James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,821
|
Post by James G on Jun 2, 2019 10:42:57 GMT
When Hong Kong was transferred to China in 1997, this was done for the stated reason that the 99-year lease on the New Territories expired and Hong Kong was unsustainable without that region. Of course, there was an economic factor involved yet back in the mid-80s, London was pushed to talk to China because of the issue over that lease expiring.
However, back in 1909, the then governor of Hong Kong proposed that Britain exchange the separate territory of Weihaiwei - near Beijing - for a change to the lease of the New Territories to a transfer in perpetuity. This was never adopted. But if it had been, then the New Territories would never would have had to be handed over.
Could this possible change back in 1909 have seen Hong Kong not return to china?
It was that issue of the New Territories having to be returned which set about the whole process of eventual transfer of the complete Hong Kong.
Instead of a transfer to China or the remaining of it as colonial holding, could Britain have set Hong Kong on the path to independence?
Without a process to follow of a long term return of Hong Kong, could the Chinese have taken the decision in the 80s to look at ways of seizing it or would they have just ignored the issue as they had previously been doing?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,548
Likes: 12,146
|
Post by stevep on Jun 2, 2019 12:02:16 GMT
When Hong Kong was transferred to China in 1997, this was done for the stated reason that the 99-year lease on the New Territories expired and Hong Kong was unsustainable without that region. Of course, there was an economic factor involved yet back in the mid-80s, London was pushed to talk to China because of the issue over that lease expiring. However, back in 1909, the then governor of Hong Kong proposed that Britain exchange the separate territory of Weihaiwei - near Beijing - for a change to the lease of the New Territories to a transfer in perpetuity. This was never adopted. But if it had been, then the New Territories would never would have had to be handed over. Could this possible change back in 1909 have seen Hong Kong not return to china? It was that issue of the New Territories having to be returned which set about the whole process of eventual transfer of the complete Hong Kong. Instead of a transfer to China or the remaining of it as colonial holding, could Britain have set Hong Kong on the path to independence? Without a process to follow of a long term return of Hong Kong, could the Chinese have taken the decision in the 80s to look at ways of seizing it or would they have just ignored the issue as they had previously been doing?
James
Very difficult and would depend on the circumstances. However with either a shambolic Maoist China or a reformed dictatorship like the present or even a non-communist one I doubt Britain could hold the colony indefinitely. Sooner or later China is likely to be in a position to attack if and its difficult to see Britain holding against that even if we were willing to use nukes, which would have bad consequences politically.
Similarly, with anything like the present regime I can't see an independent Hong Kong being viable as Beijing is likely to take the same attitude as for Taiwan declaring its independence, i.e. declaring war and attacking.
Steve
|
|
mobiyuz
Chief petty officer
I have returned.
Posts: 167
Likes: 161
|
Post by mobiyuz on Jun 11, 2019 23:03:16 GMT
When Hong Kong was transferred to China in 1997, this was done for the stated reason that the 99-year lease on the New Territories expired and Hong Kong was unsustainable without that region. Of course, there was an economic factor involved yet back in the mid-80s, London was pushed to talk to China because of the issue over that lease expiring. However, back in 1909, the then governor of Hong Kong proposed that Britain exchange the separate territory of Weihaiwei - near Beijing - for a change to the lease of the New Territories to a transfer in perpetuity. This was never adopted. But if it had been, then the New Territories would never would have had to be handed over. Could this possible change back in 1909 have seen Hong Kong not return to china? It was that issue of the New Territories having to be returned which set about the whole process of eventual transfer of the complete Hong Kong. Instead of a transfer to China or the remaining of it as colonial holding, could Britain have set Hong Kong on the path to independence? Without a process to follow of a long term return of Hong Kong, could the Chinese have taken the decision in the 80s to look at ways of seizing it or would they have just ignored the issue as they had previously been doing?
James
Very difficult and would depend on the circumstances. However with either a shambolic Maoist China or a reformed dictatorship like the present or even a non-communist one I doubt Britain could hold the colony indefinitely. Sooner or later China is likely to be in a position to attack if and its difficult to see Britain holding against that even if we were willing to use nukes, which would have bad consequences politically.
Similarly, with anything like the present regime I can't see an independent Hong Kong being viable as Beijing is likely to take the same attitude as for Taiwan declaring its independence, i.e. declaring war and attacking.
Steve
While I can understand China's willingness to use military force, I feel like by the OTL handover of Hong Kong the leadership of China would likely be more keen on using a threat of military force to try and get it back rather than going to war. After all, Hong Kong did find its way onto the UN's list of non-self governing territories during the era of decolonization, and it's likely that China would still use that tactic to pressure the UK into handing Hong Kong back over. However, if Britain does have a lease on the New Territories in perpetuity, then the rest of the world would very likely be more willing to back the UK on the matter, especially as the Cold War continues ever onward. So to me, it seems more likely that if the UK during, say, the Thatcher Government manages to get the world to back them on keeping Hong Kong, it might be more likely that we end up with a situation where Hong Kong is something like a second Taiwan. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,821
|
Post by James G on Jun 12, 2019 19:09:18 GMT
James
Very difficult and would depend on the circumstances. However with either a shambolic Maoist China or a reformed dictatorship like the present or even a non-communist one I doubt Britain could hold the colony indefinitely. Sooner or later China is likely to be in a position to attack if and its difficult to see Britain holding against that even if we were willing to use nukes, which would have bad consequences politically.
Similarly, with anything like the present regime I can't see an independent Hong Kong being viable as Beijing is likely to take the same attitude as for Taiwan declaring its independence, i.e. declaring war and attacking.
Steve
While I can understand China's willingness to use military force, I feel like by the OTL handover of Hong Kong the leadership of China would likely be more keen on using a threat of military force to try and get it back rather than going to war. After all, Hong Kong did find its way onto the UN's list of non-self governing territories during the era of decolonization, and it's likely that China would still use that tactic to pressure the UK into handing Hong Kong back over. However, if Britain does have a lease on the New Territories in perpetuity, then the rest of the world would very likely be more willing to back the UK on the matter, especially as the Cold War continues ever onward. So to me, it seems more likely that if the UK during, say, the Thatcher Government manages to get the world to back them on keeping Hong Kong, it might be more likely that we end up with a situation where Hong Kong is something like a second Taiwan. If Hong Kong was on the path to independence, as I could see Britain wanting to do eventually, China would look for a 'solution'. Tanks into Hong Kong - let's say a pre-dawn attack and it all done by the morning is over - is far easier than an amphibious/airborne assault into Taiwan. |
|
|
|
Post by Middlesex_Toffeeman on Jul 9, 2019 5:21:20 GMT
I would say the effects would likely involve refugees trying to get to Hong Kong. Chinese nationalists *would* have something else to sabre rattle about, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by guardian54 on Aug 25, 2019 23:07:56 GMT
Hong Kong is really entirely dependent on the finance sector. Import/export wise Guangzhou has better natural conditions and would have passed it by in good time, once China opened up.
The Chinese would engage in occasional loud complaints. And guess what people DO NOT WANT to base their financial facilities in? A place that they THINK is under regular armed threat--in reality China couldn't be arsed to damage its international trade by going after Hong Kong.
Singapore, Taiwan (which is under much less practical threat due to the sizable strait), Japan, and Korea would steal a large part of Hong Kong's business because of the sense of threat.
Chances are China would have occasional complaints, but otherwise basically just went on and comically outpaced Hong Kong as per OTL. The best revenge is sometimes really to live well.
Communist China didn't even bother to storm Jinmen/Kinmen, so Hong Kong? Lol whatever let them look down their noses at us, we just have to totally eclipse them on per capita bases, right? *rolls up sleeves and gets to work*
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Aug 29, 2019 6:29:40 GMT
When Hong Kong was transferred to China in 1997, this was done for the stated reason that the 99-year lease on the New Territories expired and Hong Kong was unsustainable without that region. Of course, there was an economic factor involved yet back in the mid-80s, London was pushed to talk to China because of the issue over that lease expiring. However, back in 1909, the then governor of Hong Kong proposed that Britain exchange the separate territory of Weihaiwei - near Beijing - for a change to the lease of the New Territories to a transfer in perpetuity. This was never adopted. But if it had been, then the New Territories would never would have had to be handed over. Could this possible change back in 1909 have seen Hong Kong not return to china? It was that issue of the New Territories having to be returned which set about the whole process of eventual transfer of the complete Hong Kong. Instead of a transfer to China or the remaining of it as colonial holding, could Britain have set Hong Kong on the path to independence? Without a process to follow of a long term return of Hong Kong, could the Chinese have taken the decision in the 80s to look at ways of seizing it or would they have just ignored the issue as they had previously been doing? Britain can't be muscled out of Hong Kong unlike Portugal, as it has a nuclear weapons stockpile and the latter doesn't. Adding to this, the U.S. in 1996 demonstrated a willingness to stand up even for Taiwan during the Straits Crisis, so I doubt China would try anything. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,821
|
Post by James G on Aug 29, 2019 8:39:10 GMT
When Hong Kong was transferred to China in 1997, this was done for the stated reason that the 99-year lease on the New Territories expired and Hong Kong was unsustainable without that region. Of course, there was an economic factor involved yet back in the mid-80s, London was pushed to talk to China because of the issue over that lease expiring. However, back in 1909, the then governor of Hong Kong proposed that Britain exchange the separate territory of Weihaiwei - near Beijing - for a change to the lease of the New Territories to a transfer in perpetuity. This was never adopted. But if it had been, then the New Territories would never would have had to be handed over. Could this possible change back in 1909 have seen Hong Kong not return to china? It was that issue of the New Territories having to be returned which set about the whole process of eventual transfer of the complete Hong Kong. Instead of a transfer to China or the remaining of it as colonial holding, could Britain have set Hong Kong on the path to independence? Without a process to follow of a long term return of Hong Kong, could the Chinese have taken the decision in the 80s to look at ways of seizing it or would they have just ignored the issue as they had previously been doing? Britain can't be muscled out of Hong Kong unlike Portugal, as it has a nuclear weapons stockpile and the latter doesn't. Adding to this, the U.S. in 1996 demonstrated a willingness to stand up even for Taiwan during the Straits Crisis, so I doubt China would try anything. In the early 80s, Thatcher was in China meeting with Deng over the issue. The story i heard - later coming out of China - was that he said he could resolve the issue that afternoon with his paratroopers. That was miltary feasible. Politically it is a different issue but Hong Kong remained undefendable on its own. |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Aug 29, 2019 8:55:08 GMT
Britain can't be muscled out of Hong Kong unlike Portugal, as it has a nuclear weapons stockpile and the latter doesn't. Adding to this, the U.S. in 1996 demonstrated a willingness to stand up even for Taiwan during the Straits Crisis, so I doubt China would try anything. In the early 80s, Thatcher was in China meeting with Deng over the issue. The story i heard - later coming out of China - was that he said he could resolve the issue that afternoon with his paratroopers. That was miltary feasible. Politically it is a different issue but Hong Kong remained undefendable on its own. On it's own, yeah, but that's kinda my point: Britain has nuclear weapons to back up its territorial integrity. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,548
Likes: 12,146
|
Post by stevep on Aug 29, 2019 15:10:51 GMT
In the early 80s, Thatcher was in China meeting with Deng over the issue. The story i heard - later coming out of China - was that he said he could resolve the issue that afternoon with his paratroopers. That was miltary feasible. Politically it is a different issue but Hong Kong remained undefendable on its own. On it's own, yeah, but that's kinda my point: Britain has nuclear weapons to back up its territorial integrity.
So has China. Do you really think that a British government will start a nuclear exchange with China over the issue?
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Sept 2, 2019 17:34:08 GMT
On it's own, yeah, but that's kinda my point: Britain has nuclear weapons to back up its territorial integrity.
So has China. Do you really think that a British government will start a nuclear exchange with China over the issue?
Possibly, but the strategic uncertainty therein plays to the UK's advantage given MAD. Up until the 2000s or so, I'd rate the UK as a stronger nuclear power and thus China has to ask itself if it's really worth risking it all for Hong Kong. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,548
Likes: 12,146
|
Post by stevep on Sept 3, 2019 10:21:35 GMT
So has China. Do you really think that a British government will start a nuclear exchange with China over the issue?
Possibly, but the strategic uncertainty therein plays to the UK's advantage given MAD. Up until the 2000s or so, I'd rate the UK as a stronger nuclear power and thus China has to ask itself if it's really worth risking it all for Hong Kong.
We may be a stronger nuclear power but we're a much smaller state and also there is the fact that Britain would have to escalate to a nuclear attack on the basis of China overrunning a British colony. Admittedly part of the reluctance in the final years about giving the people of Hong Kong a directly elected government was because of Beijing's opposition but it was always a colony, no matter how well treated the population may have been. It would be political suicide for any British government to initiate a nuclear exchange under those circumstances.
|
|
