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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

What protected Taiwan were the Taiwan Straits (and after the Korean War started, the Seventh Fleet). There was no physical barrier to Hong Kong remotely resembling the Taiwan Straits, and the US government in 1949 had already made it clear it would make no commitment to the British to defend Hong Kong because of the likelihood this would mean war with Communist China. https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...rt-of-republic-of-china.399443/#post-13237514 Also, one thing that motivated US defense of Chiang on Taiwan was simply inertia; it had long recognized Chiang as leader of China, and it was awkward to withdraw this recognition as long as he controlled any territory and had some chance of defending it. By contrast, what is being proposed here is a new (and illegal) status for Hong Kong. Why on earth would the US back it when it did not want an all-out war with China and knew (as did everyone else--the memory of 1941 was still fresh) that Hong Kong was indefensible, and could only be recaptured after an all-out war with Communist China and possibly the Soviet Union?
 
This is just an idea but a good way of keeping it or getting it back might be to politicise the issue, to the point where it’s counter productive wanting or keeping the new territories. It’s not going to be very good having 5 million protesters on the streets of Hong Kong which May cause a Tiananmen Square incident. Giving Hong Kong voting rights and EU standard of Human Rights in 1950 would have made China not want it. Alternatively the best way Thatcher could keep it was to physically protest in Hong Kong herself against China.
 
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.
The early 1950s is a strange way to start it off (because that's before all the treaties with the PRC even when the UK recognized it), but one could try. It's still a dirt-poor place trying to recover from WWII and the mass of refugees from the Mainland. Even then the NT lease is still the ticking time bomb that prevents an independent HK.

Or would it? As I see it, the best way to have an independent HK in the Cold War period is if the ROC retains some territory on the Mainland. It does not have to be a large are, and it does not have to be as grand as going up to the Qin-Huai line but at minimum the ROC's retained Mainland territory should include Kuangtung (Guangdong) and Fuchien (Fujian; either in whole or in part) as well as Hainan. In that case, the role of the ROC's OTL Fuchien province would be played by its Chechiang (Zhejiang) province with the Tachen Islands. Say, for example, a UN intervention in the Chinese Civil War allows the ROC some existence on the Mainland (even if they've lost Nanjing). With the ROC's focus largely elsewhere HK could exist in the shadows as a "safe zone" for international capital still wary of investing in Chiang Chieshih's regime (the pre-WWII harassment of the Shanghai merchants by the KMT government is still in the collective memory). In that case, Britain could probably use the informal quiet consent of the ROC to allow HK independence, should the South Chinese be interested. That *might* do the trick, but it would only be a quick fix.
 

MatthewB

Banned
This is just an idea but a good way of keeping it or getting it back might be to politicise the issue, to the point where it’s counter productive wanting or keeping the new territories. It’s not going to be very good having 5 million protesters on the streets of Hong Kong which May cause a Tiananmen Square incident.
Perhaps a worse Tiananmen Square in Beijing may cause pause about returning Hong Kong.

It is a shame that the people of Hong Kong were never asked what they wanted. There was no referendum on their future. In 2013 the people of the Falklands got to decide if they wanted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum

The final wording of the question was proposed by the Legislative Assembly in October 2012 and adopted by the Executive Council on 21 November 2012.[26][27] The question posed by the referendum was:
Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?
YES or NO[28]


Where was this choice for the British subjects of Hong Kong? And if they wanted to stay British, and Britain would not hold the territory, then Britain should have evacuated the territory of any who wanted to leave. Probably two million or more would relocated to Britain, bringing perhaps the wealthiest and most educated wave of immigrants to the UK. Other countries would want their share too, with Canada likely taking many (as we did IOTL after before 1997).

The British subjects of Gibraltar got to decide on their future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gibraltar_sovereignty_referendum

The Gibraltar Referendum 2002 asked the voters of Gibraltar their opinion in the following words:

On 12 July 2002 the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, in a formal statement in the House of Commons, said that after twelve months of negotiation the British Government and Spain are in broad agreement on many of the principles that should underpin a lasting settlement of Spain's sovereignty claim, which included the principle that Britain and Spain should share sovereignty over Gibraltar.

Do you approve of the principle that Britain and Spain should share sovereignty over Gibraltar?[8]

permitting a simple YES / NO answer (to be marked with a single (X)).
 
Perhaps a worse Tiananmen Square in Beijing may cause pause about returning Hong Kong.

Not quite; Britain was still committed to pulling out whether or not Beijing was up to no good. Nothing that Britain could have done would have prevented that.
It is a shame that the people of Hong Kong were never asked what they wanted. There was no referendum on their future. In 2013 the people of the Falklands got to decide if they wanted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum

The final wording of the question was proposed by the Legislative Assembly in October 2012 and adopted by the Executive Council on 21 November 2012.[26][27] The question posed by the referendum was:
Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?
YES or NO[28]

The Falklands were a special case that had no impact on HK policy. Plus, under the new policy under Thatcher HK was a burden that needed to be relieved from British control due to domestic factors. Furthermore, because HK was not a democracy its people had no say as to how their colony would be run. Finally any such referendum would be futile and ignored by the PRC because Xianggang is Chinese territory, not British.

Where was this choice for the British subjects of Hong Kong? And if they wanted to stay British, and Britain would not hold the territory, then Britain should have evacuated the territory of any who wanted to leave. Probably two million or more would relocated to Britain, bringing perhaps the wealthiest and most educated wave of immigrants to the UK. Other countries would want their share too, with Canada likely taking many (as we did IOTL after before 1997).

Which would not go over well in the UK at all at all, at least. Certainly not in China. What happened was basically the best outcome that could be expected. Xianggang was Chinese territory that had to be returned - no ifs, ands, or buts. What the locals wanted was irrelevant to both the UK and to the PRC, since Beijing held all the cards. An evacuation was also impossible because Britain was in the middle of an economic recession and could thus ill afford a mass migration, so it was better to keep things as they are minus the British military and high-ranking officials of the colonial government. So the decision was already made for the UK which could not be ignored.
 
Obviously, as the referendum I'm referring to was in 2013.
And also note the referenda you mentioned were after the handover. Once HK was gone Britain could reshape its policy for the remaining territories to be more generous to the latter, including strengthened Constitutions, British citizenship, and yes referenda on their future. Before that most thought was - with the exception of HK due to the NT lease - towards pushing the remaining colonies to independence (only rarely would you have, say, something like Anguilla). In HK's case, because the lease was due to expire in 1997 with no prospect of renewal, and because of China's declaration to the UN in 1972, the plain-vanilla strategy Britain used elsewhere could not work and thus an alternate strategy was needed - hence the Joint Declaration and handover. To get the plain-vanilla strategy to work, to me, requires a Chinese Civil War POV with the ROC retaining some Mainland territory, especially Guangdong province and the then-Hainan SAR (due to become a province in 1949). With the ROC in a much weaker position and more focused on reclaiming more of the Mainland from the Communists, it could probably afford to be more lenient. But not without cutting a deal - i.e. HK retaining some independent status but HK must pay back the lease in full (precedent: Quebec's abolition of the seigneural system or PEI's abolition of feudalism in the 19th century - both requiring compensation to the landlords, which often took the form of annuities). That to me is the one slim chance of making an independent HK work.
 
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.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Taiwan was an eminently defensible position, and probably still is today, especially when backed by the US navy.

Hong Kong is completely indefensible. Even in 1949, the UK could not have stopped the PLA from taking the city. And your point doesn't address the NT being leased. The British can't make Hong Kong independent on the grounds that the ROC has recognised Britain's claim to the New Territories.

Firstly, the Taiwanese government depends on the legal fiction that it is the rightful administrator of all Chinese territories, even including ones that the PRC has dropped claims to. If the KMT declare that it's 'ceding' the New Territories to Britain then they are massively damaging their desperately needed credibility, to absolutely no gain.

Secondly, even if the Taiwanese go along with this out of some fit of stupidity or madness: So what? The PRC's interests were served by letting Hong Kong survive as a capitalist enclave, but that was because they knew they were getting the territories back in 1997 and with them Hong Kong itself. If that's no longer true, then there is no reason for the Chinese not to immediately occupy the city. There are no circumstances- none- in which Britain can prevent this.


As to the Hong Kongers not being asked what they wanted- yes, that's a shame. But the British never extended democracy to Hong Kong. They weren't going to start with the issue of the handover, because what if Hong Kong wants to stay part of Britain? Britain doesn't want that, and can't afford the resulting crisis. What if the Hong Kongers, as you say, want British citizenship? The British government doesn't want to give it to them. Can you imagine the political ramifications of a Tory government relocating millions of non-white people who largely don't speak English? Neither the Tories nor Labour would want to be responsible for it. There was a mad civil service paper that suggested you could relocate HKers to Northern Island, and take twenty seconds to imagine the consequences that would follow that.


Look, I recognise that Hong Kong's situation is upsetting. I have family there who want a way out. It is a great city that has been treated awfully by the current government and was treated with, at best, aristocratic contempt by the British.

But moral outrage, however justified, does not change the facts that Hong Kong has never, ever, been in a position to be independent. If you want a democratic and prosperous Hong Kong, you need to find a way to create a democratic and prosperous mainland china.
 

Devvy

Donor
Like the others, I don’t see any way for HK to remain British. It was leased, the successor state to Qing China wanted it back, and the UK has recognised the PRC since the 1950s (or 60s?) as “China”. China could walk in with soldiers easily enough, or just turn off the water and sit back.

What I do consider interesting is if the UK granted right of abode in the UK to HKers prior to handover and let anyone move to the UK who wanted to. Or shared the migrants with Australia and Canada. China gets HK back and the remaining pro-China residents, but it’s a bit of a shell of a city by that point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top