While the Chinese may argue, with justification,
that Hong Kong is Chinese territory, the development
of the city only began with the
arrival of the
British in Guangzhou in the eighteenth century.
The Portuguese had already been based at
Macau, on the other side of the Pearl River Delta,
since the mid-sixteenth century, and as Britain's
sea power grew, so its merchants, too, began casting
envious eyes over the Portuguese trade in tea and
silk. The initial difficulty was to persuade the
Chinese authorities that there was any reason to
want to deal with them, though a few traders did
manage to get permission to set up their warehouses
in Guangzhou - a remote southern outpost, from the
perspective of Beijing - and slowly trade began to
grow. In 1757 a local Guangzhou merchants' guild
called the Co Hong won the exclusive rights
to sell Chinese products to foreign traders, who
were now permitted to live in Guangzhou for about
six months each year.
In the meantime, it had not escaped the attention
of the foreigners that the trade was one-way only,
and they soon began thinking up possible products
the Chinese might want to buy in exchange. It did
not take long to find one - opium from India.
In 1773 the first British shipload of opium arrived
and an explosion of demand for the drug quickly
followed, despite an edict from Beijing banning the
trade in 1796. Co Hong, which received commission on
everything bought or sold, had no qualms about
distributing opium to its fellow citizens and before
long the balance of trade had been reversed very
much in favour of the British.
The scene for the famous Opium Wars was
now set. Alarmed at the outflow of silver and at the
rising incidence of drug addiction among his
population, the emperor appointed Lin Zexu as
Commissioner of Guangzhou to destroy the opium
trade. Lin, later hailed by the Chinese Communists
as a patriot and hero, forced the British in
Guangzhou to surrender their opium, before
ceremonially burning it. Such an affront to British
dignity could not be tolerated, however, and in 1840
a naval expeditionary force was dispatched from
London to sort the matter out once and for all.
After a year of gunboat diplomacy - blockading ports
and seizing assets up and down the Chinese coast -
the expeditionary force finally achieved one of
their main objectives, through the Treaty of
Nanking (1842), namely the ceding to Britain
"in perpetuity" of a small offshore
island. The island was called Hong Kong. This was
followed eighteen years later, after more blockades
and a forced march on Peking, by the Treaty of
Peking , which granted Britain the Kowloon
peninsula, too. Finally, in 1898, as the Qing
dynasty was entering its terminal phase, Britain
secured a 99-year lease on an additional one
thousand square kilometres of land to the north of
Kowloon, which would be known as the New
Territories.
The twentieth century has seen Hong Kong grow
from a seedy merchants' colony to a huge
international city, but progress has not always been
smooth. The drug trade was voluntarily dropped in
1907 as the Hong Kong merchants began to make the
transfer from pure trade to manufacturing. Up until
World War II, Hong Kong prospered as the growing
threat of both civil war and Japanese aggression in
mainland China increasingly began to drive money
south into the apparently safe confines of the
British colony. This confidence appeared glaringly
misplaced in 1941 when Japanese forces seized
Hong Kong along with the rest of eastern China,
though after the Japanese defeat in 1945, Hong Kong
once again began attracting money from the mainland,
which was in the process of falling to the
Communists. Many of Hong Kong's biggest tycoons
today are people who escaped from mainland China,
particularly from Shanghai, in 1949.
Since the beginning of the Communist era ,
Hong Kong has led a precarious existence, quietly
making money while taking care not to antagonize
Beijing. Had China wished to do so, it could have
rendered the existence of Hong Kong unviable at any
moment, by a naval blockade, by cutting off water
supplies, by a military invasion - or by simply
opening its border and inviting the Chinese masses
to stream across in search of wealth. That it has
never wholeheartedly pursued any of these options,
even at the height of the Cultural Revolution, is an
indication of the huge financial benefits
that Hong Kong brings to mainland China in the form
of its international trade links, direct investment
and technology transfers.
In the last twenty years of British rule, the
spectre of 1997 loomed large in people's
minds. In 1982 negotiations on the future of the
colony began, although during the entire process
that led to the Sino-British Joint Declaration
nerves were kept on edge by the public posturings of
both sides. The eventual deal, signed in 1984, paved
the way for Britain to hand back sovereignty of the
territory (something the Chinese would argue they
never lost) in return for Hong Kong maintaining its
capitalist system for at least fifty years.
Almost immediately the deal sparked controversy.
It was pointed out that the lack of democratic
institutions in Hong Kong - which had suited the
British - would in future mean the Chinese could do
what they liked. Fears grew that repression and the
erosion of freedoms such as travel and speech would
follow the handover. The Basic Law , which
was published by the government in 1988, in theory
answered some of those fears. It served as the
constitutional framework, setting out how the One
Country/Two Systems policy would work in practice.
But it failed to restore confidence in Hong Kong,
and a brain-drain of educated, professional people
leaving for other countries began to gather pace.
The 1989 crackdown in Tian'anmen Square
seemed to confirm the Hong Kong population's worst
fears. In the biggest demonstration seen in Hong
Kong in modern times, a million people took to the
streets to protest what had happened. Business
confidence was equally shaken, as the Hang Seng
index, the performance indicator of the Stock
Exchange, dropped 22 percent in a single day.
The 1990s were a roller-coaster ride of domestic
policy dramas: the arrival of tens of thousands of Vietnamese
boat people (ironically, refugees from
communism), the rise of the democracy movement
and arguments about whether Britain would give passports
to the local population . When Chris Patten
arrived in 1992 to become the last Governor, he
walked into a delicate and highly charged political
situation. By means of a series of reforms, Patten
quickly made it clear that he had not come to Hong
Kong simply as a make-weight: first, much of the
colonial paraphernalia was abandoned, and then -
much to the fury of Beijing - he broadened the
voting franchise for the 1995 Legislative Council
elections (Legco) from around 200,000 to around
2.7 million people. Even though these and other
changes he introduced guaranteed that the run-up to
the 1997 handover would be a bumpy ride, they won
the governor significant popularity among ordinary
Hong Kong people, although the tycoons and business
community had far more mixed feelings.
After the build-up, the handover itself
was something of an anticlimax. The British sailed
away on HMS Britannia, Beijing carried out its
threat to disband the elected Legco and reduce the
enfranchised population, and Tung Che Hwa, a
shipping billionaire, became the first Chief
Executive of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region (SAR). But if local people had
thought that they would be able to get on with
"business as usual" post-handover, they
were wrong. Within days the Asian Financial
Crisis had begun, and within months Hong Kong
was once again in the eye of a storm. While the
administration beat off attempts to force a
devaluation of its currency, the stock and property
markets suffered dramatic falls, tourism collapsed,
unemployment rose to its highest levels for fifteen
years, and the economy officially went into
recession. While the administration characterized
these as temporary setbacks - part of a global
economic downturn - there was undoubted dismay
amongst official circles in both Hong Kong and
Beijing at the increasing - and unprecedented -
level of criticism of officials and their policies
in newspapers, on radio phone-in's and among
ordinary people - not to mention the enduring and
not unrelated popularity of the democratic parties.