Californian Reacts | Why did Britain Handover Hong Kong to China?
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 03. 2023
- - Hong Kong returned to China -
At midnight on July 1, 1997, Hong Kong reverts back to Chinese rule in a ceremony attended by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Prince Charles of Wales, Chinese President Jiang Zemin and U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. A few thousand Hong Kongers protested the turnover, which was otherwise celebratory and peaceful.
In 1839, Britain invaded China to crush opposition to its interference in the country’s economic, social, and political affairs. One of Britain’s first acts of the war was to occupy Hong Kong, a sparsely inhabited island off the coast of southeast China. In 1841, China ceded the island to the British with the signing of the Convention of Chuenpi, and in 1842 the Treaty of Nanking was signed, formally ending the First Opium War.
Britain’s new colony flourished as an East-West trading center and as the commercial gateway and distribution center for southern China. In 1898, Britain was granted an additional 99 years of rule over Hong Kong under the Second Convention of Peking. In September 1984, after years of negotiations, the British and the Chinese signed a formal agreement approving the 1997 turnover of the island in exchange for a Chinese pledge to preserve Hong Kong’s capitalist system. On July 1, 1997, Hong Kong was peaceably handed over to China in a ceremony attended by numerous Chinese, British, and international dignitaries. The chief executive under the new Hong Kong government, Tung Chee Hwa, formulated a policy based on the concept of “one country, two systems,” thus preserving Hong Kong’s role as a principal capitalist center in Asia.
In 2019, massive pro-democracy protests broke out in Hong Kong over growing oppression from mainland China. Scores of people in academia, media, as well as pro-democracy activists have been arrested amid crackdowns.
- Source: History Channel (www.history.com/this-day-in-h...)
I've always been impressed by how Hong Kong prospered while under British rule. An incredible city with wonderful people. When I was young my father flew into Hong Kong for a business trip before the British handed it over to China.
Any stories will be appreciated! 🙂
To be honest most people didn't give a damn. Many didn't even know we had Hong Kong.
@@Shoomer1988 not when China broke the two systems one country agreement though, that was all over the news and the majority of Brits I know were supportive of Hong Kong and annoyed China has broke the agreement too soon.
But it's part of the story that Britain forced china to give them hong Kong in the first place in a war that existed to force china to buy English opium ...
I remember a lot of people in Hong Kong thought they would be autonomous, after the UK left. I think a lot rue the day they wanted the UK to leave . 🇬🇧
ridiculous.
The UK had a ninety-nine year lease. It came to an end and we gave it back. Right and legal thing to do.
And they honored it well! Much respect for the British to actually keep their word. Makes me wonder how many countries would not have after 99 years?
As stated in the video the 99 year lease was for the New Territories and not Hong Kong and Kowloon.
Yes but that lease did not include Hong Kong island
Just that china was forced to lease it to them in the first place via war
Actually it was not a legal thing to do since the takeover of Hong Kong was not legal. It was the right thing to do to return stolen the land. No colony has to honor any agreement made with colonizers. Its ridiculous.
I lived & worked in HK for over four years, and our oldest son was born there. Even back in the late 70s, it was recognised that keeping Hong Kong Island after the New Territories reverted to China at the end of the 99-yr lease was not realistic. All HK's food was grown in the NT. The idea of the Basic Law, overseen by both the UK & China and ensuring HK's special status, free press, etc was a good one. But China has renaged on this agreement and the UK is effectively powerless to enforce it.
China does not have to honor any deal made with the UK, the UK literally took Hong Kong by force.
I've seen a lot of people from Hong Kong commenting on British videos saying they wished they didn't leave, they said its not the same and China is trying to erase the UK from their way of life, A lot of Hong Kongers are still very loyal to the UK.
From what I see on the news from time to time I could understand why. From how well Britain helped Hong Kong grow what it is today, I would have wanted to stay as well.
@@californianreacts It would be hard changing from everything you know to a different way of life, especially when they are now in a dictatorship, there were a lot of street riots a few years ago, and there's still a lot of tension, 50 years of keeping it unchanged seems to be a lie by China.
well, 150+ years of living under the Uk has the people of Hong Kong confused obviously. They don't know their identity, they think they are not Chinese which is absurd.
@@mosthaunted2 of the 156 years that Hong Kong was under UK control, it was only democratic for the last 6 years before the handover. Its hilarious that you think Hong Kong was free and democratic and only Chinese control was a dictatorship. The reason the UK introduced democracy to China is because they knew that they were living in just 6 years time. The British never really wanted a democratic Hong Kong. And its hilarious that you people think Hong Kong was good under British rules. Hundreds of Chinese protesters got killed by the British over the years. Not a single Hong Kong protester was killed in the recent Hong Kong protests but no, "Chinese rule is horrible but British rule was good" you claim.
@@californianreacts I suggest you learn the true and entire history of Hong Kong before making such ridiculous claims. A lot of Hong Kongers died under British rule. The British didn't tolerate dissent. Hong Kong was only democratic for 6 years in the 156 years it was under British rule.
I can't remember too much of a fuss amongst the British general public. We accepted that the lease ended in 1997 and it was adios Hong Kong. The political niceties were left to the politicians. 26 years later I think the Hong Kongers rue the day the Chinese took over.
Appreciate it, K M! I always like to get a feel of the times surrounding events such as this. Helps put it into perspective. I do remember hearing about the lease on Hong Kong, and it seemed very peaceful and orderly in 1997. The British had class to their last day in Hong Kong. Much respect.
@@californianreacts Yes British to the end. Some handover scenes: czcams.com/video/amjPt8X1JbA/video.html
The decommissioned Royal Yacht Brittania is now moored as a visitor centre in my city Edinburgh.
@@californianreacts Did you just say imperialists who slaughtered Chinese people and took Hong Kong by force had "class." Are you kidding me.
@@Moabi4 i think ya can kill people with class .
eg a katana to the neck.
not with class .... eg . slowly tortureing and experimenting on them for months and years follwed by a painfull death
not the same thing but look at the american hand over of afganistan vs the british handover of hongkong
which had the most class.
i think the most class showen in these types of situation was the british australia one.
the british had taken the aboriginal land the aboriginals dissagreed, the now australians live there under the knowledge its aboriginal land and they are allowed to live there with consent from the aboriginals.
very classy from the aboriginals i think
@@Moabi4don't cry maybe china should of fight harder then they wouldn't of got slaughtered with class 😂😂😂
I don't remember any tension between the 2 countries. It was just - Lease is up.. We hand it back over.. China has broken the Sino-British Joint Declaration for HK since - maybe a new lease as an independent city state like Monaco. That is very unlikely tho.
Why would China honor an agreement with people who invaded them and took their land by force? Why?
Why did we hand it over to China, simple the lease ran out. I visited during the transition period, didn't have an impact on UK.
As stated in the video though the lease was for the New Territories and not for Hong Kong and Kowloon which were ceded in perpetuity.
When Britain agreed to the 99 year lease with China HK was a baron land but when Britain handed over HK it gave china one of the worlds top financial centers which helped China rise quickly to superpower status. After decades of underfunding our armed forces and navy since the end of WW2 Britain was in no position to renegotiate new terms for keeping hold of HK. Perhaps if CANZUK sees the light of day the British empire in a new form will retake HK from oppressive China. If the stars align you never know. ✨
92% wanted to remain under the crown.
Imho UK, US, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand should have shown a resolve of force and defended free Hong Kong
My understanding was that we had simply leased the island of Hong Kong from China for one hundred years and that our lease was up in 1997. I know Britain would have liked to extend the lease, but the Chinese wanted it back. Of course they did. The British had built the HK economy and infra-structure up very well - it had become a jewel - and, of course, the Chinese IMO saw it as an entry point into to capitalism. We negotiated safeguards for the HK people before we handed it back, but the Chinese reneged on that Agreement.
At home in the UK we felt no tension about it. Our Government had informed us early on that it was on a one hundred year lease and that they would negotiate terms to ensure the freedoms of the HK people were retained. We were concerned for them, but an Agreement was signed and we hoped China would honour it. In the seventies I worked for several shipping companies, one of whom had a fleet that traded with the Far East. The Ben Line. They were aware, and it was talked about in the seventies, that HK would be given back in 1997.
You didn't simply lease the island. You invaded and forced the Chinese to give up their land. By the way, the Chinese didn't have to honor an agreement that was made by people who took their land by force. And just so you know, Hong Kongers had no freedoms under British rule. Of the 156 years Britan rules Hong Kong, it was democratic for the last 6 years before the British had to leave. You were not concerned for the people of Hong Kong like you claim. British rule was a dictatorship which did tolerate dissent.
Not really sure anyone was bothered about Hong Kong, 50+ countries had already claimed sovereignty from the British empire, i think we were more annoyed about Canada and Australia, they were like brothers.
I remember watching the hand over ceremony. As soon as they got it back is when china saw what capitalism could do for a country and has not stopped since.
Watch the spider's web Britain's secret empire we are very powerful to this day it never ended
as a Hong Konger, I'd say we were better off under the rule of Her Majesty rather than the wretched government that is the PRC, thank god I have left Hong Kong with my family.
But Hong Kong doesn't belong to you
It belongs to the Chinese nation
I don't think you can really compare the Falkland Islands and Hong Kong. The FI were an empty, uninhabited archipelago before it was inhabited by Brits and became a territory of ours. Hong Kong however was always historically part of Chinese civilisation, and was not uninhabited when we arrived by any means. In my opinion it should have been returned to China long ago, regardless of our political feelings towards Beijing at the time or now. Not only for the sake of international stability and peace but also because we wouldn't like nor accept it if China owned and ran the Isle of Wight for example would we. We shouldn't expect them to feel any different about Hong Kong.
To be fair, it was handed back when the lease expired. Quite straightforward. If we had agreed a lease to allow, say France, to govern the Isle of Wight, they would have the legal right to govern it until the lease expired, no matter how people might "feel" about it. International law is not contingent on people's feelings.
@@TheJrr71 The point is, Britain was never right to take Hong Kong in the first place, the Chinese would call it an invasion. It wasn't like they lent it to us on equal terms. We took it during their "century of humiliation".
@@sheepsky We never "took" it, we agreed a lease tied to an internationally binding treaty, one which the Communist Party of China agreed to abide by, when they took control of the Chinese government.
@@sheepsky then they should have beaten us in the wars shouldn’t they. Like it or not, that’s how the world worked then.
@@sheepsky For us Americans, it’d be like if Bolivia discovered AI, burnt down the White House, cause tens of millions of Americans to get addicted to heroine, take control over Manhattan and lease out the New York metro area.
I’d support the UK more in HK if it was always about democracy, but truth be told HK wasn’t even that democratic (a lot better than the CCP but nowhere near a modern democracy), having for a lot of its history appointed governor not elected along with many other officials.
It wasn’t until the 70s that they actually started major reforms, and even then there was never universal suffrage under the British, and for those who could vote the positions of office which were elected weren’t expansive.
However credit to the British where due, they were a lot more open to speech and demonstrations.
Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland are the last countries being held in the British empire Westminster happily handed over control of other nation's but won't do the same for our naighbours at home
Scotland started the Union so blame them. Also all four nations have their own devolved parliaments so stop trying to falsify the situation to make it sound like what it isn’t.
The Irish, Scottish , Walsh were fully involved with the English in the British empire building it and controlling it
seems the Scottish always forget the United "Kingdoms" part, and that it was James I that added the English crown to his realm.
Never should have been held by the British in the first place
China's decision. And the people of Hong Kong certainly did not complain about British ruling it.
So your comment is nonsense.
@@deang5622 ridiculous. Hundreds of Hong Kongers were killed by the British. British rulers of Hong Kong didn't tolerate dissent and they killed a lot of Hong Kong dissidents. Look up the history and stop embarrassing yourself with lies. Hong Kongers had many complaints against British rule. Look it up, its well documented. Many protesters were killed.
I was gutted when Britain handed back Hong Kong to the CCCP. I can assure you many Hong Kong Chinese were not too happy about it either and scores of Hong Kong and Kowloon Chinese went to the UK, Australia and other Commonwealth Countries to live. The Falklands on the other hand was a different kettle of fish. The Falklands were settled by BRITISH people.
Here is a brief history of The Falklands:
The English navigator John Davis in the Desire may have been the first person to sight the Falklands, in 1592, but it was the Dutchman Sebald de Weerdt who made the first undisputed sighting of them about 1600. The English captain John Strong made the first recorded landing in the Falklands, in 1690, and named the sound between the two main islands after Viscount Falkland, a British naval official. The name was later applied to the whole island group. The French navigator Louis-Antoine de Bougainville founded the islands’ first settlement, on East Falkland, in 1764, and he named the islands the Malvinas. The British, in 1765, were the first to settle West Falkland, but they were driven off in 1770 by the Spanish, who had bought out the French settlement about 1767. The British outpost on West Falkland was restored in 1771 after threat of war, but then the British withdrew from the island in 1774 for reasons of economy, without renouncing their claim to the Falklands. Spain maintained a settlement on East Falkland (which it called Soledad Island) until 1811.
In 1820 the Buenos Aires government, which had declared its independence from Spain in 1816, proclaimed its sovereignty over the Falklands. In 1831 the U.S. warship Lexington destroyed the Argentine settlement on East Falkland in reprisal for the arrest of three U.S. ships that had been hunting seals in the area. In early 1833 a British force expelled the few remaining Argentine officials from the island without firing a shot. In 1841 a British civilian lieutenant governor was appointed for the Falklands, and by 1885 a British community of some 1,800 people on the islands was self-supporting. Argentina regularly protested Britain’s occupation of the islands.
After World War II the issue of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands shifted to the United Nations when, in 1964, the islands’ status was debated by the UN committee on decolonisation. Argentina based its claim to the Falklands on papal bulls of 1493 modified by the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494), by which Spain and Portugal had divided the New World between themselves; on succession from Spain; on the islands’ proximity to South America; and on the need to end a colonial situation. Britain based its claim on its “open, continuous, effective possession, occupation, and administration” of the islands since 1833 and its determination to apply to the Falklanders the principle of self-determination as recognised in the United Nations Charter. Britain asserted that, far from ending a colonial situation, Argentine rule and control of the lives of the Falklanders against their wishes would in fact create one.
In 1965 the UN General Assembly approved a resolution inviting Britain and Argentina to hold discussions to find a peaceful solution to the dispute. These protracted discussions were still proceeding in February 1982, but on April 2 Argentina’s military government invaded the Falklands. This act started the Falkland Islands War, which ended 10 weeks later with the surrender of the Argentine forces at Stanley to British troops who had forcibly reoccupied the islands. Although Britain and Argentina re-established full diplomatic relations in 1990, the issue of sovereignty remained a point of contention. In the early 21st century Britain continued to maintain some 2,000 troops on the islands. In January 2009 a new constitution came into effect that strengthened the Falklands’ local democratic government and reserved for the islanders their right to determine the territory’s political status. In a referendum held in March 2013, islanders voted nearly unanimously to remain a British overseas territory.
It's the CPC not CCCP or CCP.
@@sheepsky Pretty sure it's the CCP? (Chinese communist party)
150+ years of British occupation has obviously left many Hong Kongers confused about their identity. That does not mean they are not Chinese, they are. Your feelings about keeping stolen Chinese land don't matter. That land is back with its rightful owners.
@@Moabi4 BOLLOCKS. In what did I refer to "MY FEELINGS OF STOLEN CHINESE LAND DOES NOT MATTER?" My comment was that the Chinese Occupants of Hong Kong left the Island in droves and were welcomed in the UK and other Commonwealth Countries. READ MY COMMENT BLOKE!
@@sheepsky Tell me something. Did you pull wings off flies as a little boy? I take it you never made a bloody mistake!