NationStates Jolt Archive

This is scary.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/04/06/hongkong.china/

Beijing: We want Hong Kong

Well, it is a part of China and was only agreed to be leased to the UK for 99 years. Scary or not, it's just.

Beijing: We want Hong Kong

Well, it is a part of China and was only agreed to be leased to the UK for 99 years. Scary or not, it's just.
Didn't China ceded Hong Kong for all times to Britain after the opium war?
So why did Britain lease it then?

Beijing: We want Hong Kong

Well, it is a part of China and was only agreed to be leased to the UK for 99 years. Scary or not, it's just.
Didn't China ceded Hong Kong for all times to Britain after the opium war?
So why did Britain lease it then?

Nope, just 99 years.. that's why they had to give it back. It was at the end of the opium wars.

Beijing: We want Hong Kong

Well, it is a part of China and was only agreed to be leased to the UK for 99 years. Scary or not, it's just.
Didn't China ceded Hong Kong for all times to Britain after the opium war?
So why did Britain lease it then?

Nope, just 99 years.. that's why they had to give it back. It was at the end of the opium wars.
But the British occuppied Hong Kong since 1841. Thats a heck of a lot longer then 99 years. It was ment as a token of peace. And in the treaty on Nanjing, after some subtle British military pressure, it was given to Britain officially. So why lease something you already have?

Some of it was the time it took to gradually turn over things. Also, in 1984 there was an agreement to leave the political attitudes alone for 50 years. But it appears that will not happen.

I don't think Hong Kong has the money it had on the British. I remember reading how many businesses were running for it.

Beijing: We want Hong Kong

Well, it is a part of China and was only agreed to be leased to the UK for 99 years. Scary or not, it's just.
Didn't China ceded Hong Kong for all times to Britain after the opium war?
So why did Britain lease it then?

Nope, just 99 years.. that's why they had to give it back. It was at the end of the opium wars.
But the British occuppied Hong Kong since 1841. Thats a heck of a lot longer then 99 years. It was ment as a token of peace. And in the treaty on Nanjing, after some subtle British military pressure, it was given to Britain officially. So why lease something you already have?

Haha, don't ask me why they signed the lease.. they did though and Beijing called them on it.. and just because you "occupy" a nation, doesn't mean you own it rightfully.. but, I was not in the head of the British.. I suppose I could look it up and try to find you an answer.. I just know that is what happened.

But the British occuppied Hong Kong since 1841. Thats a heck of a lot longer then 99 years. It was ment as a token of peace. And in the treaty on Nanjing, after some subtle British military pressure, it was given to Britain officially. So why lease something you already have?

Admittedly, it would appear you know more on the subject than I and more than a few others do. I'd only known that China "leased" Hong Kong to Britain for a set period after to opium war and that it had reverted to Chinese rule in 1997. Presumably, though, the British government would not have given up their colony if they had not been somehow obligated to do so.

Personally, I don't think the people of Hong Kong are going to be happy under Chinese rule.

Beijing: We want Hong Kong

Well, it is a part of China and was only agreed to be leased to the UK for 99 years. Scary or not, it's just.
Didn't China ceded Hong Kong for all times to Britain after the opium war?
So why did Britain lease it then?

Nope, just 99 years.. that's why they had to give it back. It was at the end of the opium wars.
But the British occuppied Hong Kong since 1841. Thats a heck of a lot longer then 99 years. It was ment as a token of peace. And in the treaty on Nanjing, after some subtle British military pressure, it was given to Britain officially. So why lease something you already have?

Haha, don't ask me why they signed the lease.. they did though and Beijing called them on it.. and just because you "occupy" a nation, doesn't mean you own it rightfully.. but, I was not in the head of the British.. I suppose I could look it up and try to find you an answer.. I just know that is what happened.
Hong Kong is hardly a nation. And Britain did own it rightfully. The Chinese Emperor gave it to them afterall. It hardly gets more rightfull then that. I just don't understand why they suddenly would want to lease it when they got it for free. All that tea must have messed with their brains. They should have made beer their national beverage.

But the British occuppied Hong Kong since 1841. Thats a heck of a lot longer then 99 years. It was ment as a token of peace. And in the treaty on Nanjing, after some subtle British military pressure, it was given to Britain officially. So why lease something you already have?

Admittedly, it would appear you know more on the subject than I and more than a few others do. I'd only known that China "leased" Hong Kong to Britain for a set period after to opium war and that it had reverted to Chinese rule in 1997. Presumably, though, the British government would not have given up their colony if they had not been somehow obligated to do so.

Personally, I don't think the people of Hong Kong are going to be happy under Chinese rule.
Seeing as they have been under Chinese rule for the past 6.5 years, and the increasing unwelcome meddelling of the central comittee, I think it's save to assume that many Hong Kong Chinese wouldn't mind Britain leasing them for another 99 years.

Beijing: We want Hong Kong

Well, it is a part of China and was only agreed to be leased to the UK for 99 years. Scary or not, it's just.
Didn't China ceded Hong Kong for all times to Britain after the opium war?
So why did Britain lease it then?

Nope, just 99 years.. that's why they had to give it back. It was at the end of the opium wars.
But the British occuppied Hong Kong since 1841. Thats a heck of a lot longer then 99 years. It was ment as a token of peace. And in the treaty on Nanjing, after some subtle British military pressure, it was given to Britain officially. So why lease something you already have?

Haha, don't ask me why they signed the lease.. they did though and Beijing called them on it.. and just because you "occupy" a nation, doesn't mean you own it rightfully.. but, I was not in the head of the British.. I suppose I could look it up and try to find you an answer.. I just know that is what happened.
Hong Kong is hardly a nation. And Britain did own it rightfully. The Chinese Emperor gave it to them afterall. It hardly gets more rightfull then that. I just don't understand why they suddenly would want to lease it when they got it for free. All that tea must have messed with their brains. They should have made beer their national beverage.

Sorry, nation, city, same difference (red herring)

But yeah, what you say makes sense.. but they made the agreement, so they can't hardly b*tch about it now. C'est la vie!

Beijing: We want Hong Kong

Well, it is a part of China and was only agreed to be leased to the UK for 99 years. Scary or not, it's just.
Didn't China ceded Hong Kong for all times to Britain after the opium war?
So why did Britain lease it then?

Nope, just 99 years.. that's why they had to give it back. It was at the end of the opium wars.
But the British occuppied Hong Kong since 1841. Thats a heck of a lot longer then 99 years. It was ment as a token of peace. And in the treaty on Nanjing, after some subtle British military pressure, it was given to Britain officially. So why lease something you already have?

Haha, don't ask me why they signed the lease.. they did though and Beijing called them on it.. and just because you "occupy" a nation, doesn't mean you own it rightfully.. but, I was not in the head of the British.. I suppose I could look it up and try to find you an answer.. I just know that is what happened.
Hong Kong is hardly a nation. And Britain did own it rightfully. The Chinese Emperor gave it to them afterall. It hardly gets more rightfull then that. I just don't understand why they suddenly would want to lease it when they got it for free. All that tea must have messed with their brains. They should have made beer their national beverage.

Sorry, nation, city, same difference (red herring)

But yeah, what you say makes sense.. but they made the agreement, so they can't hardly b*tch about it now. C'est la vie!
No ones bitching. Except the Hong Kong Chinese perhaps. I just wanted to know what made the British want to lease a town they already owned.
It's just not logical, Captain.

No ones bitching. Except the Hong Kong Chinese perhaps. I just wanted to know what made the British want to lease a town they already owned.
It's just not logical, Captain.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply you were b*tching.. just a figure of speech.. but yeah.. I actually didn't know before you said that the UK had already owned Hong Kong.. (see you learn some thing new every day) I was just aware of the 99 year lease.. there was even a big do about it on the news when the UK gave it back a few years ago.. so.. don't know what to tell you.. I guess there must of been some behind closed door stuff going on that we never knrew about.. or at least you and I don't know about.. *shrug*.. all I know is it was given back based on the 99 year lease being up.. any thing more then that is outside my knowledge base without further research.

Although, it doesn't make sense.. I agree. I'm sure there must of been some deal struck that we just don't know about. It's not unheard of.

[No ones bitching. Except the Hong Kong Chinese perhaps. I just wanted to know what made the British want to lease a town they already owned.
It's just not logical, Captain.


Want to lease a town they already owned?

Read ur Chinese history and come bak. They didnt own it: china leased it to them for 99 years, as part of a humiuliating treaty agreement that was the first step to stripping 1.8 million square kilometers of sovereign Chinese territory from the nation!

So no, they didnt lease soemthing they already owned. They tore it from the Mainland and called it a lease, and agreed to give it back after 99 years.

Does that answer ur question?

[No ones bitching. Except the Hong Kong Chinese perhaps. I just wanted to know what made the British want to lease a town they already owned.
It's just not logical, Captain.


Want to lease a town they already owned?

Read ur Chinese history and come bak. They didnt own it: china leased it to them for 99 years, as part of a humiuliating treaty agreement that was the first step to stripping 1.8 million square kilometers of sovereign Chinese territory from the nation!

So no, they didnt lease soemthing they already owned. They tore it from the Mainland and called it a lease, and agreed to give it back after 99 years.

Does that answer ur question?
Try your own advice and READ, all posts in here for example, before you come in here trying to sound smart. And failing at it I might add.

In 1839, Lin Zexu was appointed by the emperor as a special commissioner to Guangzhou to stop the drug trade. He and his troops used force to impel the foreign factories to surrender their stocks of opium. This act was the stepping stone to the First Opium War when the Chinese and the British could not comply with one another's demands. As a result of the war and the Chinese' fear of British military threats, Hong Kong was rewarded to the British under the Convention of Chuen Pi in January 1841. On January 26, 1841, the British flag was raised at Possession Point on Hong Kong Island, and British occupation began. A few months later, officials were selling plots of land and the colonization of Hong Kong took flight.

History of Hong Kong (http://www.marimari.com/content/hong_kong/general_info/history/main.html)

Britain actually wanted to give them bak to China in the '50s because they were afriad the CHinese would overrun Hong Kong and take it back by force. But hte government said no and alllowed them to keep it; same thing happened with Macao.

And what prove do you have that "hong Kong was given to Britain officially?"

Hong Kong being leased to the British was, in the end, a humiuliation. There were signs cordoning off areas that said "no CHinese and dogs allowed," as there were in most major foreign cities.Once again, emphasis:

HONG KONG WAS TAKEN AWAY DURING THE OPIUM WAR IN THE FORM OF A "LEASE"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ok. End emphasis.
Read any decent Chinese history text; those are my sources.
I hope i have gotten my point across, and I hope you do not ignore me, because i have decent knowledge of this, and I can cite sources if you wish.

Britain actually wanted to give them bak to China in the '50s because they were afriad the CHinese would overrun Hong Kong and take it back by force. But hte government said no and alllowed them to keep it; same thing happened with Macao.

And what prove do you have that "hong Kong was given to Britain officially?"

Hong Kong being leased to the British was, in the end, a humiuliation. There were signs cordoning off areas that said "no CHinese and dogs allowed," as there were in most major foreign cities.Once again, emphasis:

HONG KONG WAS TAKEN AWAY DURING THE OPIUM WAR IN THE FORM OF A "LEASE"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ok. End emphasis.
Read any decent Chinese history text; those are my sources.
I hope i have gotten my point across, and I hope you do not ignore me, because i have decent knowledge of this, and I can cite sources if you wish.
Unless you can read at the speed of light you might want to click that blue thingy at the bottom of my previouse post. It's a link. :roll: Theres my proof.

Britain actually wanted to give them bak to China in the '50s because they were afriad the CHinese would overrun Hong Kong and take it back by force. But hte government said no and alllowed them to keep it; same thing happened with Macao.

And what prove do you have that "hong Kong was given to Britain officially?"

Hong Kong being leased to the British was, in the end, a humiuliation. There were signs cordoning off areas that said "no CHinese and dogs allowed," as there were in most major foreign cities.Once again, emphasis:

HONG KONG WAS TAKEN AWAY DURING THE OPIUM WAR IN THE FORM OF A "LEASE"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ok. End emphasis.
Read any decent Chinese history text; those are my sources.
I hope i have gotten my point across, and I hope you do not ignore me, because i have decent knowledge of this, and I can cite sources if you wish.
Unless you can read at the speed of light you might want to click that blue thingy at the bottom of my previouse post. It's a link. :roll: Theres my proof.

Well this is basically the timeline I could find in the best detail.. it however doesn't say why the UK "leased" Hong Kong when it was already taken.. I will keep looking..

Timeline

1841 Hong Kong Ceded to British
First Land Sales
Jardine and Matheson establish themselves
1842 Treaty of Nanking confrims cession
1843 Royal Charter proclaims Hong Kong as a separate colony. First Governor appointed
1845 P&0 commence monthly mail route
1846 Hong Kong Club opens
1852 Taiping Refugees arrive from China
1856 Ginger and Coffee farms promoted
1857 Arrow War with China. 500 Europeans poisoned by Arsenic from a bakery.
1858 Treaty of Tientsin legalises Opium sales in China
1860 Kowloon and Stonecutters Island are leased to Britain in perpetuity.
1862 Battle of Tsim-Sha-Tsui between local Punti and Hakka tribes.
1863 Jardine, Matheson lay first telegraph lines within colony. Silver dollars issued.
1865 Hong Kong and Shangai Bank founded
1867 Chinese blockade Hong Kong.
1870 Hong Kong to Amoy to Shanghai cable operational.
1871 Hong Kong to Singapore cable operational.
1884 Riots in response to Sino-French War. Hong Kong Jockey Club formed
1895 20,000 coolies strike over lodging house regulations
1898 New Territories leased to Britain for 99 years.
1899 Local Chinese oppose British take over. Chinese magistrate and militia expelled from Kowloon.
1900 Boxer Rebellion. Hong Kong serves as base for Allied forces.
1910 All opium divans closed. First car arrives in Hong Kong.
1911 First flight in Hong Kong
1912 Attempted assassination of Governor
1918 Fire at Happy Valley Racecourse. 600 are killed.
1922 Royal visit of HRH Edward.
1925 Guangzhou-Hong Kong strike until 1926
1930 First commercial flights.
1931 Anti-Japanese riots
1936 Imperial Airways flying boat carries airmail from Britain to Hong Kong.
1937 Japanese land in New Territories en route to Shenzhen.
1938 Fall of Shenzhen. Japanese cruiser Myoko visits Hong Kong.
1939 More Anti-Japanese riots. Conscription for British subjects. Volunteer forces strengthened
1940 General Norton takes control from civilians.
1941 Japanese invade Hong Kong.
1942 Lt General Rensuke Isogai becomes Japanese Governor.
1943 Japanese rebuild government house.
1944 Seven British civilians beheaded for possessing a radio.
1945 Japanese surrender
1946 Civilian government restored.
1948 UK ends control over Hong Kong finances
1949 Chinese communists reach Hong Kong border.
1950 Immigration controls on Chinese.
1952 British abandon political reform.
1965 Large influx of American service personnel due to Vietnam War.
1967 5 Hong Kong police shot dead by Chinese PLA troops at border.
1972 Vietnamese boat people begin to arrive.
1974 Anti-Corruption Commission formed. Hong Kong Dollar floated.
1980 'Touch Base' policy of allowing illegal Chinese to remain in Hong Kong ends.
1982 Thatcher visits Beijing to discuss Hong Kong's future.
1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration signed by Thatcher.
1986 Queen visits colony.
1987 British National (Overseas) Passport introduced.
1989 Tiannemen Square massacre.
1997 Hong Kong returned to China

Try your own advice and READ, all posts in here for example, before you come in here trying to sound smart. And failing at it I might add.

In 1839, Lin Zexu was appointed by the emperor as a special commissioner to Guangzhou to stop the drug trade. He and his troops used force to impel the foreign factories to surrender their stocks of opium. This act was the stepping stone to the First Opium War when the Chinese and the British could not comply with one another's demands. As a result of the war and the Chinese' fear of British military threats, Hong Kong was rewarded to the British under the Convention of Chuen Pi in January 1841. On January 26, 1841, the British flag was raised at Possession Point on Hong Kong Island, and British occupation began. A few months later, officials were selling plots of land and the colonization of Hong Kong took flight.

History of Hong Kong (http://www.marimari.com/content/hong_kong/general_info/history/main.html)

Give me a moment to reread some sh*t, and I'll talk to u tmrw.

I didnt come in here trying to sound smart, Simkaria. I came in here because i thought someone was throwing around preconceptions-MISTAKEN ones, and i see that I am mistaken, so i apologize for sounding like an antagonistic f**k before, and i certainly didnt mean to piss u off like that.

But dont say that I'm running around trying to sound smart, cause i thought u had preconceptions and shit ok?

And I'm apologizing ok?

I'll ttyl.

Okay.. this seems to be the key..

"1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration signed by Thatcher."

Britain provoked the Opium War and forced the Qing government to sign the Treaty of Nanjing in l842, formally ceding Hong Kong Island to the British.

http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/ljzg/3566/t17767.htm

Also..

Jun 9 1898 Treaty of Peking. Britain acquires from China, under a 99-year lease, the June 5th less. New Territories and 236 associated islands.

see: http://www.nychinatown.com/history_of_Hong_Kong.htm

Try your own advice and READ, all posts in here for example, before you come in here trying to sound smart. And failing at it I might add.

In 1839, Lin Zexu was appointed by the emperor as a special commissioner to Guangzhou to stop the drug trade. He and his troops used force to impel the foreign factories to surrender their stocks of opium. This act was the stepping stone to the First Opium War when the Chinese and the British could not comply with one another's demands. As a result of the war and the Chinese' fear of British military threats, Hong Kong was rewarded to the British under the Convention of Chuen Pi in January 1841. On January 26, 1841, the British flag was raised at Possession Point on Hong Kong Island, and British occupation began. A few months later, officials were selling plots of land and the colonization of Hong Kong took flight.

History of Hong Kong (http://www.marimari.com/content/hong_kong/general_info/history/main.html)

Give me a moment to reread some sh*t, and I'll talk to u tmrw.

I didnt come in here trying to sound smart, Simkaria. I came in here because i thought someone was throwing around preconceptions-MISTAKEN ones, and i see that I am mistaken, so i apologize for sounding like an antagonistic f**k before, and i certainly didnt mean to piss u off like that.

But dont say that I'm running around trying to sound smart, cause i thought u had preconceptions and shit ok?

And I'm apologizing ok?

I'll ttyl.
Alright, no harm. I just felt like I was attacked from out of the blue. All I wanted to know was why Britain suddenly leased Hong Kong after the Opium War when it has been ceded to them since 1841.

Try your own advice and READ, all posts in here for example, before you come in here trying to sound smart. And failing at it I might add.

In 1839, Lin Zexu was appointed by the emperor as a special commissioner to Guangzhou to stop the drug trade. He and his troops used force to impel the foreign factories to surrender their stocks of opium. This act was the stepping stone to the First Opium War when the Chinese and the British could not comply with one another's demands. As a result of the war and the Chinese' fear of British military threats, Hong Kong was rewarded to the British under the Convention of Chuen Pi in January 1841. On January 26, 1841, the British flag was raised at Possession Point on Hong Kong Island, and British occupation began. A few months later, officials were selling plots of land and the colonization of Hong Kong took flight.

History of Hong Kong (http://www.marimari.com/content/hong_kong/general_info/history/main.html)

Give me a moment to reread some sh*t, and I'll talk to u tmrw.

I didnt come in here trying to sound smart, Simkaria. I came in here because i thought someone was throwing around preconceptions-MISTAKEN ones, and i see that I am mistaken, so i apologize for sounding like an antagonistic f**k before, and i certainly didnt mean to piss u off like that.

But dont say that I'm running around trying to sound smart, cause i thought u had preconceptions and shit ok?

And I'm apologizing ok?

I'll ttyl.
Alright, no harm. I just felt like I was attacked from out of the blue. All I wanted to know was why Britain suddenly leased Hong Kong after the Opium War when it has been ceded to them since 1841.

I suspect this is why....

Britain provoked the Opium War and forced the Qing government to sign the Treaty of Nanjing in l842, formally ceding Hong Kong Island to the British.

It wasn't given freely.. they were forced.. thus it was disputed.. and then an agreed 99 year lease was agreed to in 1898..

Okay.. this seems to be the key..

"1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration signed by Thatcher."

Britain provoked the Opium War and forced the Qing government to sign the Treaty of Nanjing in l842, formally ceding Hong Kong Island to the British.

http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/ljzg/3566/t17767.htm

Also..

Jun 9 1898 Treaty of Peking. Britain acquires from China, under a 99-year lease, the June 5th less. New Territories and 236 associated islands.

see: http://www.nychinatown.com/history_of_Hong_Kong.htm
Yeah. I, finally, found the same on Wikipedia.

Occupied by the United Kingdom during the First Opium War in 1841, Hong Kong Island was formally ceded by China the following year under the Treaty of Nanking. Parts of the adjacent Kowloon Peninsula were ceded to Britain in 1860 by the Convention of Peking after the Second Opium War. Various adjacent lands, known as the New Territories were then leased to Britain for 99 years from July 1, 1898, the lease expiring on June 30, 1997.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong)
So technical China should have gotten only the New Territorries. Not the whole package. Since they were the pieces of land that were leased. As far as I understand it.

At least Hong Kong is now ruled by their fellow Chinese and not by a White governor from Britain. The residents of Hong Kong had no democracy (on a freedom os speech and press) under the British so why all of a sudden are they marching on to the streets in protest.

These protests are nothing by sponsored by Britian and the United States. Simply because Hong Kong's economy has deteriorated since the 1990s, they should find a more logical source of blame. Instead of protesting, these ignorant unemployed persons should act of their worth and get a life (and career).

Try your own advice and READ, all posts in here for example, before you come in here trying to sound smart. And failing at it I might add.

In 1839, Lin Zexu was appointed by the emperor as a special commissioner to Guangzhou to stop the drug trade. He and his troops used force to impel the foreign factories to surrender their stocks of opium. This act was the stepping stone to the First Opium War when the Chinese and the British could not comply with one another's demands. As a result of the war and the Chinese' fear of British military threats, Hong Kong was rewarded to the British under the Convention of Chuen Pi in January 1841. On January 26, 1841, the British flag was raised at Possession Point on Hong Kong Island, and British occupation began. A few months later, officials were selling plots of land and the colonization of Hong Kong took flight.

History of Hong Kong (http://www.marimari.com/content/hong_kong/general_info/history/main.html)

Give me a moment to reread some sh*t, and I'll talk to u tmrw.

I didnt come in here trying to sound smart, Simkaria. I came in here because i thought someone was throwing around preconceptions-MISTAKEN ones, and i see that I am mistaken, so i apologize for sounding like an antagonistic f**k before, and i certainly didnt mean to piss u off like that.

But dont say that I'm running around trying to sound smart, cause i thought u had preconceptions and shit ok?

And I'm apologizing ok?

I'll ttyl.
Alright, no harm. I just felt like I was attacked from out of the blue. All I wanted to know was why Britain suddenly leased Hong Kong after the Opium War when it has been ceded to them since 1841.

I suspect this is why....

Britain provoked the Opium War and forced the Qing government to sign the Treaty of Nanjing in l842, formally ceding Hong Kong Island to the British.

It wasn't given freely.. they were forced.. thus it was disputed.. and then an agreed 99 year lease was agreed to in 1898..
I never said the Chinese gave it up freely in the sense that they thought the Brits were so kewl for inventing plumpudding and Victoria beeing such a natural beauty.

At least Hong Kong is now ruled by their fellow Chinese and not by a White governor from Britain. The residents of Hong Kong had no democracy (on a freedom os speech and press) under the British so why all of a sudden are they marching on to the streets in protest.

These protests are nothing by sponsored by Britian and the United States. Simply because Hong Kong's economy has deteriorated since the 1990s, they should find a more logical source of blame. Instead of protesting, these ignorant unemployed persons should act of their worth and get a life (and career).
:?: Does anything of this make sense? :?:

Geez Louise...can this sorry excuse for a server be any slower?

It has been pointed out, correctly, that the New Territories are the only part of Hong Kong which were actually subject to the lease. This is true. (Put aside the legitimacy of the original agreements to transfer Hong Kong island... if we disregard treaties made by force, then the world should look MUCH different than it does today)

Now, the British faced a few problems.

First, the territories of Hong Kong, fully integrated, would be difficult to extricate into seperate administrative parts.

Secondly, there was pressure from the PRC, and difficulty justifying a holding taken by force, especially force originating from a war over forcing the Chinese to accept opium imports.

Thirdly, Hong Kong cannot supply much of its own food and water needs, nor can it provide its own resources neccessary for some production. The PRC could have made life difficult for Hong Kong if matters began to crumble, especially if they held control of the New Territories after the lease ran out.

The British simply decided that Hong Kong was probably going to be very difficult/costly to hold, and giving up the whole concession (not just the New Territories) would help gain good relations with the PRC.

At least, thats my understanding of the (simplified) issues involved.

It has been pointed out, correctly, that the New Territories are the only part of Hong Kong which were actually subject to the lease. This is true. (Put aside the legitimacy of the original agreements to transfer Hong Kong island... if we disregard treaties made by force, then the world should look MUCH different than it does today)

Now, the British faced a few problems.

First, the territories of Hong Kong, fully integrated, would be difficult to extricate into seperate administrative parts.

Secondly, there was pressure from the PRC, and difficulty justifying a holding taken by force, especially force originating from a war over forcing the Chinese to accept opium imports.

Thirdly, Hong Kong cannot supply much of its own food and water needs, nor can it provide its own resources neccessary for some production. The PRC could have made life difficult for Hong Kong if matters began to crumble, especially if they held control of the New Territories after the lease ran out.

The British simply decided that Hong Kong was probably going to be very difficult/costly to hold, and giving up the whole concession (not just the New Territories) would help gain good relations with the PRC.

At least, thats my understanding of the (simplified) issues involved.
Ah yes. I see. That makes sense,

It has ... my understanding of the (simplified) issues involved.

Darn, Spyr! You beat me to this... Good one. :D

It has been pointed out, correctly, that the New Territories are the only part of Hong Kong which were actually subject to the lease. This is true. (Put aside the legitimacy of the original agreements to transfer Hong Kong island... if we disregard treaties made by force, then the world should look MUCH different than it does today)

Now, the British faced a few problems.

First, the territories of Hong Kong, fully integrated, would be difficult to extricate into seperate administrative parts.

Secondly, there was pressure from the PRC, and difficulty justifying a holding taken by force, especially force originating from a war over forcing the Chinese to accept opium imports.

Thirdly, Hong Kong cannot supply much of its own food and water needs, nor can it provide its own resources neccessary for some production. The PRC could have made life difficult for Hong Kong if matters began to crumble, especially if they held control of the New Territories after the lease ran out.

The British simply decided that Hong Kong was probably going to be very difficult/costly to hold, and giving up the whole concession (not just the New Territories) would help gain good relations with the PRC.

At least, thats my understanding of the (simplified) issues involved.
Ah yes. I see. That makes sense,

Yes, this certainly does make sense.. and let's face it.. it would be quite counter-productive for the UK to fight with PRC today over Hong Kong.. PRC is stronger now as there is not really a British Emipre any more.. well, not since after WWII.. it's slowly declined.. thus.. it wouldn't of been smart for the UK to argue over it. PRC could of just taken it and there wouldn't of been much the UK could have done. I think the UK played it smart here.. going for soft power instead of nothing at all.

Well, I learned some thing new today.. thank you Simkaria :)

Beijing: We want Hong Kong

Well, it is a part of China and was only agreed to be leased to the UK for 99 years. Scary or not, it's just.
However, Beijing agreed not to interfere heavily into the Hong Kong economy or its politics until 2047. I don't know if that's in writting, to be honest with you. But even if it isn't, it shows that Beijing can't be trusted, and they may try something else like this to Taiwan (probably not military, but they may try to officially claim it as their province). If it is in writting, then technically the UK has a right to reclaim Hong Kong.
And if a Beijing appointed leader does end up in Hong Kong, it would affect its economy. No one can dispute it's more capitalist than the mainland, and wealthier. China will try its best to reintergrate the two economies, and suck every penny it can get from Hong Kong. And with the rise of Shenzen as a port city, Hong Kong may never fully recover.

Beijing: We want Hong Kong

Well, it is a part of China and was only agreed to be leased to the UK for 99 years. Scary or not, it's just.
However, Beijing agreed not to interfere heavily into the Hong Kong economy or its politics until 2047. I don't know if that's in writting, to be honest with you. But even if it isn't, it shows that Beijing can't be trusted, and they may try something else like this to Taiwan (probably not military, but they may try to officially claim it as their province). If it is in writting, then technically the UK has a right to reclaim Hong Kong.
And if a Beijing appointed leader does end up in Hong Kong, it would affect its economy. No one can dispute it's more capitalist than the mainland, and wealthier. China will try its best to reintergrate the two economies, and suck every penny it can get from Hong Kong. And with the rise of Shenzen as a port city, Hong Kong may never fully recover.

Well, they wouldn't be the first people to pull out a deal or a treaty.. it's done every day by many countries..

Beijing: We want Hong Kong

Well, it is a part of China and was only agreed to be leased to the UK for 99 years. Scary or not, it's just.
However, Beijing agreed not to interfere heavily into the Hong Kong economy or its politics until 2047. I don't know if that's in writting, to be honest with you. But even if it isn't, it shows that Beijing can't be trusted, and they may try something else like this to Taiwan (probably not military, but they may try to officially claim it as their province). If it is in writting, then technically the UK has a right to reclaim Hong Kong.
And if a Beijing appointed leader does end up in Hong Kong, it would affect its economy. No one can dispute it's more capitalist than the mainland, and wealthier. China will try its best to reintergrate the two economies, and suck every penny it can get from Hong Kong. And with the rise of Shenzen as a port city, Hong Kong may never fully recover.

Well, they wouldn't be the first people to pull out a deal or a treaty.. it's done every day by many countries..
True. But it's still scary. At least I can see one brightspot: as I hate shopping, I never want to go to Hong Kong, as it's the shopping capital of the world. Now, since it'll have less of a chance, I can rejoice that shopaholics have lost their Mecca :D :D :D .

...and they may try something else like this to Taiwan (probably not military, but they may try to officially claim it as their province). If it is in writting, then technically the UK has a right to reclaim Hong Kong.
And if a Beijing appointed leader does end up in Hong Kong, it would affect its economy. No one can dispute it's more capitalist than the mainland, and wealthier. China will try its best to reintergrate the two economies, and suck every penny it can get from Hong Kong. And with the rise of Shenzen as a port city, Hong Kong may never fully recover.

Property rights have just been enshrined in the PRC Constitution, part of a political move that comes from a trend in China... people want to be rich. Economic plundering of Hong Kong would simply be foolish, but harnessing its financing potential to cover state expenses is not. I severely doubt that, unless they fear a major revolt and react with a crack-down, they will do anything to make it unprofitable to do buisness in Hong Kong, or anywhere in the PRC.

As for Taiwan, the PRC has never recognized them as an actual seperate nation... they are a wayward prefecture. Literally, to the PRC, Taiwan IS a province, and always has been. Even the United States does not officialy recognize Taiwan as a nation.

...and they may try something else like this to Taiwan (probably not military, but they may try to officially claim it as their province). If it is in writting, then technically the UK has a right to reclaim Hong Kong.
And if a Beijing appointed leader does end up in Hong Kong, it would affect its economy. No one can dispute it's more capitalist than the mainland, and wealthier. China will try its best to reintergrate the two economies, and suck every penny it can get from Hong Kong. And with the rise of Shenzen as a port city, Hong Kong may never fully recover.

Property rights have just been enshrined in the PRC Constitution, part of a political move that comes from a trend in China... people want to be rich. Economic plundering of Hong Kong would simply be foolish, but harnessing its financing potential to cover state expenses is not. I severely doubt that, unless they fear a major revolt and react with a crack-down, they will do anything to make it unprofitable to do buisness in Hong Kong, or anywhere in the PRC.
I guess that was what I was trying to say. Hong Kong has a higher GDP/capita than the mainland. So it's certainly possible that they'll tax the hell out of them to cover state expenses. Multinational companies there will flee, and Hong Kong will have less of an economy, especially with the rise of Shanghai and Chonqing as major commerce cities.

As for Taiwan, the PRC has never recognized them as an actual seperate nation... they are a wayward prefecture. Literally, to the PRC, Taiwan IS a province, and always has been. Even the United States does not officialy recognize Taiwan as a nation.
They do recognize it as a province, and most countries don't recognize Taiwan as the legitamite China anymore. But China doesn't try to govern it. If, however, they try establishing in secret a local legislature and such, the Taiwanese may have less power over themselves. I'm sure that China could find a way to pull it off, and many Taiwanese could end up following Beijing, leaving Taipei less powerful over the island.

Oh, well. It's up to them what to do.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT!

THE ISSUE OF HONG KONG HAS FINALLY BEATEN INTO THE NS GENERAL FORUM!!!!!

:shock:

Ihee. :lol:

Hong Kong is made up generally by three parts, the Island, a peninsula called Kowloon ("Nine Dragons" Cool name with cool origin), and the "New Territories".

1841: Hong Kong Island CEASED IN PERPETUITY to Britain.

1860: Kowloon Peninsula CEASED IN PERPETUITY to Britain.

1898: The New Territories LEASED FOR 99 YEARS to Britain.

1928: Britain tried to EXCHANGE another colony for the New Territories to be CEASED IN PERPETUITY. Failed.

1941: Japanese rule. :cry:

1945: China wanted to reclaim Hong Kong then, but Britain refused, despite American pressure. *phew, if the Chinese got it back I wouldn't have been born*

1984: Sino-British Joint Agreement, agreeing to return the whole of Hong Kong in 1997. With Hong Kong's major reservoirs, airport, and port facilities in the New Territories, there was no way of "just returning the New Territories"

1990: The Hong Kong "Basic Law" promulgated, as something like a constitution. It protects Hong Kong's capitalist ways and freedom for 50 years. Of course, if China does not guarantee that after 2047, I'm moving out to Britain. I guess 1/2 of the population will do the same. The other half will move to America.

1997: Hong Kong returned to Chinese rule. The debate has been going on since then about the democratisation of Hong Kong as stated in the Basic Law.

2003: Half a million people demonstrate against the government's hasty attempts to pass anti-subversion laws. Local citizens think that the law may be the first step to tighten civil liberties. Suddenly people started thinking about the democratisation process.

2004: The National People's Congress "interprets" the Basic Law, saying that any democratisation attempt must be started by the Beijing semi "hand-picked" Chief Executive. Hong Kong Democrats think that the "interpretation" has been altered to "add on" to the Basic Law.

The argument continues.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT!

THE ISSUE OF HONG KONG HAS FINALLY BEATEN INTO THE NS GENERAL FORUM!!!!!

:shock:

Ihee. :lol:
I'm guessing you're saying you preffered British rule. Just out of curiousity, are you of British decent?
Anyhow, as a prosperous little territory, and a pivotal part of the Asian economy, I think Hong Kong should fight for as much political and economic independence as possible. As you seem to say in your posts, the Beijing apointees will try everything in their power to make Beijing happy. And as we are seeing, some very weird and damaging things to the Chinese people are what keeps Beijing happy.