-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Not that they want it nowadays:
For example, they do recognize Mongolia now, but no one wants to amend the constitution for no gain but potentially pissing off the PRC.
For example, they do recognize Mongolia now, but no one wants to amend the constitution for no gain but potentially pissing off the PRC.
But those cities only became 'part' of the Mainland very recently and I assume the KMT did not claim them back in the day. Per the map they don't seem to claim certain PRC conquests in the west.
For Hong Kong, at least, the 99-year expiry of the lease of the New Territories in 1997 would mean that Britain would have to re-negotiate said lease with the Qing or its legal successors. The ROC (Taiwan) would consider itself the legal successor to the Qing, and therefore the representative of 'China'. However, since 1950 the UK has recognized the PRC, not the ROC. This means that technically from the Taiwan standpoint the treaty is not valid, though I'm sure that the Taiwanese would happy assume control of Hong Kong along with the Mainland should they have the ability to do so.
As for Portugal, technically all treaties signed with the PRC are void so Macau's return to China was not legal from a ROC standpoint. However, the Sino-Portuguese Declaration did state that Macau was to be considered Chinese territory under Portuguese administration from 1987 onwards, so Taiwan could again argue that they own the colony since then.
As for Portugal, technically all treaties signed with the PRC are void so Macau's return to China was not legal from a ROC standpoint. However, the Sino-Portuguese Declaration did state that Macau was to be considered Chinese territory under Portuguese administration from 1987 onwards, so Taiwan could again argue that they own the colony since then.
Strange question.
HK and Macao are part of China. Therefore if the ROC claims China then they claim those cities unless they go out of their way to exclude them.
However, Taiwan these days is more interested in being Taiwan not the Republic of China so the claim isn't a big deal.
Was there ever any thought to giving Hong Kong and Macau to Taiwan/ROC as opposed to Red China?
My understanding is this is what Beijing expected, and was pleasantly surprised when the UK approached them.
My understanding is this is what Beijing expected, and was pleasantly surprised when the UK approached them.
No way for this, Beijing requested full return of HK long before UK agreed to pass. Every meeting of high officialsl between China and UK, the Chinese talk about HK return. And finally PM of China told UK's PM Thatcher that China had decide to take back HK unilateral. Then the talk began.
The reason the Chinese didn't take back HK by force in 1949-50 is that they probably hold HK as hostage to keep the UK outside other matters, like Korean war!
The first serious attempt was made in 1979 by the HK governor. It was not until 1982 that Deng told Thatcher flat out he could invade and would if he thought it needed. In 1984 the basics of the deal was agreed to.
I'm curious what happened before 1979. I see no evidence that PRC demanded HK before this date.
PRC didn't confirm the "unequal treaties" between UK and the Qing, unlike the ROC that confirmed these. HK is part of these treaties.
Never thought China had a claim to Tuva. What are the grounds for such claim? Is it just ROC or the PRC also consider it theirs?
Tuva was annexed by Tsarist government in 1913 IIRC. Only ROC has this claim because PRC recognized Outer Mongolia.
After reading a little bit on this issue, the Chinese claim looks extremely weak to me. They have never really ruled the area, it was always very autonomous and free of Chinese troops and administration. Even calling it a protectorate would be a stretch.
That's how Chinese ruled their lands. By your standards their claim to the Amur basin would also be "extremely weak" but they were adamant about that area as long as they had the power to protect it from Russians.
Is it really a strange question? They don't seem to lay claim to Aksal Chin.
They claim China. Aksal Chin was annexed by China. Unless they specifically exclude Aksal Chin from their claim then de facto they claim it.
Before 1979 they were too busy with Great Leaps and Cultural Revolutions. Also, January 1st 1979 US and PRC established diplomatic relations and US announced it would whitdraw its forces from Taiwan. That probably made the Hong Kong consider what the future would hold.
No way. The UK had legally recognized Communist China as the legal 'China' in the 1950s over Taiwan, and thus all negotiation with 'China' goes through 'Communist China'. To do otherwise would be to negotiate a treaty which Communist China would not recognize; and in such a case you might as well just keep the damn colony for yourself.
Hong Kong's future was re-negotiated not because the PRC demanded it back, but more because the British were concerned about what would happen legally to the New Territories once the lease expired in 1998.
When the 1898 Convention On the Extension of Hong Kong Territory was signed in the wake of Qing weakness following the 1st Sino-Japanese War (around the same time as the Germans getting Qingdao, the French getting Fort Bayard/Zhanjiang etc.), a 99-year lease was agreed to because a) the British negotiator thought that in practice that meant 'practically forever' and b) because the New Territories were intended to be a 'buffer zone' for Hong Kong against an attack from the landward side of the colony, which was not so well defended as the coastal approaches.
So for more than half a decade the New Territories were nothing more than wilderness and wasteland. But in the 1970s with the explosion in Hong Kong's population caused by refugees from Communist China, Kowloon + Hong Kong Island were becoming too packed and so the decision was made to create a series of 'New Towns' in the New Territories, as well as opening the region up for private ownership + investment. Nowadays, c.60% of Hong Kong lives in the New Territories.
In the 1980s, the legal status of the New Territories was becoming an issue for both residents and private companies. If Britain still retained the New Territories after the expiry of the Convention in 1898 Britain would effectively be 'squatting' on Chinese land, which meant that China could legally challenge all ownership of land in the New Territories post-1998 in an international court, if not worse. This was obviously not good for the oligarchs, all of whom had invested much in the New Territories, and so the Government was compelled to talk to China about a solution to the problem, therefore leading to the 1998 handover.
So the return of Hong Kong wasn't really much to do with 'colonial guilt' or 'PRC pressure' or anything. Like most of what happens in Hong Kong, the handover was done essentially because the rich guys wanted to ensure the safety of their investments.