
The secret negotiations behind the Hong Kong handover - Tomte
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/18/asia/hong-kong-handover-china-uk-thatcher/index.html
======
FabHK
One thing to keep in mind is that in 1997, HK's GDP was about one sixth of
China's (even though China has 200x the people), and it was a very important
conduit between China and the world: In the early 2000s, HK's port had about
as much volume as Shanghai and Shenzhen together.

Today, HK's GDP is barely 3% of China's, and the ports of Shanghai and
Shenzhen together have 3x the throughput of HK. (Just have a look at these
pictures: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478975/Shanghai-
por...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478975/Shanghai-port-worlds-
busiest-handles-736m-tonnes-year.html) )

In other words, HK used to be hugely important for China. Now, it isn't, and
with rising Chinese nationalism, HK is being seen more and more like an unruly
and spoiled child.

The grievances of HK's population are real: a political and business
establishment dominated by property tycoons (and increasingly mainland Chinese
political factions) keen on maintaining their privileged position; huge
economic inequality; a slow erosion of political liberties ("salami tactic").

That all, of course, gave rise to the Umbrella Movement in 2014.

However, given that the Chinese Communist Party is not inclined to weaken its
grip on power, and extremely protective of the (perceived) territorial
integrity of China, I don't really see how this will end well. :-/ Here's
hoping.

Sources for statistics:

[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/09/hon...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/09/hong-
kongs-share-of-chinese-gdp.html)

[https://www.vox.com/2014/9/28/6857567/hong-kong-used-to-
be-1...](https://www.vox.com/2014/9/28/6857567/hong-kong-used-to-
be-18-percent-of-chinas-gdp-now-its-3-percent)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world%27s_busiest_cont...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world%27s_busiest_container_ports)

~~~
tuna-piano
At the same time as China has been increasing it's grip on Hong Kong, it has
also been liberalizing China (especially economic rights).

What are the chances that in 30 years (2047, the 50 year mark), China will
have significant civil liberties and democracy? I have no idea, but I'd like
to think it's at least kind of likely.

~~~
slavik81
That's what people said 30 years ago when Deng Xiaoping was driving reforms.
The thought was that China's steady economic liberalization would inevitably
lead to political liberalization. That had been the typical trend in other
countries, but the Chinese Communist Party has proven to be surprisingly
skilled at managing dissent and maintaining power.

It could still happen, but predicting the future in politics is hard.

~~~
justicezyx
> but the Chinese Communist Party has proven to be surprisingly skilled at
> managing dissent and maintaining power.

It's entirely a wrong idea to think political system should evolve this quick.

China's political system inherits form 2k+ years of feudalism tradition. The
system is largely static, with unsubstantial decorative changes here and
there. And eventually it collapsed in the face of Western invasion. This
humiliation period spans almost last a century, and is defined as the "Century
of humiliation" [1].

The unique timing, and combination of various rather lucky events gave birth
to the CCP.

CCP took an approach that is seemingly unconventional, while fundamentally is
just another round of emperor-style dynasty evolution. Mao was effectively an
emperor, who by chance or intentionally managed not to have his own heir. He
also did exactly what has been done before in the history, where new emperor
killed almost all of the people who helped him ascend the throne, because
these powerful people would become a threat to his heir (be it his own blood
line or someone else).

Nonetheless, in less than a few decades, China went through feudalism to
communism. This level of change is unprecedented and would likely be
impossible in the future.

After culture revolution and the open border policy, China's political
landscape also changed a lot. Not in the same scale of the CCP and PRC's
establishment, but still quite spectacular compared to any other countries in
the world.

1\. China's economic growth allows more free expression of opinions through
various of channels. In a nutshell, any democracy is a compromise between
rational economy groups with matching political power. China's economic growth
allows many individual to gain the power necessary to influence the political
system. Is this system better or worse than western democratic system? Hard to
say, but it's different.

2\. Chinese people learnt to respect the bottom line of the CCP, but find
constructive ways to express their dissent over government or political
polices. People can easily overthrown low-&middle-ranked government officials
by showing hard evidence of corruptness over various non-official channels.
Such channels, like Weibo, Wechat groups, are regulated, but is not shutdown.
The rate is maintained in a way that CCP's bottom line is always maintained,
and without touch that, things can be liberal.

3\. Chinese people have learnt the truth of propaganda both internally and
internationally. I would rate Chinese people the most independent-minded group
of citizens in the world. Chinese people are incredible at recognizing
propaganda and superficial arguments that bear limited practicality.

CCP also was changed substantially. It now has over 80MM members, and vast
majority of them are from all sorts of social background that has nothing to
do with elite or any form of privileged groups. However, the bad thing is that
CCP now becomes a bed for marrying the powerful and the rich. The rich ones
join the rank of power list of CCP.

The whole thing is moving towards the direction as most Western countries,
i.e., the political system becoming a tool for the rich and powerful to
maintain their status.

In conclusion: > The thought was that China's steady economic liberalization
would inevitably lead to political liberalization

China's political system has changed drastically over the same period, much
more than any other country in the world.

In the foreseeable future, China will not move in the direction desired by the
western countries. Thousands of years of political wisdom have taught Chinese
people to balance between different ideologies and maintain the peaceful life
of themselves. The only possibility of such change is that a foreign power
invaded China and forced her reform in a fashion that is different than what
Chinese people collectively desire.

Extreme conditions will not be tolerated, and irresponsible social revolution
will not be welcome. Chinese people will be following their own wisdom in
finding the true liberation of the nation, most likely through the continuous
economic growth.

That's like the relationship between typical Chinese parents and their
offsprings. Are the parents abusive compared to western counterparts? Yes.
Does the offsprings get what they need to grow and become independent? Yes.
Then why destroy such relationship? The answer, of course, is not to do such a
thing.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation)

~~~
honestoHeminway
>In the foreseeable future, China will not move in the >direction desired by
the western countries. Thousands of >years of political wisdom have taught
Chinese people to >balance between different ideologies and maintain the
>peaceful life of themselves. The only possibility of such >change is that a
foreign power invaded China and forced her >reform in a fashion that is
different than what Chinese >people collectively desire.

Sorry, this is nonsense. The peacefull years of the empires gonge before,
where everything but peacefull- and held several fierce civil wars, which
usually endeded when one party captured chinas rice-lands and starved the
other party to death (Centralisation by Geography). China is basically where
the English Society was pre Democracy. A class of nobleman (party-members) is
partially subverted by rich citizens.

~~~
dis-sys
Rice-lands are traditionally in the Wu language region, also known as
Jiangnan. That is why the Grand Canal was built - move rice to the north.
Traditionally, gaining control of the country is all about capturing the
Central Plain known as Zhongyuan, sadly it has no overlap with your beloved
rice land.

~~~
honestoHeminway
Except that it provides access from every corner too...

------
nthcolumn
This is very different from what I was told by certain exasperated civil
servants at the time in Honkers which was that initially China didn't really
want change at all as they thought any more of this democracy and capitalism
poison (not to mention triad crime) needed to be contained and certainly not
brought into China proper and that they would have gladly ignored the
expiration of the lease but for the idiocy of the Brits insisting on some sort
of replacement framework. They'd have gladly just carried on taking the money
pretending it didn't exist. Deng had to come up with a fudge - one country,
two systems and Macao followed suit thereafter. But it was a long time ago and
that may have just been Lily Wong.

edit: for example the chinese did nothing to stem the tide of people to-ing
and fro-ing when HK was still a colony, I recall some squaddies complaining
bitterly about having to shoot at them up the hillside whilst People's Army
looked on bemused.

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
I wonder if this is a fault with Western negotiators. Many of the Eastern
countries will tolerate a lot as long as it is not publicized and explicit.
But, if you try to get them to publicly agree to something where they may lose
face, then they will adopt a hard line.

I wonder what issues, Western countries are blundering into currently in that
regard.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
That's an interesting point.

To follow-up on it a bit, whenever Western countries are put into a situation
like that, they're effectively forced to do exactly what happened here. After
all, whether or not something becomes public or not is completely outside of
both parties' control. The minute some newspaper-person looked up the terms on
the treaty and published it, there would have been an immediate international
confrontation. So Britain was forced to come up with some kind of framework
whether they wanted to or not -- simply to prevent random crises in the
future.

------
tuna-piano
Interesting.

For those who don't follow this, in many ways this experiment has, in my view,
shown signs of failure.

China also almost surely has arrested/kidnapped Hong Kong citizens (authors)
in Hong Kong who push for democracy.

Beijing is seen to have an increasing amount of political influence on Hong
Kong. Hong Kong does not have the independence to create a democratic system.

Hong Kong people don't feel like they can control much... so most just go
about their day to day lives. They don't like Beijing's power, but what can
they do? This is not the way the British agreement was set out ("One country
two systems"). Unfortunate, but probably predictable.

Further reading:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearan...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearances)

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/27/new-arrests-
in...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/27/new-arrests-in-hong-kong-
as-police-charge-nine-democracy-activists)

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/26/hong-kong-
choo...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/26/hong-kong-chooses-new-
leader-amid-accusations-of-china-meddling)

[https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-
chaos/2017/03/29/a...](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-
chaos/2017/03/29/another-hong-kong-election-another-pro-beijing-leader-why-it-
matters/)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/a-selection-not-an-
elec...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/a-selection-not-an-election-pro-
beijing-committee-picks-loyalist-to-lead-hong-
kong/2017/03/26/93c5292a-1055-11e7-b2bb-417e331877d9_story.html)

~~~
rrggrr
I'm not seeing any experiment. China was to take HK regardless and do as it
pleased. The Falklands option was no option. A Tibet-style occupation would
have been disastrous. Its orderly handover was in everyone's best interests if
only for a time. I think its unlikely HK will ever be fully integrated into
China's provincial system. I believe there would be strong opposition by other
provinces, and fear in the central party about long-term HK influence on
communist party policy.

~~~
Hasknewbie
>> China was to take HK regardless and do as it pleased.

No. The HK handover was part of a treaty, the Sino–British Joint Declaration,
in which the Chinese government agreed to let HK remain mostly autonomous for
50 years after the retrocession.

The current status of HK is the result of, and guaranted by, a treaty between
two sovereign nations. China is not meant to do 'as it pleased' here.

~~~
mannykannot
> The current status of HK is the result of, and guaranteed by, a treaty
> between two sovereign nations.

One of which is in no position to exercise its guarantee.

~~~
Hasknewbie
You are correct, and the current (mostly non-)responses from the British
government are embarrassing.

However this remains a public treaty, and if China does not respect it, it
will erode their standing on other matters (e.g. why would
Malaysia/Vietnam/Philippines sign any treaty regarding the China sea dispute,
if Beijing ignored the one on HK?). So yes, HK is in a bad situation, but not
all is lost yet.

~~~
mannykannot
Your reply ignores the realities of power in the South China Sea, just as it
ignores the realities of power in Hong Kong (what sort of response would you
like to see from the British government?)

------
vilhelm_s
I thought the most interesting point was that already in 1960 China threatened
to invade if the UK attempted to introduce greater democracy to the colony.
This article from 2014 describes it in slightly more detail.
[https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-
still...](https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-stillborn-
democracy/)

------
eveningcoffee
> _The people of Hong Kong were not party to the discussions, nor were they
> consulted about the final decision, which had a profound effect on their
> futures and freedoms._

For me it is another moral failure of the British.

~~~
elefanten
Yes, it was. A failure under extremely complex and constrained circumstances,
but still a failure.

Question for you: how do you rate that moral failure vs. the moral value of
China's political system?

In other words, do you see non-democratic systems as moral failures? I don't
have any specific point or advocacy to make here. Just wondering what your
broader perspective is given exactly what you said.

~~~
eveningcoffee
Yes, it was also a moral failure of the Chinese political system, but I
assumed that they were morally bankrupt anyway (perhaps a good illustration
can be found by reading between the lines of Liu Cixin first book).

I believe that they saw it as a huge win for themselves, what makes it even
less appealing.

I do not think that a non-democratic system is automatically a moral failure,
but it becomes one if they try to enforce it on others.

------
zie
The end of what autonomy HK currently enjoyes expires in 2047. Will be
interesting to see what happens then. China has always been very long-term
thinking oriented, much different than our western system(s) of government,
that it has an expiry I think says a lot about China's long-term view.

~~~
ihaveajob
I'll take politicians who know they're up for periodic reelection over what
they have in China any time.

~~~
r00fus
The problem is that the lobbyists and civil servants do not have any re-
election or term limits.

So you have replaceable pols who are a facade to the real influence being
brokered by chiefs of staff, head lobbyists - and the distinction between the
lobbyists and civil staff is blurred at best.

~~~
icebraining
_Bernard: The Department of Employment lobbies for the TUC, whereas the
Department of Industry lobbies for the employers. It 's rather a nice balance.
Energy lobbies for the oil companies, Defence lobbies for the armed forces,
the Home Office lobbies for the police and so on._

 _Hacker: So the whole system is designed to stop the Cabinet from carrying
out its policies?_

 _Bernard: Well, somebody 's got to._

\-- Yes, Minister

------
doe88
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.

~~~
marme
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.

~~~
soyiuz
"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.

~~~
wbl
Would you rather have lived in HK or China post-WWII?

~~~
anonhongkonger
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.

~~~
scarmig
Many people were faced with this choice.

By an incredible margin--10 to 1? 100 to 1?--Chinese people chose to migrate
to Hong Kong from China, not to China from Hong Kong.

You'd have to figure out some way to normalize by population, but even then,
the point stands.

------
dis-sys
typical biased article from CNN.

when talking about the handover, the article claims that

"The people of Hong Kong were not party to the discussions, nor were they
consulted about the final decision, which had a profound effect on their
futures and freedoms."

Did the people of Hong Kong party to the "discussions" when UK took Hong Kong
after the Opium War? Were they consulted about the final decision, which had a
profound effect on their futures and freedoms?

It also need to be highlighted the term Opium War - British fought a war with
China so they could sell opium to a nation, they got HK as a bonus for such
Opium business. Next time when you see thugs in your local undesirable
neighbourhood dealing drugs, think about the British government because they
were the same - I mean actually worse, when was the last time you saw drug
dealing thugs directly took people's land/homes after selling them drugs?

Before anyone jumping up and down arguing that it was more free under UK - was
polygamy legal in Hong Kong until 1971? Maybe you want to discuss with women
in Hong Kong and lecture them why there were more free under British Hong
Kong.

~~~
TokenDiversity
Comey recently said that NY times articles on Trump were fake news. Most of
the top American media are news pimps, sold out to one party or the other,
inciting people for their own cause with little concern for Truth.

~~~
sangnoir
> Comey recently said that NY times articles on Trump were fake news.

That's misrepresenting what he said. He said _some_ NYT articles he had read
were completely wrong. Which is not the same thing as fake news. I now have a
better understanding of why the Republican senator asked that question though:
to encourage the wholesale dismissal of all critical stories as "fake news" by
people like you.

------
hohohmm
>The people of Hong Kong were not party to the discussions, nor were they
consulted about the final decision, which had a profound effect on their
futures and freedoms.

I just cannot find a better example of double thinking than this. So UK
grabbed a piece of land from China, and now they discuss the return of this
piece of land. Suddenly UK created this moral failure on China to involve this
piece of land into the discussion. Let's stop creating new countries and races
in this hypocrisy of democratic regional self-determinism narrative with
mindless and idiotic public voting. No land is only the land of its residents,
but by the people of that country.

~~~
resf
It is colonialism just the same to forcefully impose one's rule on a another
nation using history books, as it is with guns.

~~~
hohohmm
How convenient it is for you to equate history books with guns. Let me hit you
with a gun instead of a history book.

------
csense
Rule #1: Don't let the people vote, otherwise they might vote the wrong way.

For some reason, Britain forgot about that rule and let the people vote on
Brexit. You can be sure they won't make that mistake again.

EDIT: I'm obviously being sarcastic here.

------
wyck
The photo of Deng Xiaoping and Thatcher is pretty funny given the subtext of
almost starting WW3. Good article, for context I recommend reading about the
early history of Hong Kong related to the Sassoon family, HSBC, and the Opium
wars.

------
paradite
Okay. There are already lots of discussions on politics, so I will contribute
something different.

I have spent considerable amount of time in China and Singapore (former
British colony). I've also travelled to HK. When I read this kind of articles,
I can see how people make decisions that they think are perfectly fine only to
find out later that someone else thinks drastically different.

Why do the Chinese leaders and UK leaders think so differently? Why do Chinese
leaders prioritize sovereignty over prosperity? Is it because of politics? I
think not. It's more to do with culture and history.

China has had a long history of being caught in endless cycles of being
divided and united. So much that it became the opening sentence of popular
novel "Three Kingdoms" long before optimum war.

If there's one thing that Chinese people really hate, is to see their homeland
being taken away and families separated. I don't think cultures where people
did not have this kind of experience can have this feeling.

Contrary to popular belief, Chinese (Han) people are never interested in
conquering foreign lands. They just want to take back what used to belong.

~~~
blackbagboys
_Why do Chinese leaders prioritize sovereignty over prosperity? Is it because
of politics? I think not. It 's more to do with culture and history. China has
had a long history of being caught in endless cycles of being divided and
united. So much that it became the opening sentence of popular novel "Three
Kingdoms" long before optimum war. If there's one thing that Chinese people
really hate, is to see their homeland being taken away and families separated.
I don't think cultures where people did not have this kind of experience can
have this feeling._

This is propagandistic pablum. The actual reason is that Hong Kong was a locus
of independent political power and the structure of the CCP means any
independent centers of power are existential threats to its own power.
Therefore all centers of power that are not wholly subordinate to the CCP must
be destroyed.

 _Contrary to popular belief, Chinese (Han) people are never interested in
conquering foreign lands. They just want to take back what used to belong._

Try telling this to the Uighur, the Tibetans, the Vietnamese, the Mongols, the
native Taiwanese...the Chinese have been just as aggressive and nakedly
imperialistic as any other major world power.

~~~
justicezyx
> This is propagandistic pablum.

It's one person's propaganda but another's national pride. If you cannot
recognize that and frame your argument accordingly, then you are bound to ask
for unnecessary arguments.

Is such belief from propaganda? Yes. Does it bear cultral root? Yes.

~~~
mannykannot
National pride is best served by facts, and in this case, there are plenty of
facts to choose from.

