Over the past 70 years, decolonization has led to the creation of many countries.
However, sometimes that process didn't lead to independence.
Instead, a colonial territory was transferred to another country.
One of the best examples of this was Hong Kong,
which the United Kingdom handed over to the People's Republic of China, in 1997.
In this video, I'm going to look at the story of Hong Kong.
I'll explore how it was originally acquired by Britain
and explain why there was in fact no choice but to give it to China.
Unlike other colonial territories, independence was never an option.
[MUSIC]
Hello. My name is James Ker-Lindsay.
Welcome to 'Independent Thinking'.
A channel dedicated to international relations, statehood, independence and the origins of countries.
On the evening 30 June 1997, the British flag came down over Hong Kong for the last time.
After 156 years of British colonial rule,
the United Kingdom's sovereignty over Hong Kong Island and its surrounding territories
- an area that amounts to roughly 2,700 square kilometers or 1,000 square miles -
came to an end.
However, unlike almost all Britain's other colonial territories,
the end of colonial administration didn't lead to independence for the territory.
Instead, Hong Kong was handed over to the People's Republic of China as part of an agreement reached
between Britain and China a dozen years earlier.
So, how did this happen?
The story starts in 1839 with the First Opium War between Britain and China.
Following its defeat, China was forced to make various trading concessions and pay reparations to Britain.
Additionally, under the terms of the Treaty of Nanking, China agreed to permanently cede
the small island of Hong Kong, situated just off its southern coast, to Britain.
A decade and a half later, following its victory in the Second Opium War,
Britain force China to cede yet more territory.
Under the Peking Convention, it now took control of the Kowloon Peninsula, just north of Hong Kong Island.
Again, this was ceded in perpetuity.
Then, almost 40 years later, Britain and China signed a 99-year lease for a third tranche of territory
- an area that became known as the New Territories.
Although China always viewed the treaty ceding Hong Kong to Britain as deeply unequal,
it could do little about it.
Even the Second World War failed to provide an opportunity to retake the territory.
Although Hong Kong was invaded and occupied by Japanese forces,
it was subsequently returned to Britain at the end of the conflict, in August 1945.
In 1949, the nationalist army of the Republic of China was defeated by the Chinese Communist Party
and forced to withdraw to the island of Taipei - better known as Taiwan.
Although communist forces advanced right up to the border with Hong Kong,
the new People's Republic of China didn't try to retake the territory.
Keen to gain international recognition, it didn't want to provoke Britain
- especially as the United Kingdom was still considered a major international power at the time
and had just become a permanent member of the Security Council of the newly formed United Nations.
This decision was rewarded.
On 6 January 1950, Britain, believing its interest in Hong Kong and the wider region
would be better protected by accepting the change of regime in China,
and knowing full well that it couldn't hope to fight off a full invasion of Hong Kong,
became the first major Western country to recognize the communist government.
In the decades that followed, Britain and China appeared to reach a tacit understanding over Hong Kong.
Although China continued to regard it as occupied territory, it was willing to accept continued British rule
- not least of all because having such a valuable trading area on its doorstep
brought certain economic benefits.
Balanced against this, Beijing also made it very clear to Britain that it wouldn't countenance
any steps to change the status of the colony.
There could be no self-rule - something Britain had apparently power been considering -
let alone independence; as was happening to other British colonial territories at the time.
In other words, China was willing to accept the status quo
as long as Britain didn't try to change that status quo.
This was underscored when the People's Republic formally assumed the Chinese seat
at the United Nations, in late 1971.
The following year, it ensured that Hong Kong was removed from the UN's list of non-self-governing territories.
As a result, the people of Hong Kong were no longer considered to have a right to self-determination
under the terms of the UN Charter and General Assembly Resolution 1514.
By the late 1970s, Britain's lease on the New Territories had less than 20 years left to run.
Keen to take control of what was now a rapidly advancing economic success story,
China started to press for discussions on the terms of return to Chinese rule.
Importantly, Beijing also made it clear that it envisaged the return of all of Hong Kong.
In 1982, the British and Chinese Governments opened negotiations.
Two years later, on 19 December 1984, the leaders of the two countries signed
'The Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong'.
Although formally under the authority of the Chinese central government,
which would oversee foreign affairs and defence, it would become a 'Special Administrative Region'
and enjoy independent executive, legislative and judicial power, as well as control over public order.
Underpinning the Declaration, it was agreed that:
'The current social and economic systems in Hong Kong will remain unchanged and so will the lifestyle.
Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association,
of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research,
and of religious belief will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Private property, ownership of enterprises, legitimate right of inheritance and foreign investment
will be protected by law.
On 27 May 1985, the agreement entered into force.
For many in Hong Kong, the transition to Chinese rule was viewed with deep concern,
especially after China's armed crackdown on protesters in Tiananmen Square, in June 1989.
However, on 4 April 1990, China passed the:
'Basic law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China',
which formally enshrined the terms of the Declaration into Chinese law.
Meanwhile, Britain, much to China's annoyance,
now tried to introduce a modicum of democracy into Hong Kong.
This included allowing partial elections for the Legislative Council.
However, many in Hong Kong regarded this as too little too late given that Britain had deliberately avoided
any steps towards democracy or self-rule in the decades prior to this.
On 30 June 1997, following a day of emotional ceremonies to mark,
the handover the British flag came down over the crown colony of Hong Kong for the last time.
However, Britain's handover of Hong Kong to China raises three obvious questions.
First of all, could Britain have held on to Hong Kong?
The simple answer is not really.
Theoretically, it may have been possible to hold on to both Hong Kong Island and Kowloon.
Both had, of course, been ceded to Britain in perpetuity.
The problem was that by this stage Hong Kong only made sense as an organic whole
as the New Territories represented over 90% of the entire territory of the colony.
But any decision to hold on to the New Territories would have amounted to an unilateral abrogation
of an international treaty that had clearly ceded these territories to Britain for 99 years.
If it didn't hand back Hong Kong and Kowloon, it would have almost certainly have provoked
a very serious diplomatic standoff - if not worse - with China.
Even as far back as the late 1940s,
Britain realized that such a confrontation would serve no purpose in terms of its own narrow national interests.
Having given up the New Territories,
trying to retain what was left would have been extremely difficult and, frankly speaking, not worth the effort.
Of course, conceivably Britain could have asked China for an extension.
However, it seemed highly unlikely that China would have accepted this.
Even though it may not have pressed the case for Hong Kong's return until the late 1970s,
from that point on it saw the return of Hong Kong not only is an important political goal
but also as a vital economic one as well.
Secondly, could Britain have instead granted Hong Kong independence?
Interestingly, and in stark contrast to Britain's other colonial holdings, independence was never an option.
Again, this was largely due to the lease that existed over the New Territories.
While Britain could have conceivably decided to follow this for Hong Kong and Kowloon,
it couldn't make this decision for the New Territories.
And, again, Hong Kong Kowloon only made sense with the New Territories attached.
More to the point, and again, China would never have accepted it.
As shown, Beijing had even ensured that this option had been taken off the table internationally.
Even if Hong Kong had tried to declare independence anyway, perhaps as a unilateral action,
as happened in Rhodesia, this wouldn't have been possible.
For a start, there were no institutions of self-government to do it.
Such a step would have forced China to react.
Even if it didn't invade Hong Kong to reassert its sovereignty,
it could have slowly suffocated Hong Kong economically, politically and diplomatically.
China would have blocked its entry into the United Nations and prevented wider international recognition.
Even under the very best scenario, Hong Kong would have been left as an isolated de facto state.
Thirdly, why did China allow Hong Kong to have such extensive autonomy
given its strong opposition to self-rule under British colonial rule?
There are in fact a number of reasons for this.
In part, it was to ensure that the process of transition went smoothly.
Even though Britain had no inclination to hold on to Hong Kong,
it nevertheless made sense to make sure that there was absolutely no reason to oppose the move.
Secondly, Hong Kong's value to China lay with its economic success.
This was seen to rest on the conditions that had been created there.
It made sense to keep these in place.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it was done with a view to sending an important message to Taiwan.
The extensive autonomy put in place under the so called "One Country, Two Systems" model
was essentially a message to Taipei.
Beijing wanted to show Taiwan that it was safe to return to full Chinese sovereignty
For both the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China,
the handover of Hong Kong marked an historic moment.
For Britain, it was widely seen as the day when the Empire truly ended.
For China, it marked the moment it regained territories that they always felt had been taken unfairly.
While some may be tempted to think that Britain could have held on to Hong Kong, broadly or narrowly defined,
this was never a realistic outcome.
Likewise, granting it statehood was never a possibility either.
Indeed, the outcome that was reached
- extensive autonomy for 50 years under the 'One Country, Two Systems' policy -
essentially represented the best result that Hong Kong could have realistically have hoped for.
Of course, the question many observers are now asking is whether the system of extensive autonomy
put in place in 1997 will really last until 2047?
I hope you found this video interesting and useful.
If so, here are some more that you might enjoy.
And do consider subscribing for more content like this.
I post new videos every Friday.
Thanks so much for watching and see you in the next video.