WI Britan does not have to return Hong Kong

There were several treaties seceding various parts HK to Britain. Basically the difference is that the treaties transfer the area that is modern day Hong Kong to Britain permanently. I dont care so much about the POD as much as the effect on the modern geo-political situation.

How would it effect the relation between China and Britain? Would China go to war to get HK back or would Britain relinquish HK anyway? What would HK be like if it was still under British rule.
 

Susano

Banned
There were several treaties seceding various parts HK to Britain. Basically the difference is that the treaties transfer the area that is modern day Hong Kong to Britain permanently. I dont care so much about the POD as much as the effect on the modern geo-political situation.

How would it effect the relation between China and Britain? Would China go to war to get HK back or would Britain relinquish HK anyway? What would HK be like if it was still under British rule.

The problem with that question is the butterfly effect. Thing is, this is a major change only, but with 100 years time for the difference to develop, here surely will be many other differences in such a world then just the Hong Kong issue...
 
In order for that to happen, it can not be a 99-year lease on the New Territories - Britain would have had to purchase the New Territories outright. Remember that the reason why Britain handed over Hong Kong to China was because the 99-year lease on the New Territories was due to expire. Britain would've retained the original Hong Kong (I think it's Hong Kong Island), but most of the city is located in the New Territories, which wouldn't have made sense.
 

MrP

Banned
I vaguely recall that the city itself wasn't part of the area leased, so it could've been retained. If one wanted to piss of the Chinese government. And the various citizens of HK who wanted to rejoin China. And loads of other people.
 
What would HK be like if it was still under British rule.

This is the core question that I want to answer, and the response: a lot like Hong Kong in OTL pre-1997. No major changes as far as I see. Eventually, though, like a lot of the British Overseas Territories now, Hong Kong would have had to go through a review of its Constitution, and maybe there are going to be some changes, since now Hong Kong could have some form of self-rule. So for example, Britain might want to establish a Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong to replace the JCPC, though with the option of using the JCPC retained. Hong Kong would most likely retain its volunteer defence force.

If you want to have a look at what the British Overseas Territories are doing now, I'd suggest reading a White Paper that was issued in 1999 called "Partnership for Progress and Prosperity", since a lot of the recommendations raised in this would have had repercussions in Hong Kong. If you want to read it for yourself, it's avaliable at the Foreign Office website. Remember though that Adobe Acrobat is required to read the White Paper.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1018028164839
 
I vaguely recall that the city itself wasn't part of the area leased, so it could've been retained. If one wanted to piss of the Chinese government. And the various citizens of HK who wanted to rejoin China. And loads of other people.

Actually, IIRC Hong Kong Island (and Stonecutters' Island) were not the areas leased. What I should have said was that a lot of the new stuff built over the years (such as the airport and vital installations) were in the New Territories, so if just the New Territories were returned to China, it would be VERY difficult to run Hong Kong.

In fact, according to Wiki, relating to the Sino-British Joint Declaration:

Wiki said:
However, many commentaries pointed out that Britain was in an extremely weak negotiating position. Hong Kong was not militarily defensible and received most of its water and food supply from Guangdong province in mainland China. It was therefore considered economically infeasible to divide Hong Kong, with the UK retaining control for Hong Kong Island and Kowloon while returning the New Territories to the PRC in 1997, if no agreements could be reached by then. As mortgages for property in Hong Kong were typically fifteen years, without reaching an agreement on the future of Hong Kong in the early '80s, it was feared that the property market would collapse, causing a collapse of the general economy in Hong Kong. Constraints in the land lease in the New Terrorities were also pressing problems at that time. In fact, while negotiation concerning the future of Hong Kong had started in the late 1970s, the final timing of the Declaration was related to the land and property factors.
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
As a person who has lived in Hong Kong in the past, I can tell you that it's not just one city. It is made up of the city itself and various satellite towns. Most of these towns are in the New Territories. Hong Kong is not as small as one might think. And Lantau Island is much bigger than Hong Kong Island itself. You have Kowloon on the NT side of the harbour, and Victoria on HK island itself. Obviously, the Kowloon side is bigger in terms of city sprawl.

On HK island there are smaller towns scattered around it distinct from Victoria. The new airport is built on an artificial island on the northern coast of Lantau Island. The location was chosen since it is sheltered by Lantau and the area is much less built up making landings much easier than the notoriously difficult-to-land-at Death Star style run weaving between skyscrapers at the old airport.

In terms of travel time, it takes about 45 minutes by MTR from the new town of Tung Chung on Lantau near the airport to reach Central Station on HK Island. If you go from Tai-O at the western end of Lantau, you are looking at about almost a 2 hour journey to get to central by bus and then MTR to Central. You would need a significant amount of more time added to get to the south of HK island, or up to the north-east to the eastern extremes of the New Territories, or north to the Chinese border

The MTR goes under the harbour on it's route to HK island, but across bridges (one of them, Tsing Ma is the 6th greatest suspension bridge in the world) linked by the heavily built up Island of Tsing Yi when coming from Lantau.

It is true that HK Island and Kowloon by itself are not viable without the New Territories, and without Lantau too, since the airport is there. Don't forget that reservoirs supplying the entire place with water are in the New Territories and across the border in China as well. Many people have families scattered across the Territory, and jobs that may be on a side opposite from their homes. Splitting HK apart is just not doable, and the British government knew this, which is why the whole lot was handed back, even though HK Island was ceded in perpetuity.

Any POD would probably need to be in the 19th Century with the NT and Lantau as well as smaller islands being ceded in perpetuity as well if you want HK to stay as one successful unit. Unlike Macau, which the Portuguese were not obliged to give up, but voluntarily did so, Hong Kong is a more complex issue.


Sargon
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
To answer the question of the thread...Hong Kong would look pretty much like it does now. All the road signs are still the same as those used in the UK for example, and the place still has an exotic feel mixed with Britishness. The only difference would be the change in flag and the political structure. It's ironic that the Legco is more democratic now than it was under most of the time of Britain's rule...and one wonders if the British would have introduced the democratic reforms that they rushed in OTL, motivated by the run up to the handover as soon as they did in such an ATL.


Sargon
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
^They would have to anyway because of that White Paper I mentioned earlier.

It would at least be delayed as that was published in 1999. And who knows what butterflies could affect that from a few changes in the 19th century....


Sargon
 
That would also affect the other Overseas Territories as well - Bermuda, the Falklands, the Cayman Islands, the BIOT, Pitcairn, etc.
 
Basically the POD is that the treaty that seceded the New Territories and Kowloon and the area that makes up modern day HK was not a 99 year lease but a purchase by the British and the Chinese agreement to relinquish sovereignty's over the area.

Would the communist government eventually try to take HK back? Would the British be willing to give HK back anyway or would there be a fight? Would the British be able to keep HK?
 
Ah, so if it's like HK Island (which was also a purchase), then having it all as one unit makes sense now. If you want to see how it might work between the UK and China regarding HK, it depends on who is in charge. Also, I'd suggest looking at how Macao was dealt with. Pretty much, IIRC, Portugal voluntarily gave up Macao to China, even though they were not obliged to do so. I think that HK could be retained by the UK, but eventually reforms would have to be made in HK's governance. Besides, HK is pretty much indefensible.

This is what I was talking about, courtesy of Wiki:

Wiki said:
After the leftist military coup of 1974, the now democratic Portuguese government was determined to relinquish all its overseas possessions, but the People's Republic of China did not favor Macau's immediate return to Chinese sovereignty and asked Portugal to continue to administer it. In 1976, Lisbon redefined Macau as a "Chinese territory under Portuguese administration," and granted it a large measure of administrative, financial and economic autonomy. The Chinese Government stated on many occasions that Macau has always been Chinese territory and the issue left by history should be settled through negotiations when conditions were ripe.
 
Top