Hong Kong's Return To China: Year In Review 1997 | Hong Kong | Britannica.com EU Considers Rules For Robots At midnight on June 30/July 1, 1997, the crown colony of Hong Kong (see Map ) officially reverted to Chinese sovereignty, ending 156 years of British rule. After a formal handover ceremony on July 1, the colony became the Hong Kong special administrative region (HKSAR) of the People’s Republic of China. The ceremony culminated a 13-year transition that had been initiated by the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong, signed by the heads of the two governments in December 1984. The agreement stipulated that under Chinese rule the HKSAR would enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in matters of foreign relations and defense, and that the social and economic systems as well as the lifestyle in Hong Kong would remain unchanged for 50 years after 1997. Many observers, however, expressed considerable skepticism about China’s pledge to abide by the "one country, two systems" plan outlined in the agreement. They feared that China would drastically curtail the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents.

Great Britain had acquired Hong Kong Island from China in 1842, when the Treaty of Nanking was signed at the end of the first Opium War (1839-42). Unsatisfied with incomplete control of the harbour, the British forced China to cede Kowloon Peninsula south of what is now Boundary Street and Stonecutters Island less than 20 years later, after the second Opium War (1856-60). By the Convention of 1898, the New Territories together with 235 islands were leased to Britain for 99 years from July 1, 1898. After the communists took power in China in 1949, Hong Kong became a sanctuary for hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing communist rule. In the following decades the Chinese government insisted that the treaties giving Britain sovereignty over Hong Kong were invalid. Connect with Britannica Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram Pinterest Although in 1984 Britain and China agreed on the terms of the handover of Hong Kong, Sino-British cooperation during the transition period deteriorated after the appointment in 1992 of Chris Patten as Hong Kong’s last colonial governor.

Sharply breaking with past practice, Patten initiated a series of political reforms designed to give the people of Hong Kong a greater voice in government via democratic elections to the Legislative Council (LegCo). China’s crackdown on the student-led democracy movement in 1989 fed anxiety in Hong Kong regarding the handover and led to the political awakening of a previously quiescent population. Beijing made efforts to stonewall Patten’s reforms, which it condemned as a betrayal of London’s earlier promises to manage the transition as an exercise in which Hong Kong had no voice of its own. When Hong Kong’s Democratic Party, led by barrister Martin Lee, routed pro-Beijing politicians in the 1995 LegCo elections, Beijing denounced Patten and began a series of strong measures aimed at reestablishing its influence. On March 24, 1996, China’s 150-member Preparatory Committee, which had been created to oversee the handover, voted to dissolve LegCo and install a provisional legislature after Hong Kong returned to Chinese sovereignty.

In December 1996 a China-backed special election committee selected the 60 members of the provisional body, just days after it had overwhelmingly elected 59-year-old shipping magnate Tung Chee-hwa (see BIOGRAPHIES ) the first chief executive of the HKSAR. Tung, whose tottering corporate empire had been salvaged by a large infusion of government-supplied capital in the 1980s, soon signaled his intention to roll back Patten’s reforms, announcing in April 1997 proposals to restrict political groups and public protests after the handover. In essence, what Lee called the "Singaporization" of Hong Kong--i.e., the imposition of authoritarian control--had begun even before the Union Jack was lowered in the colony for the last time. Pomp and pageantry marked the formal handover ceremony. In attendance were numerous dignitaries from around the world, including Pres. Jiang Zemin and Premier Li Peng of China, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Prince Charles, and U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (see BIOGRAPHIES).

Prince Charles, who gave a short speech in which he congratulated the colony on its political, economic, and social successes, told the people of Hong Kong, "We shall not forget you, and we shall watch with the closest interest as you embark on this new era of your remarkable history." President Jiang, the first mainland Chinese head of state to visit Hong Kong since 1842, reassured residents that China would carry out the "one country, two systems" plan of local autonomy, which had been contrived principally by Chinese paramount leader Deng Xiaoping. Deng had passed away on February 19, just four and a half months before the handover he had hoped to witness. (See OBITUARIES.) On the morning of the handover, several thousand specially trained troops of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army were deployed in Hong Kong as garrison forces symbolizing the reassertion of China’s sovereignty. Chinese authorities did not attempt to suppress several rallies outside the LegCo building on June 30-July 1, even when Lee addressed thousands of demonstrators from a balcony after LegCo had officially been dissolved. The protests proceeded peacefully.

Britannica Lists & Quizzes Editor Picks: Exploring 10 Types of Basketball Movies Tung, in his first speech as chief executive, skirted the issues of political rights and democracy, choosing to espouse "traditional Chinese values." He also dwelled on mundane but important issues such as housing and education, vowing to increase the rate of home ownership in Hong Kong to 70% in the next 10 years and to provide better training for teachers. Tung counted on enhanced social programs, including government payments to the elderly poor, and continuing prosperity to marginalize political opposition to his new administration. Most citizens of Hong Kong, of whom 95% were ethnic Chinese, appeared ready to give him the benefit of the doubt, at least for the time being. Tung and the provisional legislature prepared for the first posthandover legislative elections in mid-1998 by reworking the rules of the political game. On July 8 it was announced that only 20 of the 60 legislative seats would be filled via a system of proportional representation. The remaining 40 seats would be chosen by electoral colleges and an election committee, as they were in the period prior to the implementation of Patten’s reforms.

This change virtually ensured the dominance of Hong Kong’s business and professional elite, most of whose members valued stability--which they identified with their own power--over democratic representation. In the first months after the handover, Hong Kong was indeed stable. The outlook for the free exercise of political and civil rights in Hong Kong was clouded, however. Members of the Democratic Party protested that the new electoral system was created to minimize their influence, and Lee predicted that the Democrats would win no more than 10 of the 20 directly elected seats. Trending Topics Pearl Harbor attack President Jiang hailed the "return of Hong Kong to the motherland" as a great historical event that presaged Taiwan’s eventual reunification with mainland China. Both Taiwan’s ruling Kuomintang and its main opposition, the Democratic Progressive Party, vigorously rejected Jiang’s assertion and vowed to resist Beijing’s attempts to exert pressure on the island nation. In late June Taiwan conducted live-fire military exercises, which were intended as a signal to China that Taiwan would resist any attempts at reunification. On June 28 approximately 70,000 people in Taiwan attended a "Say No to China" antireunification rally.

Although the Taiwanese government encouraged China to protect freedom in Hong Kong, it made it clear that Taiwan would not be absorbed in a similar manner. Lacrosse: Fact or Fiction? The United States, rather than Great Britain, was the principal Western power interested in holding China to its pledge of respecting Hong Kong’s political and economic autonomy. Both U.S. Pres. Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Albright informed Beijing that its behaviour with respect to Hong Kong would be considered a touchstone in Sino-American relations, and U.S. congressional leaders reinforced this message. Chinese leaders, meanwhile, severely restricted the access of their own citizens to Hong Kong, whose per capita gross domestic product of more than $24,000 was roughly 40 times that of China and whose habits of free expression and political participation were not ones that Beijing wished its own citizens to emulate. Article Contributors Lonely Planet Travel Guides and Travel Information The clamour for democracy Early inhabitants Hong Kong has supported human life since at least the late Stone Age.

Finds uncovered at almost 100 archaeological sites in the territory, including a rich burial ground discovered on the island of Ma Wan in 1997 and three hoards on the west coast of the Tuen Mun peninsula, suggest that the inhabitants of these settlements were warlike. The remnants of Bronze Age habitations (c 1500–220 BC) unearthed on Lamma and Lantau Islands and at around 20 other sites – as well as the eight geometric rock carvings that can still be viewed at various locations along Hong Kong’s coastline – also indicate that these early peoples practised some form of ancient religion based on cosmology. Other finds indicate Hong Kong’s Stone Age inhabitants also enjoyed a relatively nutritious diet of iron-rich vegetables, small mammals, shellfish and fish harvested far offshore. ^ Back to top The five great clans Just when the area that is now Hong Kong became an integral part of the Chinese empire is difficult to say. What is certain, however, is that by the time of the Eastern Han dynasty (AD 25–220), Chinese imperial rule had been extended over the region.

The discovery of a number of Han coins on Lantau and Kau Sai Chau Islands and at several important digs, including the tomb of a senior Han warrior at Lei Cheng Uk in central Kowloon and So Kwun Wat southeast of Tuen Mun, attests to this. The first of Hong Kong’s mighty ‘Five Clans’, Han Chinese whose descendants hold political and economic clout to this day, began settling the area around the 12th century. The first and most powerful of the arrivals were the Tang, who initially settled around Kam Tin (tì means ‘field’). The once-moated hamlet of Kat Hing Wai (wài means ‘protective wall’), which is probably the most visited of the remaining traditional walled villages in the New Territories, formed part of this cluster. The Tang were followed by the Hau, who spread around present-day Sheung Shui, and the Pang from central Jiangsu province, who settled in what is now the area around Fanling. These three clans were followed by the Liu in the 15th century and the Man a century later.

The Cantonese-speaking newcomers called themselves bún-day (Punti), meaning ‘indigenous’ or ‘local’ – something they clearly were not. They looked down on the original inhabitants, many of whom had been shunted off the land and had moved onto the sea to live on boats. It is thought that today’s fisherpeople called, the Tanka, emerged from this persecuted group. ^ Back to top An imperial outpost Clinging to the southern edge of the Chinese province of Canton (now Guangdong ), the pen­insula and islands that became the territory of Hong Kong counted only as a remote pocket in a neglected corner of the Chinese empire. Among the scattered communities of farmers and fisherfolk were pirates who hid from the authorities among the rocky islands that afforded easy access to the nearby Pearl River. Hong Kong’s first recorded encounter with imperial China in the 13th century was as brief as it was tragic. In 1276 a group of loyal retainers of the Song dynasty (AD 960–1279) smuggled the boy emperor, Duan Zong, south to the remote fringes of the empire after the Song capital, Hangzhou, had fallen to the Mongol hordes sweeping China .

Nine-year-old Duan Zong drowned when Mongol ships defeated the tattered remnants of the imperial fleet in a battle on the Pearl River. The Punti flourished until the struggle that saw the moribund Ming dynasty (1368–1644) overthrown. The victorious Qing (1644–1911), angered by the resistance put up by southerners loyal to the ancien régime and determined to solve the endemic problem of piracy, in the 1660s ordered a forced evacuation inland of all the inhabitants of Guangdong ’s coastal San On district, including Hong Kong. These turbulent times saw the birth of the Triads. Originally founded as patriotic secret societies dedicated to overthrowing the Qing dynasty and restoring the Ming, they would degenerate over the centuries into Hong Kong’s own version of the Mafia. Today’s Triads still recite an oath of allegiance to the Ming, but their loyalty is to the dollar rather than the vanquished Son of Heaven.

More than four generations passed before the population was able to recover to its mid-17th-century level, boosted in part by the influx of the Hakka (Cantonese for ‘guest people’), who moved here in the 18th century and up to the mid-19th century. A few vestiges of their language, songs and folklore survive, most visibly in the wide-brimmed, black-fringed bamboo hats sported by Hakka women in the New Territories. ^ Back to top Arrival of the outer barbarians For centuries, the Pearl River estuary had been an important trading artery centred on the port of Canton (now Guangzhou ). Arab traders had entered – and sacked – the settlement as early as the 8th century AD. Guangzhou was 2500km south of Peking, and the Cantonese view that the ‘mountains are high and the emperor is far away’ was not disputed in the imperial capital. The Ming emperors regarded their subjects to the south as no less than witches and sorcerers, their language unintelligible and their culinary predilections downright disgusting. It was therefore fitting that the Cantonese should trade with the ‘outer barbarians’, or foreign traders.

Regular trade between China and Europe began in 1557 when Portuguese navigators set up a base in Macau , 65km west of Hong Kong. Dutch traders came in the wake of the Portuguese, followed by the French. British ships appeared as early as 1685 from the East India Company concessions along the coast of India , and by 1714 the company had established offices and warehouses with ‘factors’ (managers) in Guangzhou to trade for tea, silk and porcelain. By the end of the 18th century, the flags of more than a dozen nations, including Britain, flew over the buildings along 13 Factories St. In 1757 an imperial edict awarded the cohong (a local merchants’ guild), the monopoly on China ’s trade with foreigners, restricting the European traders. It was illegal for them to learn the Chinese language or to deal with anyone except merchants of the cohong; they could not enter Guangzhou proper but were restricted to Shamian Island in the Pearl River; they were allowed to remain only for the trading season (November to May).

^ Back to top Opium & war China didn’t reciprocate Europe ’s voracious demand for its products, especially tea, for the most part shunning foreign manufactured goods. The foreigners’ ensuing trade deficit was soon reversed, however, after the British discovered a commodity that the Chinese did want: opium. The British, with a virtually inexhaustible supply of the drug from the poppy fields of India , developed the trade aggressively. Alarmed to see its silver draining from the country to pay for the opium and the spread of addiction, Emperor Chia Ch’ing (Jiaqing; r 1796–1820) issued an edict in 1799 banning the trade of opium in China , while his son and successor, Tao Kuang (Dao Guang; r 1820–50), banned the drug from Whampoa (now Huangpo) and Macau in 1820. In Guangzhou the cohong and corrupt officials helped ensure the trade continued, and both sides amassed great fortunes.

This was all supposed to change in June 1839 with the arrival of Lin Zexu, governor of Hunan and a mandarin of great integrity, who surrounded the British garrison in Guangzhou and cut off their food supplies, forcing them to turn over more than 20,000 chests of the drug. The British chief superintendent of trade, Captain Charles Elliot, suspended all trade with China while he awaited instructions from London. The foreign secretary, Lord Palmerston, goaded by prominent Scottish merchants William Jardine and James Matheson, ordered the Royal Navy in Guangzhou to force a settlement in Sino-British commercial relations. An expeditionary force of 4000 men under Rear Admiral George Elliot (a cousin of Charles) departed to extract reparations and secure favourable trade arrangements from the Chinese government. What would become known as the First Opium War (or First Anglo-Chinese War) began in June 1840. British forces besieged Guangzhou before sailing north and occupying or blockading a number of ports and cities along the Yangtze River and the coast as far as Shanghai .

To the emperor’s great alarm, the force threatened Beijing , and he sent his envoy (and Lin’s successor) Qi Shan to negotiate with the Elliots. In exchange for the British withdrawal from northern China , Qi agreed to the Convention of Chuenpi (now Chuanbi), which ceded Hong Kong Island to Britain. Though neither side, in fact, actually accepted the terms of the convention, a couple of subsequent events decided Hong Kong’s fate. In January 1841 a naval landing party hoisted the British flag at Possession Point (now Possession St) on Hong Kong Island. The following month Captain Elliot attacked the Bogue Fort in Humen, took control of the Pearl River and laid siege to Guangzhou , withdrawing only after having extracted concessions from merchants there. Six months later a powerful British force led by Elliot’s successor, Sir Henry Pottinger, sailed north and seized Amoy (Xiamen), Ningpo (Ningbo), Shanghai and other ports. With the strategic city of Nanking (Nanjing) under immediate threat, the Chinese were forced to accept Britain’s terms.

The Treaty of Nanking abolished the monopoly system of trade, opened five ‘treaty ports’ to British residents and foreign trade, exempted British nationals from all Chinese laws and ceded the island of Hong Kong to the British ‘in perpetuity’. ^ Back to top British Hong Kong ‘Albert is so amused at my having got the island of Hong Kong’, wrote Queen Victoria to King Leopold of Belgium in 1841. At the time, Hong Kong was little more than a backwater of about 20 villages and hamlets. It did offer one distinct advantage for the British trading fleet, however: a deep, well-sheltered harbour that went by the Cantonese name hèung-gáwng (‘fragrant harbour’), so named after the scent from sandalwood incense factories that wafted across the harbour from what is now Aberdeen at the western edge of the island. As Captain Elliot saw it, from here the British Empire and its merchants could conduct all their trade with China and establish a permanent outpost, under British sovereignty, in the Far East.

But the British merchants in Guangzhou and the Royal Navy sided with Lord Palmerston; a small barren island with nary a house on it was not the type of sweeping concession that a British victory was supposed to achieve. Nonetheless, Hong Kong formally became a British possession on 26 June 1843, and its first governor, Sir Henry Pottinger, took charge. A primitive chaotic and lawless settlement soon sprang up. ^ Back to top Growing pains What would later be called the Second Opium War (or Second Anglo-Chinese War) broke out in October 1856. The first stage of the war was brought to an end two years later by the Treaty of Tientsin (Tianjin), which gave foreigners the right to diplomatic representation in Beijing . Despite warnings from the Chinese, the British tried to capitalise on this agreement in 1859 by sending a flotilla carrying the first British envoy and minister plenipotentiary up the Pei Ho River to Beijing . The Chinese fired on the armada, which sustained heavy losses. Using this as a pretext, a combined British and French force invaded China and marched on Beijing .

The victorious British forced the Chinese to the Convention of Peking in 1860, which ratified the Treaty of Tientsin and ceded the Kowloon peninsula and Stonecutters Island to Britain. Britain was now in complete control of Victoria Harbour and its approaches. Hong Kong’s population had leapt from 33,000 in 1850 to 265,000 in 1900 and the British army felt it needed to command the mountains of the New Territories to protect the growing colony and provide water to it. When the Qing dynasty was at its nadir, the British government petitioned China for a land extension extending Hong Kong into the New Territories. The June 1898 Convention of Peking handed Britain a larger-than-expected slice of territory running north to the Shumchun (Shenzhen) River, and 235 islands, increasing the colony’s size by 90%. ^ Back to top A sleepy backwater While the hong – Hong Kong’s major trading houses, including Jardine, Matheson and Swire – prospered from their trade with China , the colony hardly thrived in its first few decades.

Fever, bubonic plague and typhoons threatened life and property, and at first the colony attracted a fair number of criminals and vice merchants. Opium dens, gambling clubs and brothels proliferated; just a year after Britain took possession, an estimated 450 prostitutes worked out of two dozen brothels. Australian ‘actresses’ were based in Lyndhurst Tce, known as baak fàa gàai (‘White Flower Street’), in Chinese. Gradually, however, Hong Kong began to shape itself into a more substantial community. Gas and electrical power companies sprang up, ferries, trams, the Kowloon-Canton Railway and the newfangled High Level Tramway (later known as the Peak Tram) provided a decent transport network, and land was reclaimed. Colonials flocked to the races at Happy Valley and visitors were as impressed with the colony’s social life as they were with its development. Nonetheless, from the late 19th century right up to WWII, Hong Kong lived in the shadow of the treaty port of Shanghai , which had become Asia ’s premier trade and financial centre – not to mention its style capital.

The colony’s population continued to grow thanks to waves of immigrants fleeing the Chinese Revolution of 1911, which ousted the decaying Qing dynasty and ushered in several decades of strife, rampaging warlords and famine. The civil war in China kept the numbers of refugees entering the colony high, but the stream became a flood after Japan invaded China in 1937. Hong Kong’s status as a British colony would offer the refugees only a temporary haven. The day after Japan attacked the US naval base at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, its military machine swept down from Guangzhou and into Hong Kong. Conditions under Japanese rule were harsh, with indiscriminate massacres of mostly Chinese civilians; Western civilians were incarcerated at Stanley Prison on Hong Kong Island. Many Hong Kong Chinese fled to Macau , administered by neutral Portugal . ^ Back to top The road to boomtown After Japan ’s withdrawal from Hong Kong, and subsequent surrender in August 1945, the colony looked set to resume its hibernation. But events both at home and on the mainland forced the colony in a new direction. Just before WWII Hong Kong had begun to shift from entrepôt trade servicing China to home-grown manufacturing.

The turmoil on the mainland, leading to the defeat of the Nationalists by the victorious Communists in 1949, unleashed a torrent of refugees – both rich and poor – into Hong Kong. When Beijing sided with North Korea that year and went to war against the forces of the USA and the UN, the UN embargo on all trade with China (1951) threatened to strangle the colony economically. But on a paltry, war-torn foundation, local and foreign businesses built a huge manufacturing (notably textiles and garments) and financial services centre that transformed Hong Kong into one of the world’s great economic miracles. Much of Hong Kong’s success depended on the enormous pool of cheap labour from China , often directed by entrepreneurs seeking refuge from the Communist mainland. Working conditions in those early years of economic revolution were often Dickensian: 16-hour days, unsafe working conditions, low wages and child labour were all common. Refugee workers endured, and some even earned their way out of poverty into prosperity. The Hong Kong government, under international pressure, eventually began to establish and enforce labour standards, and the situation gradually improved.

Despite the improvements, trouble flared up in the 1950s and ’60s due to social discontent and poor working conditions. Feuding between Communist and Nationalist supporters in Hong Kong led to riots in 1957 and again in 1962 and 1966. When the Communists came to power in China in 1949, many people were sure that Hong Kong would be overrun. Even without force, the Chinese could simply have ripped down the fence on the border and sent the masses to settle on Hong Kong territory. But though the Chinese government continued to denounce the ‘unequal treaties’, it recognised Hong Kong’s importance to the national economy. In 1967, at the height of the so-called Cultural Revolution, when the ultraleftist Red Guards were in de facto control in China , Hong Kong’s stability again looked precarious. Riots rocked the colony, bringing with them a wave of bombings, looting and arson attacks. Property values in Hong Kong plunged, as did China ’s foreign-exchange earnings, as trade and tourism ground to a halt.

However, the bulk of the population – and, importantly, the Hong Kong police – stood firm with the colonial authorities. By the end of the 1960s, China , largely due to the intervention of Premier Chou Enlai, had come to its senses and order had been restored. ^ Back to top A society in transition After ‘a testing time for the people of Hong Kong’, as the Hong Kong Yearbook summed it up at the end of 1967, Hong Kong got on with the business of making money, which included improving the territory’s infrastructure. In 1973 the first ‘New Town’ – Sha Tin – was completed, marking the start of a massive and unprecedented public-housing programme that would, and still does, house millions of Hong Kong people. Although Hong Kong’s stock market collapsed in 1973, its economy resumed its upward trend later in the decade. At the same time many of Hong Kong’s neighbours, including Taiwan , South Korea and Singapore , began to mimic the colony’s success. Just as their cheap labour was threatening to undermine the competitive edge of Hong Kong manufacturers, China began to emerge from its self-imposed isolation.

The ‘Open Door’ policy of Deng Xiaoping, who took control of China in the confusion after Mao Zedong’s death in 1976, revived Hong Kong’s role as the gateway to the mainland and it boomed. Underpinning the boom was the drive to rake in as much profit as possible ahead of 1997, when Hong Kong’s once and future master would again take over. ^ Back to top The 1997 question Few people gave much thought to Hong Kong’s future until the late 1970s, when the British and Chinese governments met for the first time to decide what would happen in (and after) 1997. Britain was legally bound to hand back only the New Territories – not Hong Kong Island and Kowloon, which had been ceded to it forever. However, the fact that nearly half of Hong Kong’s population lived in the New Territories by that time made it an untenable division. It was Deng Xiaoping who decided that the time was ripe to recover Hong Kong, forcing the British to the negotiating table.

The inevitable conclusion laid to rest political jitters and commercial concerns that had seen the Hong Kong dollar collapse – and subsequently be pegged to the US dollar – in 1983, but there was considerable resentment that the fate of 5.5 million people had been decided without their input and that Whitehall had chosen not to provide Hong Kong people with full British passports and the right of abode in the UK. Despite soothing words from the Chinese, British and Hong Kong governments, over the next 13 years the population of Hong Kong suffered considerable anxiety at the possible political and economic consequences of the handover. In the anxious years leading up to the handover, thousands of Hong Kong citizens emigrated to Canada , the USA , Australia , the UK and New Zealand . ^ Back to top Tiananmen & its aftermath The concern of many Hong Kong people over their future turned to out-and-out fear on 4 June 1989, when Chinese troops massacred prodemocracy demonstrators in Beijing ’s Tiananmen Square. The events horrified Hong Kong people, many of whom had donated funds and goods to the demonstrators.

As the Chinese authorities spread out to hunt down activists, an underground smuggling operation, code-named Yellow Bird, was set up in Hong Kong to spirit them to safety overseas. The massacre was a watershed for Hong Kong. Sino-British relations deteriorated, the stock market fell 22% in one day and a great deal of capital left the territory for destinations overseas. The Hong Kong government sought to rebuild confidence by announcing plans for a new airport and shipping port; with an estimated price tag of $160 billion, this was the world’s most expensive infrastructure project of the day. But China had already signalled its intentions loudly and clearly. Hong Kong–based Chinese officials who had spoken out against the Tiananmen killings were yanked from their posts or sought asylum in the USA and Europe . Local Hong Kong people with money and skills made a mad dash to emigrate to any country that would take them. During the worst period more than 1000 people were leaving each week, especially for Canada and Australia . Tiananmen had strengthened the resolve of those people who either could not or would not leave, giving rise to the territory’s first official political parties.

In a bid to restore credibility, the government introduced a Bill of Rights in 1990, and the following year bestowed on Hong Kong citizens the right to choose 18 of the 60 members of the Legislative Council (Legco), which until then had been essentially a rubber-stamp body chosen by the government and special-interest groups. ^ Back to top Democracy & the last governor Hong Kong was never as politically apathetic as was generally thought in the 1970s and ’80s. The word ‘party’ may have been anathema to the refugees who had fled from the Communists or Nationalists in the 1930s and ’40s, but not necessarily to their sons and daughters. Born and bred in the territory, these first-generation Hong Kong youths were entering universities and colleges by the 1970s and becoming politically active. Like student activists everywhere they were passionate and idealistic, agitating successfully for Chinese to be recognised as an official language alongside English. They opposed colonialism, expressed pride in their Chinese heritage and railed against the benign dictatorship of the Hong Kong colonial government.

But their numbers were split between those who supported China – and the Chinese Communist Party – at all costs and those who had reservations or even mistrusted it. The first to consider themselves ‘Hong Kong people’ rather than refugees from China , this generation formed the pressure groups emerging in the 1980s to debate Hong Kong’s future. By the end of the decade they were coalescing into nascent political parties and preparing for the 1991 Legco (legislative council) elections. The first party to emerge was the United Democratic Party, led by outspoken democrats Martin Lee and Szeto Wah. The pair, initially courted by China for their anticolonial positions and appointed to the committee that drafted the Basic Law, subsequently infuriated Beijing by publicly burning copies of the proto-constitution in protest over the Tiananmen massacre. Predictably, China denounced them as subversives. Chris Patten, Hong Kong’s 28th – and last – British governor arrived in 1992, pledging to his sceptical citizens to get democracy back on track.

China reacted badly, first levelling daily verbal attacks at the governor, then threatening the post-1997 careers of any prodemocracy politicians or officials. When these tactics failed, China targeted Hong Kong’s economy. Negotiations on certain business contracts straddling 1997 suddenly came to a halt, and Beijing scared off foreign investors by boycotting all talks on the new airport programme. Sensing that it had alienated even its supporters in Hong Kong, China backed down and in 1994 gave its blessing to the new airport at Chek Lap Kok. It remained hostile to direct elections, however, and vowed to disband the democratically elected legislature after 1997. In August 1994 China adopted a resolution to abolish the terms of office of Hong Kong’s three tiers of elected bodies: the legislature, the municipal councils and the district boards. A Provisional Legislative Council was elected by Beijing , which included pro- Beijing councillors who had been defeated by democratic ones in the sitting Legco. The rival chamber met over the border in Shenzhen, as it had no authority in Hong Kong until the transfer of power three years later.

This provisional body served until May 1998, when a new Legislative Council was elected partially by the people of Hong Kong, partially by business constituencies and partially by power brokers in Beijing . As for the executive branch of power, no one was fooled by the pseudo election, choreographed by China in 1996, to select Hong Kong’s first postcolonial leader. But Tung Chee Hwa (1937–), the Shanghai -born shipping magnate destined to become the SAR’s first chief executive, won approval by retaining Patten’s right-hand woman, Anson Chan, as his chief secretary and Donald Tsang as financial secretary. China agreed to a low-key entry into Hong Kong, and People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops were trucked straight to their barracks in Stanley, Kowloon Tong and Bonham Rd in the Mid-Levels. On the night of 30 June 1997 the handover celebrations held in the purpose-built extension of the Hong Kong Convention & Exhibition Centre in Wan Chai were watched by millions of people around the world.

Chris Patten shed a tear while Chinese Premier Jiang Zemin beamed and Prince Charles was outwardly stoic (but privately scathing, describing the Chinese leaders in a diary leaked years later to the British tabloids as ‘appalling old waxworks’). So the curtain fell on a century and a half of British rule and the new chief executive Tung summed up Chinese feelings about the handover with the words: ‘Now we are masters of our own house.’ ^ Back to top The recent past Visitors returning to Hong Kong since July 1997 would see and feel little material difference walking around the city today. China has been largely true to its word in allowing Hong Kong the high level of the autonomy it enjoyed under the previous regime. Apart from the ever-higher buildings and the ever-narrowing gap between Kowloon and Hong Kong Island, business goes on as it did before the handover with ever-greater frenzy and bustle in this booming global financial and commercial centre. Perhaps the most striking thing for returning visitors from the West is the influx of a new breed of visitor: mainland Chinese, who now make up more than half the territory’s visitor numbers.

Not everything has been rosy since the handover, however, and the mainland stands accused of interfering in Hong Kong’s independence over a number of issues. Perhaps it’s not surprising. Chinese premier Deng Xiaoping’s policy of ‘One Country, Two Systems’ would always have its fault lines. His deft verbal fudge over the issue of just how much autonomy Hong Kong should enjoy continues to be tested over a series of issues: perceived attempts by the mainland to erode civil liberties and press freedoms; the debate over whether the rule of law is being maintained in the territory; and vocal calls for real democracy and better representation for all the territory’s people. Clearly the mainland government wields huge influence both benign and malign but in most cases still prefers to tread lightly, honouring the spirit of the handover agreement to a great extent. Perhaps the real surprise should be that a monolithic one-party state (and one which theoretically remains a Communist one) has resisted daily tinkering in the affairs of a nakedly capitalistic city state based on the Western rule of law. A measure of just how successful the handover has been came in a 2007 BBC interview with Baroness Thatcher.

Marking the 10th anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong from Britain to China , Thatcher, to her own surprise, deemed China ’s overall performance a success. There’s much debate about how much influence the mainland is bringing to bear overtly or covertly in Hong Kong. But might history one day identify an equal and opposite reaction going on, too? Hong Kong’s dazzling status and success arguably contains within it a kind of ‘soft’ power to influence thinking in the mainland. It might be hard to measure, but in the enclave that sheltered and inspired the fathers of powerful mainland movements (Sun Yatsen and Zhou Enlai) it should not be dismissed. The fact remains, however, that true democracy still looks to be a long way off. Chinese people might now rule the roost but, more than a decade on from colonial days, the Legislative Council remains essentially toothless and ultimate power rests with the chief executive (and his ultimate masters), just as it did with the British governor. ^ Back to top Hong Kong post-1997 Hong Kong might be a buoyant, self-confident place these days, but there were some bumps along the way.

Almost as soon as the euphoria of the 1997 handover faded things started going badly in Hong Kong. A brutal economic recession, a plague and an ill-fated launch for the new airport helped to sandbag the new Hong Kong SAR in its early years. The financial crisis that had rocked other parts of Asia began to be felt in Hong Kong at the end of 1997. A strain of deadly avian flu, which many people feared would become a worldwide epidemic, saw Hong Kong slaughtering some 1.4 million chickens. Following on from this was the ‘Chek Lap Kok-up’ of 1998, when the much-trumpeted new airport opened to a litany of disasters. Hong Kong was making world headlines again – but for all the wrong reasons. The credibility of the SAR administration was severely damaged in 1999 when the government challenged a High Court ruling allowing residency rights for the China -born offspring of parents who became Hong Kong citizens after 1997. The ruling was based on certain clauses of the Basic Law – Hong Kong’s miniconstitution – that made 1.6 million people from the mainland eligible for right of abode in the territory.

The SAR administration appealed to the standing committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC), China ’s rubber-stamp parliament, to ‘reinterpret’ these clauses. The NPC complied, and ruled according to what the law drafters ‘meant’ but had somehow failed to write into law. Once again many people felt that the government was acting in its own – and not their – interest. Meanwhile, chief executive Tung Chee Hwa’s popularity declined rapidly. He was increasingly seen as Beijing ’s lackey, often dictatorial and aloof but strangely weak and indecisive in times of crisis. One example of the latter was his condemnation of Falun Gong, a spiritual movement that had emerged in China in 1992 and had earned the wrath of the mainland government, which brutally suppressed the movement. ^ Back to top History books Foreign Mud by Maurice Collis (1946) – first published just after WWII, this is an excellent historical reconstruction of the sordid events leading to the First Opium War that Britain fought with China . Hong Kong: China ’s New Colony by Stephen Vines (1998) – this excellent history continues where most books on Hong Kong leave off, examining the territory after the change in landlords.

It pulls very few punches. Hong Kong: Epilogue to an Empire by Jan Morris (1997) – this anecdotal history of the territory shortly before the handover moves effortlessly between past and present as it explains what made Hong Kong so unique among the colonies of the British Empire. It’s a dated but highly recommended read. Old Hong Kong by Formasia (1999) – this fascinating large-format pictorial of old photographs comes in three volumes: Volume I covers the period from 1860 to 1900; Volume II from 1901 to 1945; and Volume III from 1950 to 1997. ^ Back to top One country, two systems Under the agreement signed by China and Britain, which is enshrined in a document known as The Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong, the ‘British-administered territory’ of Hong Kong would disappear and be reborn as a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China . This meant the Hong Kong SAR would be permitted to continue with its current capitalist system, while across the border the Chinese would remain with China ’s version of socialism.

The Chinese catch phrase for this was ‘One Country, Two Systems’. In 1988 the details of this rather unorthodox system of government were spelled out in The Basic Law for Hong Kong, the SAR’s future constitution. The Basic Law, ratified by the National People’s Congress (NPC) in Beijing in 1990, preserved Hong Kong’s English common-law judicial system and guaranteed the right of property and ownership. It also included the rights of assembly, free speech, association, travel and movement, correspondence, choice of occupation, academic research, religious belief and the right to strike. The SAR would enjoy a high degree of autonomy with the exception of foreign affairs and matters of defence. As guarantees of individual freedoms and respect for human rights are written into China ’s own constitution, few Hong Kong Chinese held much faith in the Basic Law. The guarantees were seen as empty promises and quite a few felt the Basic Law provided Beijing with the means to interfere in Hong Kong’s internal affairs to preserve public order, public morals and national security. Although Hong Kong under the British had never been more than a benignly ruled oligarchy, Whitehall had nevertheless promised to introduce democratic reforms prior to the handover.

But it soon became apparent that British and Chinese definitions of democracy differed considerably. Beijing made it abundantly clear that it would not allow Hong Kong to establish its own democratically elected government. The chief executive was to be chosen by a Beijing -appointed panel of delegates; the people of Hong Kong would elect some lower officials. In the face of opposition from Beijing , planned elections for 1988 were postponed. ^ Back to top The clamour for democracy Despite his poor standing in the polls, Tung was returned for a second five-year term in March 2002 and moved to reform the executive branch, instituting a cabinetlike system within which secretaries would be held accountable for their portfolios. Controversy continued to dog his time in office, however, most notably in March 2003, with the government’s failure to contain the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic at an early stage, provoking a torrent of blame. The outbreak killed 299 people, infected 1755 and all but closed Hong Kong down for weeks. In July 2003 the government came under fire yet again over a deeply unpopular piece of new legislation.

Called Article 23, which Beijing had added to Hong Kong’s Basic Law in the aftermath of the Tiananmen student movement of 1989, the bill dealt with acts ‘endangering public security’, such as treason, subversion and sedition. In the face of massive public protests – of 500,000 people or more – the government shelved the bill indefinitely. At the end of the following year the government was forced to scrap the sale of a public-housing property fund worth US$2.7 billion just hours before it was due to list when a court sided with an elderly tenant’s challenge to the sale. It was a major blow to investors – something not lost on the leadership in Beijing . Soon after, Chinese President Hu Jintao called on Tung to ‘reflect on the past’ and ‘learn from his mistakes’, a severe scolding by Chinese political standards. In March 2005 Tung announced his resignation as chief executive, citing overwork as the reason.

His interim replacement was the bow-tie-wearing chief secretary Sir Donald Tsang, who straddled both Hong Kong’s regimes as financial secretary from 1995 to 2001 and had been knighted under Chris Patten in 1997. Tsang was elected uncontested in June 2005, two weeks after the nomination period closed. Compared to the lacklustre Tung, Tsang was a welcome replacement for many. On good terms with the Beijing powerbrokers, he also sustained very high public approval ratings beyond the usual political honeymoon period (helped no doubt by a resurgent economy, and bullish stock and housing markets). In 2007 Tsang stood again for election, and was elected with ease. He was the first chief executive not to stand unopposed. His contestant, prodemocracy activist Alan Leong, came a distant second, but for many who yearn for a truly democratic Hong Kong it is a sign of hope that Hong Kong people may one day see a government truly elected by them rather than by a cabal dominated by those loyal to local business and to the mainland powers that be.

Yearnings for democracy aside, more than 10 years on from the handover, the mood in Hong Kong is buoyant, thanks in large part to a resurgent economy taking an ever-fatter tithe from China ’s boom. In the later years of the decade Hong Kong has a spring in its step and most of its citizens are proud to say they are citizens of the SAR as well, crucially, as subjects of China , however confusing and problematic that dual identity might sometimes seem. British Imperialism in China | Guided History British Imperialism in China A legacy of Commerce, Addiction, and Gunboat diplomacy By Tao He Introduction The primary motive of British imperialism in China in the nineteenth century was economic. There was a high demand for Chinese tea, silk and porcelain in the British market. However, Britain did not possess sufficient silver to trade with the Qing Empire. Thus, a system of barter based on Indian opium was created to bridge this problem of payment. The subsequent exponential increase of opium in China between 1790 and 1832 brought about a generation of addicts and social instability. Clashes between the Qing government and British merchants ultimately escalated into the infamous Opium Wars.

As a result, the British were given the island of Hong Kong and trading rights in the ports of Canton and Shanghai. Although British imperialism never politically took hold in mainland China, as it did in India or Africa, its cultural and political legacy is still evident today. Honk Kong remains a significant center of global finance and its government still functioned in much of the same ways as it did under British colonialism. Furthermore, the language of English and British culture highly impacted the society of Hong Kong and Southern China for over a century. This Research Guide is divided into four main components. The first section is devoted to the definitions and qualifications of imperialism. This part mainly consists of print sources that focus on the political, economic and social mechanisms of imperialism. It provides scholarly perspectives and criticisms regarding its causes and effects. The second section consists of both print and interactive sources. This section focuses on the topic of British Imperialism in China from a British perspective. The sources include various political justifications and financial factors that influence Britain’s diplomatic decisions and imperialist tactics. The third section presents the Chinese perspective. The sources in this section explain the development of Chinese nationalism and the intricacies of international relations in the Qing court.

The final section deals with the legacy of British imperialism in Hong Kong and southern China. The sources here examine the cultural and political footprint of the British in this region. A Political Cartoon depicting the Open Door Policy Hong Kong returns as territory of the People’s Republic of China Spense, Jonathan D. The Search For Modern China. New York W.W. Norton & Company Inc. 1999 Porter, Andrew. The Oxford History of the British Empire: Vol III: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford:Oxford University Press. 2001 Imperialism: Definition and Historical Context Imperialism: The Idea and Reality of British and French Colonial Expansion Winfried Baumgart devotes this study to defining the idea of European Imperialism. He split this broad concept into three separate and more manageable subcategories. First, he explains the political atmosphere of mid-ninteenth century Europe. He qualifies various preconditions that made eastern expansion possible. He highlights the significance of early trading port, naval developments, missionary activities, exploration, and technological advancements. Second he approaches the topic of imperialism from a nationalistic perspective. He explains social conception of nationalism and the “white man’s burden” to not only expand into foreign lands but also to culturally educate the natives.

Furthermore, Baumgart also explains the competitive nature of nationalism amongst fellow European imperialist nations. The importance of political and economic dominance becomes a major issue between imperialist nations. His final subcategory is the economic theory behind this expansionist enterprise. In this part of the book, Baumgart discusses the application of capitalist and mercantilist economic theories in foreign markets. He analyses the economic policy of Protectionism which is significant for understanding the imperialist initiatives for the Opium War. This book serves as a strong introduction to the broad idea of Imperialism. Baumgart, Winfried. Imperialism: The Idea and Reality of British and French Colonial Expansion,1880-1914. Oxford. Oxford University Press. 1982 The Economics of European Imperialism Alan Hodgart gives a comprehensive evaluation of the economic forces of European Imperialism. This book approaches this topic form both a Marxist and anti-Marxist perspective. On the one hand, Marxists such as Lenin and Hobson, describes imperialism as a opportunistic extension of capitalism. The exportation of capital into foreign and less competitive markets was the driving force of all imperialistic ventures. The politics and ideologies were simply justifications of this economic phenomenon.

On the other hand, the anti-Marxists, represented by Joseph Schumpeter, argues that imperialism was a result of a objectless national affinity to expand. The author also signifies Weber’s idea of the Capitalist Spirit; that it is in the best interest of the powerful capitalist to continuously expand. Hodgart’s economic-based depiction of imperialism not only provides a deeper understanding of this period but also shows the complexity of the phenomenon; that European imperialism could be justified and criticized from many different perspectives. Hodgart, Alan. The Economics of European Imperialism. New York. W.W. Norton & Company Inc. 1977 The British Perspective Established in 1600, the East India Company was one of Britain’s most prominent imperialistic entities in Asia. British Imperialism: 1688-2000 A 700 page comprehensive history that covers the all the major colonial and imperialistic ventures since 1688. This source serves as a catalog of events; it documents all the figures, wars, treaties and embargoes from early colonialism to the decolonization after the second World War. This book is very similar to a typical history textbook.

It is topical and event driven; it mainly focuses on painting a picture of the past rather than analyzing the conceptual forces such as nationalism or economic theories. Although the description of each event is brief, it is an excellent starting point for understanding the historical significance of the period. Cain, Peters. Hopkins, Tony. British Imperialism: 1688-2000, New Jersey. Pearson. 2001. The Honorable Company: A history of the English East India Company The East India Company was one of the important vessels of British Imperialism. It was controlled by wealthy merchants and was known for the trades in tea, porcelain, spices, salt and opium. During the British Colonial period in India the East India company even raised its own private military unit to protect its purely economic interest. This source covers the history of the company from the establishment of its royal charter in 1600 to its collapse in the late nineteenth century. This book explains the commercial aspects of imperialism which exemplifies the theoretical economic factors associated with imperialism. More importantly, it narrows the scope of imperialism from the political and economic actions of a nation to the actions of a company in which the British government had no direct control.

It also contains a comprehensive overview of the company’s tea and opium dealings with the Qing empire in China. It analyzes the events of the opium wars from a commercial perspective. Keay, John. The Honourable Company: A History of the English East India Company. New York, Scribner Press. 1994 Punch Magazine Political cartoons provide a satirical view of British imperialism. “Punch was a Victorian weekly magazine that built up for itself a reputation for satire and savagely cutting commentary. Although in many ways a conservative magazine, they kept no sacred cows; anything and everything was available to be satirized and ridiculed. Reputations and careers were made and broken by the cartoons and articles depicted in this magazine. The fact that Punch was commenting on events as they happened has meant that it has provided historians with an invaluable source of contemporary values and ideas.” Click here to visit site < Primary Sources Life in the British Colony of Hong Kong The following source is a description of the culture and lifestyle in the British Colony of Hong Kong in the 1930s. The author was half British and half French.

The first portion of the book depicts the author’s childhood in Hong Kong and her interactions with Chinese locals as well as the European inhabitants. It serves as an anthropologic view on the class dynamics of this colony. The second half deals with the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong during World War II. Jong, Yvonne Blackmore de. An Extraordinary Youth: Growing Up in British Hong Kong, Seattle, Create Space Ind. Publishing Platform. 2010. Spense Documentary Collection 6.1 Lord Maccartney’s Commission from Henry Dundas, 1792- This document was the a letter from Henry Dundas, a representative from the East India Company, written the Lord Macartney, a British Diplomat in China. This letter represents the early attitude of Europeans towards the Qing empire. The tone of this letter shows shows British dignity but also respects the authority of the Chinese. This attitude would change significantly after industrialization and and the Opium Wars. 7.5 Lord Palmerston’s Declaration of War (February 20, 1840)-The formal response to the seizure and destruction of British opium by the Qing government.

Lord Palmerston, the Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, informs the Qing Government of British intentions to protect its interests in China. This was the document that began not only the first Opium War, but also the first of many conflicts between Qing China and industrialized Western powers. Spense, Jonathan D. Cheng,Pei-Kai. Lestz, Michael. The Search For Modern China: A Documentary Collection. New York W.W. Norton & Company Inc. 1999 Destruction of the Old Summer Palace in 1860 During the Second Opium War in 1860, the allegiance of of European imperialist occupied the Chinese capital of Peking (Beijing). The Old Summer Palace, the Qing Chinese equivalent of a national museum, was looted and subsequently burnt down. Various looted artifacts appear today in museums around the world. The following is a link to some of these priceless items. A French exhibition of the looted item from the Old Summer Palace in 1861 < The Chinese Prospective The Opium War of 1839 The Opium War of 1839 was the first large scale military conflicts between the Qing Empire and western imperial powers.

With the official prohibition of opium in 1836 in China, the Qing government launched a campaign to confiscate all foreign imported opium in Canton. In 1839, commissioner Lin Zexu seized over a million kilograms of opium and burned them. The British Empire responded by sending in the military and initiating the first Opium War. The result of this war not only lead to China’s lost of Hong Kong Island, but also revealed the military weakness of the Qing government. Up to this point western imperialist powers have been wary of the Qing Empire, but after this conflict, China begins to experience a series of disadvantageous economic pressures form Britain and other European empires. In Peter Fey’s The Opium War, the author explains the economic intentions of the British Empire in China before 1839 and after 1842. He highlights the significance of the first Opium War, its legacy of further western aggression, and the subsequent Chinese movements of military industrialization and self strengthening. Fay, Peter Ward. The Opium War: 1840-1842.Chapel Hill. The University of North Carolina Press.

1998 Letter to Queen Victoria from Lin Zexu The following is a translated letter from Commissioner Lin Zexu to Queen Victoria on the eve of the first Opium War in 1839. Although this letter never reached Queen Victoria, it nevertheless represented the views of Lin regarding both the Opium Trade in Canton and the broader idea of the free market. Lin approaches the topic of restricting opium in a respectful but assertive tone. He also addresses the problem of imperialism. “We [The Chinese] find your country [Britain] is sixty or seventy thousand li [about 4800 miles] from China Yet there are barbanan ships that strive to come here for trade for the purpose of making a great profit The wealth of China is used to profit the barbarians.” Though Lin does not fully understand the western concept of Imperialism, he is one of the earliest Chinese officials to recognize the “Barbarians” as a future threat to both Qing authority and Chinese society. Click Here to view the letter. < Legacies of the Opium Wars Lin Zexu is revered as a Chinese national hero for standing up against imperialist powers and burning over a million kilograms of illegal British opium.

This statue sits in Humen, a battle site in the first Opium War, where the Opium War Museum is now located. Jonathan D. Spence Jonathan D Spence is one of the most well known scholar in Chinese history.He served as Sterling Professor at Yale University from 1993 to 2007. His survey textbook, In Search for modern China, gives a comprehensive coverage of Chinese history from the early 1600s up to the present. His description of British Imperialism, the Opium Wars, and the Boxer Rebellion provides an overview from both the perspective of the Qing Empire and the Chinese nationalists. The bibliography of the textbook is an archive for reliable sources. Furthermore, as supplement to the textbook, Spence also compiled a collection of primary sources in hisDocumentary Collection. 7.1 Memorial of Legalizing opium (June 10, 1836)- This document is a request from a Qing court official, Xu Naiji, to the Emperor for the legalization of opium. In 1836 opium trade was prohibited but not strictly enforced. In southern regions of Canton, where British influence is strong, opium smuggling was very common.

The Portuguese colony of Macao serves as the primary smuggling port for Indian opium. As a result silver, the official Qing currency, experienced severe inflation. Xu argues that since prohibition was ineffective, legalization and a government monopoly of opium may be a better alternative in solving the social crisis of addiction and economic crisis of inflation. 7.2 Memorial on Banning Opium (October 1836)- This document presents a different angle in the broader Chinese perspective. Zhu Zun was a member of the Board of Rites who pushed for complete prohibition of opium. Zhu represents the conservative view and believes that the Qing empire could easily overcome the foreigners. He exemplifies the adverse economic effects of opium in various regions and pushed for government action in enforcing the ban 7.3 Imperial Edict of 1836- The official edict of the Daoguang Emperor that demanded higher levels of restriction of opium trade in southern China. The Emperor agrees with Zhu’s view and appointed Deng Tingzhen, the governer-general of Canton, to carry out the new prohibition laws.

9.3 Prince Gong on the Tongwen College: Three Memorials 1861, 1865, 1866-After the Opium War, the Qing Empire learned that its military strength was far weaker than that of European Imperialists. Thus China began a period of self self strengthening and reform. Prince Gong was the most active reformer in the Qing government. This document represents his efforts to promote the Tongwen College, a facility that focused on Western Studies including language, government and technology. This document also serves as evidence of China’s awareness and reaction to European threats. 9.4 Zongli Yamen Document on Unequal Treaties, 1878- The Zongli Yamen was a makeshift department of foreign affairs established by Prince Gong to deal with the demands and aggression of Imperialist powers. The following documents were critiques and interpretations of various foreign treaties that the Qing Empire was forced to sign. These documents show the desperate efforts of reformers like Price Gong to mediate between Western Imperialists and the Conservatives lead by Empress Dowager Cixi. 9.8 Chinese Anti-Foreignism, 1892- This document was a pamphlet circulating in Canton.

In the late nineteenth century, Canton was under the influence of Britain. Along with the merchants and imperialists came a new wave of religious advocates and missionaries. This pamphlet ridicules Christianity as religion and spreads disturbing and untrue stereotypes about white foreigners. This document serves as a Chinese counterpart to the British perspective of “native barbarian” in China, India and Africa. 10.5 Boxer Memoirs: Oral Accounts of the Boxer Rebellion- The Boxer rebellion in 1900 was a bottom-up, disorganized rebellion from Han nationalists against both the weak Manchu Qing regime and foreign imperialism. These two accounts recall the events of the rebellion in explicit detail and shows the anti-foreign social mood of the Chinese in the turn of the century. Spense, Jonathan D. Cheng,Pei-Kai. Lestz, Michael. The Search For Modern China: A Documentary Collection. New York W.W. Norton & Company Inc. 1999 Lasting Legacies of British Imperialism British/Hong Kong Passport prior to 1997 Historical Memory of 19th century Imperialism The following website is a part of the Hoover Archives that covers 19th century European Imperialism in Asia.

Since it is a “.gov” page, it somewhat represents the political memory of that period. This source represents a politically American point of view on events such as the Opium Wars and the Boxer Rebellion. This website is worth investigating because it deals with the political memory of imperialism from the angle of a nation that participated but mostly remained on the sidelines. It depicts this period of imperialism in retrospect and could be contrasted with the various primary sources to gain a more stronger understanding of the era. Hong Kong’s Development The following source covers the history of Hong Kong from its colonization in 1839 to its return to China in 1997. This book explains the strategic economic position of Hong Kong in relation to imperial global commerce. It also focuses on the social adaptations of ethnic Hong Kong citizens. This source serve as a comprehensive analysis on the political, economic and social development of this island with respect to global changes in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Tsang, Steve. A Modern History of Hong Kong. London. I. B. Tauris. 2007 A Problematic Hybrid Culture Because the island of Hong Kong have been under British political and cultural influence for over a century, its return to China faces a dilemma of culture.

This book explains the complexities of such conflicts. First, the most obvious cultural conflict was communication. For the last century, Hong Kong have been using a bilingual system. The citizens mostly spoke Cantonese, but the official written language was English. This creates an internal language barrier because the official language of Chinese is mandarin. Another cultural conflict is the nature of the justice system. Hong Kong have adopted the Western system of trial by jury, but the Communist government tries criminals without a jury. This book discusses the negotiations of these dilemmas between Hong Kong and China. Due the such issues, the Communist government is currently implementing a policy for Hong Kong to politically function as it did under British control for 50 more years. Abbas, Ackbar. Hong Kong: Culture and Politics of Disappearance. Minneapolis. University of Minnesota Press. 1998 Why Did China Lease Hong Kong to Britain? Why Did China Lease Hong Kong to Britain? China Why Did China Lease Hong Kong to Britain? Hong Kong Harbor, taken sometime between 1900 and 1923, during British control of the island. Library of Congress Prints and Photos By Kallie Szczepanski Updated March 16, 2016.

The short answer to that question is that China lost Hong Kong to Great Britain in the Opium Wars , and later leased adjacent territories to the British under duress. Britain's reign over Hong Kong dates back to the 1842 Treaty of Nanking, which ended the First Opium War . But what is the longer answer? Nineteenth-century Britain had an insatiable appetite for Chinese tea. However, the Qing Dynasty and its subjects did not want to buy anything that the British produced. The government of Queen Victoria did not want to use up any more of the country's reserves of gold or silver in buying tea, so it decided to forcibly export opium from the Indian Subcontinent to China. The opium would then be exchanged for tea. China's government, not too surprisingly, objected to the large-scale importation of narcotics into their country by a foreign power. When just banning opium imports did not work, because British merchants simply smuggled the drug into China, the Qing government took more direct action. continue reading below our video What are the Seven Wonders of the World In 1839, Chinese officials destroyed 20,000 bales of opium.

This move provoked Britain to declare war in order to protect its illegal drug-smuggling operations. The First Opium War lasted from 1839 to 1842. Britain occupied the island of Hong Kong on January 25, 1841, and used it as a military staging point. China was defeated in the war, and had to cede Hong Kong to Britain in the aforementioned Treaty of Nanking. Hong Kong became a Crown Colony of the British Empire . Status Changes of Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories At this point, you may be wondering, "Wait a minute, Britain just grabbed Hong Kong. Where did the lease come in, then?" The British grew increasingly worried about the security of their free port at Hong Kong during the second half of the 19th century. It was an isolated island, surrounded by areas still under Chinese control. The British decided to make their authority over the area official with a legally binding lease. In 1860, at the end of the Second Opium War, the UK gained a perpetual lease over the Kowloon Peninsula, which is the mainland Chinese area just across the strait from Hong Kong Island.

This agreement was part of the Convention of Beijing that ended that conflict. In 1898, the British and Chinese governments signed the Second Convention of Peking, which included a 99-year lease agreement for the islands surrounding Hong Kong, called the "New Territories." The lease awarded control of more than 200 surrounding small islands to the British. In return, China got a promise that the islands would be returned to it after 99 years. On December 19, 1984, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Chinese Premier Zhao Ziyang signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration, in which Britain agreed to return not only the New Territories but also Kowloon and Hong Kong itself when the lease term expired. China promised to implement a "One Country, Two Systems" regime, under which for fifty years Hong Kong citizens could continue to practice capitalism and political freedoms forbidden on the mainland. So, on July 1, 1997, the lease ended and the government of Great Britain transferred control of Hong Kong and surrounding territories to the People's Republic of China .

The transition has been more or less smooth, although human rights issues and Beijing's desire for greater political control cause considerable friction from time to time. Did Britain Fail Hong Kong? | History Today Did Britain Fail Hong Kong? Posted 7th October 2014, 15:36 Could Britain have done more in the years leading up to 1997 to ensure Hong Kong's freedoms? At midnight on June 30th, 1997 Hong Kong reverted from British control back to China. Looking back, did Britain fail the people of Hong Kong? To answer this question it is important to understand the relative balance of power between China and the United Kingdom. During the 19th century Britain was in its heyday. The Royal Navy could project her power to any seaport in the world. Britain was able to coerce China into signing the treaties that acquired Hong Kong and leased the New Territories for 99 years. By the late 1970s, those days were long gone. Delicate negotiation, rather than gunboat diplomacy, was Britain’s best hope of keeping control of Hong Kong. Much has been made of Prime Minister Thatcher’s visit to Hong Kong in September 1982.

Images of her tripping on the steps at the Great Hall of the People and reports of Deng Xiaoping’s irritation at her proposal of keeping a British presence in Hong Kong, have been well documented and criticised. However before Margaret Thatcher even arrived in Beijing, the British had encountered Deng’s ire over Hong Kong. Deng had made clear his intention to re-acquire Hong Kong and the New Territories to Hong Kong Governor Sir Murray Maclehose in 1979. Deng hated the treaties that gave control of Hong Kong over to Britain and saw them as invalid. Deng made it clear that the People’s Liberation Army could walk into Hong Kong any time it liked and there was little the British could do about it. Deng felt so sure that he held all the cards; he told the Prime Minister in 1982 that if an agreement was not reached within the next two years, China would take unilateral action. Margaret Thatcher left Beijing chastened and the whole world knew it. Within ten days of Thatcher’s trip to Beijing, the Hong Kong stock market had lost 25 per cent of its value. Official negotiations began in October 1982 and were tough from the beginning.

First, because the Chinese would not continue until Britain acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong and then because the British pressed for administration of Hong Kong after 1997. While talks stalled, the Chinese took the initiative in Hong Kong. They released their plans for Special Administrative Regions (SAR), while the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) began selling unity with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). All the while the British delegates, led by Sir Percy Cradock and later Sir Richard Evans, watched Deng’s deadline approach. On September 26th, 1984 Ambassador Evans and Zhou Nan initialed the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The British had conceded both sovereignty and administration. It stated that in 1997 Hong Kong would revert back to China with a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defense affairs. The people of Hong Kong had no official representative at the talks. The Chinese refused to acknowledge that Sir Edward Youde, then Governor, represented Hong Kong. The details about how far Hong Kong’s freedoms would stretch would be worked out in the drafting of a Basic Law.

The Basic Law Drafting Committee (BLDC) was made up of 82 people, including 23 from Hong Kong. Beijing’s hand skillfully and somewhat covertly guided everything the BLDC did. The end result provides Hong Kong with special status for 50 years, and that one third of the legislative council will be elected from 1997 and half by 2003. The Executive Council dithered on democratising moves after 1985. Everyone who did want more democratisation was worried about angering Beijing. In February 1990 the British did persuade the Chinese government to agree to increase the number of directly elected members of the Legislative council from 10 to 18. This number would then be increased to 20 in 1997, 24 in 1999 and 30 in 2003 (out of a total of 60 seats). This was far less than what many in Hong Kong had asked for, but it was as far as the British were prepared to push. In July 1992 Chris Patten, the last governor of Hong Kong, arrived.

He was a politician, not a diplomat, and didn’t understand the Chinese. Patten made proposals that increased the electorate and modernised electoral techniques. The proposed reforms pushed the Basic Law to its limits, but did not break it. However this was not how Beijing saw it. Patten failed to realise that the Chinese Communist Party didn’t fully understand western democracy. The CCP’s lack of understanding made them think he was trying to do more than he was. Tired of the lack of progress in negotiations, Patten passed his reforms in the legislative council in June 1994. The Chinese promptly terminated negotiations, claiming the British had broken their agreements. Beijing began to act unilaterally to create a post-1997 government, locking the British out of Hong Kong’s future. As soon as Hong Kong passed to their control, the CCP would dismantle Patten’s changes. They created a provisional legislative council, which included 33 members of the existing council, but selected members who were friendly to them. During all negotiations the British were hampered by their strategic disadvantage. In addition to this, London pressured the delegates to balance Hong Kong’s value against good relations with a resurgent China.

Deng, on the other hand, was willing to do whatever it took to get Hong Kong back. He did not want to damage Hong Kong’s enormous economic value, but he was prepared to weather any storm to erase the shame of the unequal treaties. After the Joint Declaration was signed, power shifted to the Chinese. This is partly because the the declaration reflected the value that the British placed on Hong Kong. The British never regrouped well after they lost the battle to stay in Hong Kong beyond 1997. If the British had been more organised and assertive prior to Patten’s arrival, they might have been able to entrench democratising moves within the parameters of the Basic Law. The British didn’t completely fail, but they could have done more if they had been willing to challenge Beijing for Hong Kong’s freedoms. Thomas Benge has a Masters degree in International History from Staffordshire University, and taught full curriculum in Seoul for three years.

Question: During which year did British sovereignty of Hong Kong end?
Answer: 1997