If similar periods of disruptions and political instability were happening in the 90s then Britain may have refused to return the mainland, as it would have been ravaged by opposing sides and so the future seemed uncertain that Hong Kong would be returned to a politically unstable state
With the end of the second world war, in 1949 much to the horror of Britain and the West, the Communist rose to power. Already Communism covered 1/3 of the world, the biggest nation being USSR, China’s neighbours.
If the New Territories were to go back to a communist China, all the successes, such as the universities and transport companies, would be destroyed and communism may seep into Hong Kong island, and put forth into motion the domino effect of Communism. To combat this what Britain intended to do was build up a strong capitalistic base. Thus if the Communists take the mainland, their policies would be met in civil war. However, the mainland had a major link with the island and to separate the people would be very uncertain at this period, as anything could happen in the next 48 years. If the Hong Kong was to be given back then, almost certainly the country would be divided.
Mao wanted to create a self sufficient China and so started his “Great Leap Forward” (1958). This failed as Mao demanded too much and too fast. The small scale cottage industry collapsed and led to a famine that killed millions of people.
The relations with USSR were becoming bitter, as promises of nuclear weapons were not met. The Communist Government was also becoming corrupt, more concerned with lining their own pockets than meet the demands of the people.
If the mainland was to be given to that administration, then it would have been greatly exploited for it’s money and technology. And soon would have become like the rest of China - destitute.
In 1966, in order to return to the basics of Communism, Mao started the scariest campaign in his career known as the “Cultural Revolution”. He mobilised the student body into a force called the “Red Guard”. The job of this force was to identify and denounce “capitalist roaders”. However, they went too far by attacking intellectuals, this would have created an outcry from the West, as human rights were being abused, such a situation in Hong Kong in the future would lead to a massive campaign throughout the world to take action against China.
The Red Guard encouraged workers to attack bureaucrats and teachers if their ideas did not involve Mao, instead of a communist, it looked as if fascist regime had started. The ideas and actions of the Red Guard almost mirrored the methods of the “Hitler Youth” and the persecution of the Jews. Fascism was not very welcomed by the West as the last World War was against a fascist dictator, thus the spread of communism was seen as a dangerous idea that needed to be stopped.
The Red Guard also destroyed works of art and burned Tibetan temples, thus religion was not being respected, how would the believers in Hong Kong would be treated if there would be another revolution to return to hard line communism? Such a doubt would have been on the minds of the people living on the mainland, as they were mostly likely to return back to China. The legal agreement bound Britain to keep their promise to return the mainland, no matter who ruled China.
Yet at this time, the return of the New Territories, let alone the island seemed very unlikely, as this was the period of the “Cold War”. If this period had continued to 1997, Britain would have never given back Hong Kong and this may have invoked a “hot war”. The “Cold War” was to contain the spread of communism, to stop the domino effect, likewise this is how China saw the spread of capitalism. The Americans were most obsessed with this containment, as they saw it as a rise of a kind of fascism. There were two major “hot wars” during this time, the Korean War (1950 - 1953) and the Vietnam War (1954 - 1975)
The most famous, the Vietnam War, started with a familiar story, half of it wanted democracy, the other half wanted communism.. To ensure capitalist victory, USA spent a billion dollars in Vietnam’s industry, however, the industry still collapsed. China sent in troops to ensure Communists take over, America also sent in the army. Even after spending $140 billion it was a failure for USA, in 1973 Vietnam was taken by the communist. Such failure could not be repeated, and so Hong Kong at this point would have been comfortable thinking it would never return back to China.
At the death of Mao in 1976, Deng Xioping rose to power and ironically denounced Mao as a “capitalist roader”. Deng realised that the economic policies of communism were failing, with the later fall of the USSR this idea was cemented. Deng saw that two things were necessary:
1) to ensure economic growth in the capitalistic way.
2) to keep an iron grip on the state, surpressing all forms of dissidence.
Thus came the great phrase:
“It doesn’t matter if the cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice”
(Times 6 January 1986)
Thus in the late 1970s and 1980s begun a great period of mass capitalistic modernisation. The collective farms were broken up and given to individuals, independent businesses were encouraged, factory managers were given freedom to make their own decisions. The main way this worked was that if a certain quota was reached the profit after this was for the company.
Trade relations were formed with the West, as foreign companies were encouraged to invest in factories in China. The “Open Door Policy” was established by Deng, as a means of improving scientifically and technologically. Trade also improved with the visits of President Bush and President Gorbachev. Thus as China moved further along the economic road of capitalism, the more the relations improved with the West.
At this point the future of Hong Kong looked really bight, China seemed to be acting more like a democratic country, rather than a communist country. China was at a level of not needing to exploit Hong Kong as much, as it had become a wealthy nation. The visits of two pioneering democratic country’s presidents also gave an idea that China would soon become democratic. Thus Britain saw no reason whatsoever in not returning Hong Kong, the Cold War was over, China’s economic policies were mirroring Hong Kong. China looked ideally suited to rejoin with Hong Kong.
In 1984 Prime Minister Thatcher negotiated with the leaders of China about the hand over of Hong Kong. Thus at this time the future seemed very certain that the New Territories would be handed back in 1997. However, what was surprising, yet was expected, was the return of the whole of Hong Kong, including the island. The obvious reason would be that Britain would be breaking an entire country up, and if the China returned back to hard line communism then a “Berlin Wall” situation would be established, by people running to Hong Kong island for refuge. Britain would also suffer bad press and perhaps protesting from the people in Hong Kong who wanted to return back to the fatherland. It was a complete package, it was all or nothing. Thus the Joint Declaration was signed. The most important points of this agreement were that Hong Kong will retain its present social (thus strip clubs and unfavourable establishments would not be closed down), economic (this means that China cannot take any of the money that comes in from Hong Kong’s industry) and legal system (thus democracy will remain) for fifty years. After this period China could do what they will. Until then the policy of “one country, two systems” would remain. These policies ensured that after the return of Hong Kong to China would not mean drastic changes to take place immediately. Thus Hong Kong’s future seemed certain to be the same way as it was under the British rule. After that, it could be that communism may sweep through Hong Kong, or that China would become democratic and the two would be joined as a united country.
However, this dream was shattered in 1989. Students gathered together in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square to peacefully protest for democracy. Obviously they believed that democracy was coming, as already capitalistic ideas were at work and the presidential visits from democratic countries became more frequent, and were only trying to speed up the process. However, Deng was not going to change his politics, as he stated in his quotation - “…as long as it catches mice”. He may have also seen this as a representation of the protests from Eastern European dissidents, that led to the fall of the USSR. Thus the military was sent in, and resulted in a massacre of peaceful demonstrators.
In the West, the massacre was seen as a turning point, as people waited to see if civil war would erupt. Nothing happened, and now fears from people in Hong Kong erupted. Protesting was legal in Hong Kong, however, what would happen once the Chinese control Hong Kong. Thus many people from Hong Kong decided to start moving to other countries, or at least they sent their children abroad to places such as Canada and Britain.
The massacre was the most unpredictable event in China, although economically capitalistic ideas were used freely, it was seen now that China would stand firm to Communist politics. Some believe that the events of Tiananmen Square were due to Deng had become old, and wanted to return to the “good old days”. However, with his death in 1997 nothing changed, and so Communism in China was to remain.
Though in 1997 Hong Kong will remain unchanged for 50 years, protest would still be allowed, although bureaucracy has been introduced into the process. Before long it would be almost impossible to stage a demonstration, even though it would be legal. These policies implemented through discussions after the massacre would question the idea of “one country two systems”. Thus the future for Hong Kong looks very uncertain, it is unknown what else the Chinese Government may use to twist the ideas of the Joint Deceleration to suit their communist politics.
In the 1990s relations have once again improved, and the hand over was ceremoniously celebrated on June 30th 1997, with both the West and China hoping to use the influence of the domino effect to spread either capitalism or communism.
In 1995 (June 2) the US agreed to step up the weapons technology it was selling China, as long as it stops selling the weapons onto Iran.
In 1995 President Clinton renewed the trade privileges with China, as long as it continues to improve the policies of human rights. This China was able to do by signing a UN agreement, which it twisted by not giving annual reports about the matter. China was also able to do this by inviting UN to randomly check any political prisoner, as long as they had not “disappeared”.
Most recently in 1998 the U.S defence secretary was allowed access to a top secret military base in China (which they denied about two years ago), the press were denied access.
Thus China is being open to western ideas and influences, as long as the political influences did not harm the greater communist ideals.
Most importantly Hong Kong remains unchanged, however, here and there China’s Provisional Legislative Council are manipulating the policies in Hong Kong to suit themselves.
In the future as China grows more capitalistic, with further trade, technological and scientific agreements with Hong Kong and the West, the gap between the rich and poor grows wider. The implications of this could mean a peasant war and more worker revolts which could harm the capitalistic economy, as Mao himself rose to power with the help of peasants.
Hong Kong itself may be affected by this after 50 years, as the idea of communism is “workers of the world unite” (or in China’s case peasants). Either the present Communist Government could be overthrown by another one to take its place. Or the next leader would realise that they had become “capitalist roaders” and may try to restore to what they thought was the “Golden Age”. These groups may revert to the hard line communism in the 1960s, and Hong Kong may go through a “Cultural Revolution”.
This seems very unlikely as the PLA have already shown how efficiently they can deal with dissidents. Also another leader in the present administration would be foolish to do such a thing as trade agreements would be abolished and the West may decide to take military action.
If the Financial Times (17/3/97) prediction is correct, China by the year 2005 would be the strongest nation economically and in military strength:
“…China will have ten times more soldiers than Japan. In the recent period, China has launched an enormous programmes of weapons modernisation, which involved the purchase of $1.8 billion worth of Russian equipment. From 1993 China have increased its total military expenditure by 98%…”
Thus it can be seen that China is growing to be a very powerful nation, and soon even more powerful as the latest technology is being developed by Hong Kong. Trade agreements (or the threat of the bullet) would ensure that this technology is shared. The future of Hong Kong seems very uncertain as they possibly could never match this military strength.
As many times before the swing between communism and capitalism are seen, it may be that the swing next time could be disastrous for Hong Kong and the West.
