[AuH2ORepublican]

"The Brits did not "give" Hong Kong to the Chinese. They had the former Crown Colony on a 99-year lease from the Chinese, and the lease was up."

---

Actually, from what I recall, the 99-year lease that expired in 1997 was for the "New Territories" on the mainland, not for Hong Kong Island, the Kowloon Peninsula or several small islands, which China had ceded to the UK in perpetuity. But since the Brits weren't interested in giving back the New Territories and keeping the rest of Hong Kong (it would be like keeping Manhattan and Staten Island but returning the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens to the Commies), they just returned all of Hong Kong.


"The Brits did not have the forethought to renegotiate the lease with Taiwan before they recognized the ChiComs as the rightful government of the mainland."

---

That's pretty cool, I had never thought of that, although I don't think the Brits would have tempted the Red Chinese in such a way. The Brits probably wouldn't think it was worth it to risk a war by their "insult" of the Red Chinese by signing such a treaty with the Nationalist Government in Taiwan.

[capitan_refugio]

You recall correctly. The lease did apply only to the "New Territories." The question of Hong Kong Island depended on whether one accepted the validity of 1842 Treaty of Nanking, or the 1841 Chuen Pi Convention. The ChiComs contended Hong Kong was taken by the British in 1841 under the "invalid" and "unsigned" Convention. The British contended Hong Kong was ceded under the 1842 Treaty.

It's a moot point now. In a year Hong Kong and southern China may be severely depopulated.