correction, china kicked out the Brits, in 1997, refusing to renew the expired lease on HK, Kowloon and the new territories.
This isn't correct. The lease only expired on the new territories. Britain had a right to HK and Kowloon in perpetuity. The chose to give them up. "In the Treaty of Nanking, in 1842, the Qing government agreed to make Hong Kong a Crown colony, ceding it 'in perpetuity', following British victory in the First Opium War. During the second half of the 19th century, Britain had become concerned over the security of the isolated island, Hong Kong. Consequently, in Convention of Peking, following British victory in the Second Opium War, Britain gained a perpetual lease over the Kowloon Peninsula. The New Territories, with a 99-year lease, were the only territories forming the Crown colony of Hong Kong, that were obliged by agreement, to be returned. However, by the time of serious negotiations in the 1980s, it was seen as impractical to separate the ceded territories and return only the New Territories to China, due to the scarcity of resources in Hong Kong and Kowloon, and the large developments in the New Territories. Consequently, at midnight following the evening of 30 June 1997, the entire crown colony of Hong Kong officially reverted to Chinese sovereignty, ending 156 years of British rule."
when Margaret Thatcher expressed the desire to renew the lease. after being told by Deng to GTFO or the PLA tanks will enter HK to kick out the Brits
It's black and white. There was a 99 year lease on the "New Territories." Britain was entitled to Hong Kong and Kowloon "in perpetuity" There was no expired lease on HK and Kowloon. There was no lease.
Just a question, why was HK "in perpetuity" ceded to Birtian? it was the result of a war right? So as long as China is strong enough to kick Britain's butt in 1997, then that piece of paper is worth as much as toilet paper right?
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sought the PRC's agreement to a continued British presence in the territory However, the PRC took a contrary position: not only did the PRC wish for the New Territories, on lease until 1997, to be placed under the PRC's jurisdiction, it also refused to recognize the "unfair and unequal treaties" under which Hong Kong Island and Kowloon had been ceded to Britain in perpetuity. Consequently, the PRC recognized only the British administration in Hong Kong, but not British sovereignty. effectively, Deng told Thatcher to GTFO, or the PLA will enter HK to kick out the Brits
All I'm doing is correcting @adoo 's misstatement that "china kicked out the Brits, in 1997, refusing to renew the expired lease on HK, Kowloon and the new territories." HK did not have a lease. Kowloon did not have a lease.
I am not saying you are wrong. I just want to point out agreements, treaties are only valid as long as the parties have some common interest in keeping it or when someone is strong enough to enforce it. When these conditions do not exist, treaties are totally worthless pieces of paper.
i am just correcting HTM that the Brits had abandoned HK. Deng told Thatcher to GTFO or the PRC will send in the PLA to kick out the Brits
China is very powerful soon tanks will roll into the free, sovereign Nation of Taiwan and say 'lease is over get off our island'.
How about detaining and beating up travelers and reporters? A bigger man should turn himself in for the thuggish things they did.
Semantics? You are being excessively melodramatic, adoo, to put it mildly. Great Britain didn't have to hand over Hong Kong, including Kowloon, in 1997 due to force of arms. I seriously doubt if China would have "rolled in the tanks" had the UK not done so. There is a far more logical reason for the end of the colony to dovetail with the expiration of 1997 treaty. The reality faced by the UK wasn't the threat of war with China (rolling in the tanks would have been an act of war), but that the New Territories held a very large part of the infrastructure built over many years by Great Britain to support the population and import/export businesses of Hong Kong and Kowloon. The New Territories held the colony's shipping ports, reservoirs and other vital installations. It also held over 3 million residents of the colony, being developed over time by the UK to hold much of Hong Kong's burgeoning population. So if the United Kingdom had kept Hong Kong and Kowloon, she would have found it impossible to support it for practical reasons. The Thatcher government made a strong attempt to negotiate an extension of the lease, but China held firm. The United Kingdom was, in effect, forced by the expiration of the lease to give up the entire colony, not because they wanted to, not because they were under the threat of "the tanks rolling in," but because they had no choice without the infrastructure they had built themselves in the New Territories over years to support the actual colony and the now much larger population. Try and control the melodrama, adoo. Consider instead the facts. The reality of what faced Great Britain with the expiration of the lease of the New Territories forced the handing over of the colony, not the threat of an invasion by China.
