Why didn't Thatcher give Hong Kong to Taiwan?

Question

So, back in the 80s, the Prime Minister of the UK, Margaret Thatcher, negotiated the "one country, two systems" agreement with the PRC regarding the return on Hong Kong to Chinese rule, as the treaty that allowed the UK to rule Hong Kong was expiring within a couple of decades.

However, the PRC was not the only legitimate successor government to the court of Imperial China, with whom the original agreement was made - there was also Taiwan, whose government was the successors of one of the losing sides of the Chinese civil war, who survived by fleeing to Taiwan from the Chinese mainland. Additionally, the Taiwanese government was much more democratic than the PRC has ever been, and who are strongly allied to the United States, who are in turn strong allies of the UK.

So, why did Thatcher decide to give Hong Kong back to the PRC, rather than giving it back to Taiwan, thereby removing the need to make a "one country, two systems" agreement in the first place? Surely this would have resulted in a better outcome for the people of Hong Kong, without compromising the democratic and capitalist ideals of the United Kingdom (and Margaret Thatcher's right-wing political party).

Answer 1

Other than the reasons of practicality mentioned, there is also the issue of international laws and treaties, specifically on the issue of "successor states." There definitely was some debate, as the situation in China is not considered a traditional succession of states scenario. But most legal scholars at the time agreed that the current "government in Beijing" (the PRC) is to be considered the legal successor to the original "government in Beijing" (The Qing dynasty) that Britain had signed the treaty with.

Although Britain never ratified The Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, to go against the advice of the both their own legal scholars and against international convention norms would have weakened Britain's clout significantly. Not to mention how hypocritical it would appear as Britain was in the process of negotiating for the protection of the rule of law in Hong Kong.

There is also the consideration that in the early '80s when Thatcher's negotiations were taking place, Taiwan (ROC) would not have been considered a democratic, free country. It, like many of its Asian peers, and mainland China (PRC) itself, was under one-party rule at the time. Martial law, which had been in place for almost 40 years, wasn't lifted until 1987, and there was no opposition party until 1986. Although their societies have evolved along different political paths since, when Thatcher was holding negotiations, there certainly would have been reservations and no guarantees of how the rights of Hong Kong citizens would be treated by either the China (PRC) government or Taiwan (ROC) government.

Answer 2

Beyond the whole probably start a war (between PRC/China and ROC/Taiwan) and completely ignoring the realpolitik to avoid annoying a major economic power (even then), a major reason is quite simply geography. One of the reasons Hong Kong proper wasn't kept is a large part of the territory was leased mainland China. This not only means mainland China is the 'obvious' recipient, it also means that two states would share a land border, something not so easily ignored as an island not even so historically Chinese. This would make the whole 'start a war and annoy the PRC' a forgone conclusion

Answer 3

Thatcher surrendered all of Hong Kong -- not just the portions that were leased from China -- because the mainland Chinese had made it clear that Hong Kong was completely indefensible against an attack from the mainland. Taiwan would not be in any better of a position to defend Hong Kong.

The United States' commitment to defending Taiwan is not a blank check. In the past, there have been times that Chinese military "exercises" looked like preparations for invading Taiwan. The U.S. response was to move air carrier task forces to the region, capable of sinking (most of) any Chinese fleet that might attempt to land on Taiwan. Such a response would not be very useful against land-based forces attempting to conquer Hong Kong.

Furthermore, Hong Kong's value is as a peaceful location with low taxes, British commercial law, and access to cheap mainland Chinese labor, materials, and markets. Creating strife (such as trade barriers or war) between Hong Kong and mainland China would wreck the "peaceful" and "access" portions of the value proposition. Outright war might also undo the "low taxes" portion of the value proposition.

At the time that Britain surrendered Hong Kong, it did negotiate that Hong Kong would retain considerable autonomy. This was designed to reassure Hong Kong residents and foreign investors that the "low taxes" and "British commercial law" aspects of the value proposition were likely to continue.

Answer 4

The United Kingdom recognized the People's Republic of China on January 6, 1950. Therefore by the time of Thatcher's negotiations, she was obviously going to negotiate with the PRC instead of Taiwan.

Answer 5

The reason "on the table" was that the UK had recognized the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China since 1950, so they couldn't have returned Hong Kong to the ROC legally.

The practical concern was that China would likely just have taken Hong Kong by force in that case:

1. Deng Xiaoping had threatened to do so in Sino-British talks;

2. there was precedent (India's 1961 annexation of Goa);

3. the UK could do little to defend Hong Kong (there was precedent again), unless it was willing to escalate the affair into nuclear warfare (against another nuclear state, which would have meant a lot of destruction).

Any option that risked military action was therefore not worth taking.

Answer 6

Bear in mind that Britain recognised the People's Republic as early as 1949 (or could have been 1950 - it was certainly the post-war Labour government anyway). France recognised them in the 1960s and the US in the 1970s.

By 1997 no western country was going to put up a diplomatic wall against the PRC, (governing 25% of the world's population) by favouring Taiwan.

And that's quite apart from the fact that no country (least of all Taiwan) had the capability of defending Hong Kong in any conventional war with China.