WI: UK and Portugal refuse to cede HK & Macau

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
Unlikely to happen unless something pretty catastrophic happens to the Chinese government. If you want to keep Hong Kong you'd be best to go much further back, and there may have been a chance to do so. Allow me to quote myself from another thread:

Incidentally, there have been at least two times in history when the New Territories might have been acquired in perpetuity. One was during the 1898 negotiations itself where the 99 year lease was almost casually fixed as a figure, and the second was in 1909 when Sir Frederick Lugard, Governor of Hong Kong, floated the idea of returning the British concession of Weihaiwai to China in exchange for the permanent acquisition of the New Territories. However, the Colonial Office didn't like the idea and binned it. Weihaiwei was returned to China in 1930. As part of such negotiations it may have provided an opportunity to address the status of the enclave of Kowloon Walled City as well.

So as this is the after 1900 section you could possibly run with Lugard's scheme. Unfortunately for the other way, we're just two years out from fixing of the lease, so bad luck there. ;)

Also, from another thread, there's this weird idea which was briefly cooked up by the civil service (doesn't hold on to HK, but effectively creates a new one!):

Also, things get even weirder when you consider the proposal to create a "new" Hong Kong in Northern Ireland:

UK officials discussed resettling 5.5m Hong Kong Chinese in Northern Ireland

Archives reveal debate in 1983 over bizarre idea of moving millions of Chinese to Northern Ireland at height of Troubles ahead of colony’s handover to Beijing


Right, I think I've delivered the goods for this post. Have fun. :p


Sargon
 
I like this angle. Hong Kong becomes very anti-communist and develops a western identity as a result. China is seen as much scarier than in OTL, and is much poorer than in OTL as well.
I mean if the west was putting in all the work it did to protect and feed West Berlin, how would this be that different? Western nations would feel far guiltier about giving an unwilling HK to a tyrannical China.
A western identity for Hong Kong won't magically stop China from being able to bombard Hong Kong into an unlivable mess, at the very least.

NATO guilt isn't going to make anyone want to send their children off to die for a city state half way around the world.
 
I do wonder though if China was not moving towards market liberalization and western style economics and was instead a full communist country similar to Cuba or North Korea.

What if in the lead up to the new territory lease expiry there was a local anti-return movement in both territories resulting in a referendum being held where 70-80 said no to return.

What would the British and Portuguese do then and what would the worlds reaction be?

Note: Hong Kong’s population was I think around 6 million while Macau 400,000. Also Portugal did offer full Portuguese nationality to all resident of Macau unlike the UK.
Shrug their shoulders.

If nothing else, the Mainland could decide to embargo the two enclaves. Never mind water, without access to China, there's no meaningful economic reason for Hong Kong to exist (it's like if Manhattan tried to secede from the US).
 
A POD after 1984 at the latest doesn't work to get the UK to try to hold on to Hong Kong. Deng's reforms are taking hold and China, for better or for worse, is being incorporated into the western economic system. China wants Hong Kong without disruption and the UK and USA (whose backing the USA needs) are not looking to go to war with China, a war China is likely to win.

However, if Deng fails or doesn't come to power, and the version fo China we get in the 1980s and 90s is completely screwed up, to the point where if the Chinese take Hong Kong the Royal Navy slaps them down in Opium War 3 with the rest of the world cheering on, or the Chinese are too involved in another civil war to make the attempt, yes the British will hold Hong Kong since the lease doesn't affect the island and they can say they will negotiate a return of the New Territories later when there is someone to negotiate with.

This works better if you put on the China screw even earlier, to the point where the People's Republic never happens and the warlord era just continues into the 21st century, even better if you can keep the French or a French puppet regime in Vietnam and the British can use air and naval bases there if they need to.

In either scenario the world would be hugely different in other respects.

That depends on London's willingness to fight a war with a nuclear power over Hong Kong, which is very questionable, to say the least.
 
Unlikely to happen unless something pretty catastrophic happens to the Chinese government. If you want to keep Hong Kong you'd be best to go much further back, and there may have been a chance to do so. Allow me to quote myself from another thread:



So as this is the after 1900 section you could possibly run with Lugard's scheme. Unfortunately for the other way, we're just two years out from fixing of the lease, so bad luck there. ;)

Also, from another thread, there's this weird idea which was briefly cooked up by the civil service (doesn't hold on to HK, but effectively creates a new one!):




Sargon
I suppose that's one way to get the Republicans and Loyalists to stop fighting each other and turn their guns and bombs on somebody else.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Shrug their shoulders.

If nothing else, the Mainland could decide to embargo the two enclaves. Never mind water, without access to China, there's no meaningful economic reason for Hong Kong to exist (it's like if Manhattan tried to secede from the US).

But morally the US, Britain along with rest of west would have a huge mess because there would be a huge outcry that people democratic rights were being trampled on and not respected. So while economically Macau abs Hong Kong were dependent on China a communist China demanding these enclaves being returned while its populations are demanding to remain independent.
 
But morally the US, Britain along with rest of west would have a huge mess because there would be a huge outcry that people democratic rights were being trampled on and not respected. So while economically Macau abs Hong Kong were dependent on China a communist China demanding these enclaves being returned while its populations are demanding to remain independent.
They could offer the population asylum at most.

Offering to take in refugees would be a lot more palatable than fighting a landwar with a nuclear armed country.
 
But morally the US, Britain along with rest of west would have a huge mess because there would be a huge outcry that people democratic rights were being trampled on and not respected. So while economically Macau abs Hong Kong were dependent on China a communist China demanding these enclaves being returned while its populations are demanding to remain independent.
. US and Britain had toppled several Democratically elected leader. There would be no outcry. It would be silly to fight nuclear war over single city Democratic Rights.

Besides, you talking about Rights of Secession which no country in world would endorse.
 

Lusitania

Donor
They could offer the population asylum at most.

Offering to take in refugees would be a lot more palatable than fighting a landwar with a nuclear armed country.
Like I mentioned Portugal could offer 400,000 asylum but how you take in 6 million (Hong Kong) Granted not everyone would leave but 4-5 million refugees will be a huge amount and result in the establishment of huge Chinese communities in the countries that take them in. Thinking that Canada, Australia, New Zealand along with US would also settle the refugees.
Any country that take them in would witness a huge disruption both socially and economically
 

Lusitania

Donor
. US and Britain had toppled several Democratically elected leader. There would be no outcry. It would be silly to fight nuclear war over single city Democratic Rights.

Besides, you talking about Rights of Secession which no country in world would endorse.
It has nothing to do with western governments but in today’s world live television in the 90s images of huge demonstrations would be picked in the the west with huge demonstrations and pressure applied to western government.

Yes the western world have toppled democratic government but handing over millions of people who are desperate to not join communist China be a different story. Plus at time there would of still existed a Cold War against communism and to force people to go to communist country would make a mockery of their Cold War talk.
 
Like I mentioned Portugal could offer 400,000 asylum but how you take in 6 million (Hong Kong) Granted not everyone would leave but 4-5 million refugees will be a huge amount and result in the establishment of huge Chinese communities in the countries that take them in. Thinking that Canada, Australia, New Zealand along with US would also settle the refugees.
Any country that take them in would witness a huge disruption both socially and economically
Sucks to live in Hong Kong then.

Sure, people might demonstrate in New York or London, but that's a world's difference away from sending young men and women to die, especially in a war that could go nuclear at any time.
 
Well, since Portugal had originally offered Macau back to China in the early 70s only to asked to hold the handover until the issue with Hong Kong was solved, I really don't see this happening...

Why was handing over Macau even a thing? AFAIK Macau was leased to Portugal in early modern times, when China was a major power in East Asia. It happened long before European imperialism and the unequal treaties. China had no moral or legal right to demand Macau back from Portugal.
 
if the British ask to keep Hong Kong forever back in 1898, would they still be holding on to it today. also what if the Nationalist had one the Civil War instead of the Communist in 1949, would the Nationalist want Hong Kong back.
 
Why was handing over Macau even a thing? AFAIK Macau was leased to Portugal in early modern times, when China was a major power in East Asia. It happened long before European imperialism and the unequal treaties. China had no moral or legal right to demand Macau back from Portugal.

Well, the original lease agreement of 1554 was, indeed, not an unequal treaty but the Sino-Portuguese Treaty of Peking, signed in 1887, in which China ceded to Portugal the right of perpetual occupation and government of the city, arguably was
 
if the British ask to keep Hong Kong forever back in 1898, would they still be holding on to it today.

No, Macau was ceded to Potugal in perpetuity and that didn't change anything. These agreements are considered unequal treaties, and as such invalid.

also what if the Nationalist had one the Civil War instead of the Communist in 1949, would the Nationalist want Hong Kong back.

Most definitely yes. They made it quite clear that they didn't recognize the soveregnity of any European power over a Chinese city. The only reason why they didn't do anything was because of the civil war
 

Lusitania

Donor
Sucks to live in Hong Kong then.

Sure, people might demonstrate in New York or London, but that's a world's difference away from sending young men and women to die, especially in a war that could go nuclear at any time.
My point was not that Britain and Portugal not hand over the territories but what to do with the people. You can’t force people back to China not that many the $$ in Hong Kong would guarantee that hundreds of thousands or millions would get on ships and sail to western ports. Reason I said western countries would suffer socially and economically dealing with all the refugees.
 
Hong Kong and Macau were always at the PRC's mercy. As I noted at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...rt-of-republic-of-china.399443/#post-13237514:

***

When the Communists were rapidly gaining control of China in 1949, the US refused to make a firm commitment to the UK to defend Hong Kong because doing that would require the establishment of a "military position well inland" which in return would require "a movement of large-scale forces into China." Thus, "unless we are willing to risk major military involvement in China and possibly global war" it would be "unwise" for the US to contribute to the defense of Hong Kong. https://books.google.com/books?id=BGITDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA45
 
The only way they could do it is secretly give the colonies nukes and even then it is unlikely at least in this TL.

Why make it a secret?

Proclaim loudly that that by 1996, when the Polaris A3T missiles were to be replaced with the Trident, were going to be land based at HK
 
Top