.
 

MatthewB

Banned
And then Xianggang gets invaded by Beijing, security guarantees or not. That's the paradox - independence means that it automatically becomes part of the PRC, and there's nothing the West can do about it.
How about Dominion status? Or, like Belize, independence granted but British forces remain to protect against invasion from the neighborhood.
 
The lease said the New Territories had to be returned to China in 1997. It didn't say which China and there are two of them.
 
Politics is fickle and Governments can change their minds given the right excuse. Tiananmen Square springs to mind for that.
 
Student Votes at the next election, one they were beginning to expect to lose.
I think the average British voter would care much more about things that actually matter to them (i.e. taxes and employment) than a stupid stunt that even Taipei wouldn't want to play a part in.

And I doubt that Thatcher is delusional enough to think that she could do anything to get the students to vote Tory.
 
On 8 March 1972, the People's Republic of China sent a letter to the United Nations Special Committee on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and People. In the letter, China stated that Hong Kong and Macau did not fall under the UN's definition of 'colonial territories' and that Hong Kong fell within China's sovereign territory. (And technically, they were correct. Hong Kong was territory occupied by the British as the result of military conquest. The British didn't found Hong Kong)

The Committee agreed with China and in their annual report, removed Hong Kong and Macau from their list of colonial territories. This report was approved in United Nations Resolution 2908, which was about decolonization.

This action by China effectively prevented Britain from even thinking about either keeping Hong Kong or giving it independence. Even if they did try to ignore the UN, China would just shut off water to Hong Kong and threaten to invade the territory if the British didn't leave, with the world mostly supporting China, since Britain is defying a UN resolution.

So giving Hong Kong independence is ASB. It sucks, I know, but it's the truth.
 
How about Dominion status? Or, like Belize, independence granted but British forces remain to protect against invasion from the neighborhood.
Except that Xianggang itself was also impacted by the Cultural Revolution and what little localist sentiment there was happened to be pro-Beijing. Which turned out to be a problem for the British, for obvious reasons. So Dominion status or anything like that would not work. The only acceptable solution therefore (and which also solves the Kowloon Walled City problem) would be to become part of the PRC. In this case, it would definitely be pulling a Goa.

EDIT: My apologies, I read the OP title as 1966, not 1996. In that case, let's change tack, and Nathan is correct. Still think that Xianggang would be invaded by the PRC. This time independence/Dominion status/etc. would be a violation of the Joint Declaration which Beijing would not find acceptable.

EDIT No.# 2: OK, I seem to confuse myself way more than I should. If we go for a 1960s invasion (in other words, Beijing pulling a Goa on Xianggang) it depends on whether its before or during the Cultural Revolution. Before 1966 it would a quick shot of rejuvenation after the disaster that was the Great Leap Forward. During 1966 or after, I leave it to you to draw the conclusions. Either way, Nathan is still correct. The thing is that ultimately the British will have to leave, and independence/Dominion status/etc. is just asking for an invasion. A Xianggang that remains independent and/or with a remaining British presence is ASB. That HK remained as a British colony/dependent territory for so long is nothing short of a miracle. In fact, an early 1960s invasion means that we are in the early stages of HK's transformation, so well before what we know of as HK today, so HK's status could easily be reversed at this early stage, meaning ultimately it would be like the rest of China but - if we still have Deng coming to power ITTL - become an early SEZ instead of Shenzhen, which would allow some of Xianggang's former mojo to come back. In that case, Macao would be the new darling of an international financial center. For some reason (in part from Beijing telling the new Portuguese revolutionaries to cool it) the PRC never had problems with that Portuguese colony; I could see that continue.
 
Last edited:
How about Dominion status? Or, like Belize, independence granted but British forces remain to protect against invasion from the neighborhood.

Still won't work. Again- even if we grant that for some reason the PRC doesn't immediately issue an ultimatum followed by a quick seizure of the indefensible city, the fact that the New Territories are leased kills any chance to keep the city.

If this 'Dominion of Hong Kong' does not include the New Territories, it has no water or electricity. China takes Hong Kong.

If this 'Dominion of Hong Kong' does include the New Territories, Britain has clearly and indisputably broken its international treaty obligations and annexed sovereign Chinese territory. China takes Hong Kong.


The point that keeps getting brushed over is this: Hong Kong is far more important to the PRC than it is to the UK. There simply is no compelling reason for the UK to try and stand against a power that can bring far greater military strength to bear, has international law and international opinion on its side,* and is a huge market that Britain simply cannot afford to be locked out of.




* In 1997 China was not crushing a democracy, it was reclaiming a colonial territory that Britain had never given any democracy to. That at least is the narrative. What American or European politician is going to spend their political capital arguing for the British Empire?
 

MatthewB

Banned
If this 'Dominion of Hong Kong' does include the New Territories, Britain has clearly and indisputably broken its international treaty obligations and annexed sovereign Chinese territory. China takes Hong Kong.
The trick is Hong Kong and the NT needs to be given independence before any treaties are signed with the Communist government in Beijing. If Taiwan can remain independent, so can the entire HKG.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top