Very informative article, in particular I wasn't aware of the fact that Hong Kong was compounded of differents parts and that the larger one was the one problematic as being leased to China and set to expire in 1997. I don't really see how the outcome could have been different, by this simple fact China had the upper hand on any deal.
Thatcher was too soft. The UK gave up HK for nothing. They could have milked china for billions by making the terms a sale rather than just returning the land to them. The UK had to give up the new territories in 97 but could have kept kowloon and hong kong island which would have forced china to setup border checks/customs in the middle of the city which would have been impossible without tearing down hundreds of buildings. Without borders goods would have freely flooded through kowloon into the mainland and vastly disrupted the economy just look at the fact that today thousands of tons of goods are hand carried across the HK border to avoid paying tariffs.
Thatcher showed her hand early and made it clear she carried more about stable trade for the UK in HK. Once she let the chinese know that is what she wanted they knew they could ask for anything because if the deal failed the economy in HK would collapse.
"The UK gave up HK for nothing." Really? The British colonial occupation did not benefit from more than a century of British rule in the region? How about: Thatcher got off easy without a demand for reparations.
Or if we are to play realpolitik without a notion of human decency: by Thatcher's time the Chinese had every local military advantage. The Brits were forced to concede a losing position and should count themselves lucky that the negotiations resolved peacefully.
The hubris of the Western colonial view never ceases to amaze.
Totally. The article fails to mention any history of why Hong Kong fell into British hands in the first place. Flooding a country with drugs and then launching/winning a war to preserve the free trade of said drugs is a pretty shocking foundation. It wasn't even that long ago!
This question would depend on if he was British or Chinese.
If he was British, then obviously HK.
But if he was Chinese, it would depend on his beliefs and abilities.
In post-WWII Hong Kong, he would be a second class citizen in his own homeland. Barred from the highest levels because he wasn't British and have to live through "Jim Crow"-like social rules.
In post-WWII China, he would be living in third world conditions and having to navigate the Cultural Revolution.
So the question is what his beliefs are and how much ability he has. In China, he could at least raise up the ranks and won't be discriminated against because of his skin color. In Hong Kong, he wouldn't starve, but he and his descendants will suffer through colonial mentality.
Personally, if I was Chinese, I would take my chances in China.
In Chinese reporting it was quoted that Deng mentioned to Thatcher: "the PLA will march over across the Shenzhen river to HK on Jul 1, 1997 one way or another."
The official Chinese newspaper also famously showed a picture of Thatcher losing her footing coming out of the meeting hall.
It was an empty threat though; HK had a huge economy relative to China at the time (and more importantly a well-developed western-connected banking system). If push came to shove they might eventually do that but Deng was highly motivated to avoid such a conflict (imagine what that kind of political instability would have done to China's nascent economic reforms).
The fact that Britain even come to the negotiation table is a sign that their bottom line is much higher than military actions. Don't be silly to think a prime minister does not know the military power in her command...
All of HK proper's food, water, and power came from the mainland, which China was threatening to cut off. Short of war there was no way the U.K. could have retained HK
I've never understood this line of argument. If the food, water and power were such problems, they were known about for decades, and there was plenty of time to correct them. Yet no-one cared enough to do so. This surely implies that these issues were never the real balance of power.
Or, to put it into more recent terms: Qatar has just had its land border with Saudi closed, where almost all of its food and supplies come through. Its gas reserves are predominately from gulf waters shared with Iran and subject to the disruption of many navies, from numerous gulf countries through to the USA. So it has no iron-clad control of its supplies. Following your line of thought, Qatar should have to cede its sovereignty to Saudi Arabia, yet I don't hear anyone suggesting this...
I do not think your opinion would be fair. A lot of political decisions seems to be very stupid on their own, but if you look at the other decisions that are made at the same time, they would make a lot more sense. One country and another don't just make one deal forever in their existence, they made many, and in some they give up something and in some they gain something.
