As I understand it after the first opium war China ceded Hong Kong to the British in perpetuity in the Treaty Of Nanking. So why did the British later need to get a lease on the island for 99 years if it was already theirs?
Hong Kong Island was leased for perpetuity, it’s the area known as the New Territories that was leased for 99 years in order to help expand Hong Kong. When it was time to consider what to do about Hong Kong, British Authorities actually considered returning only the New Territories but keeping Hong Kong island, however it was soon apparent that it would have been quite awkward and bizarre to divide up the whole colony in that fashion, considering the way that resources, living space, industry, etc were divided and shared among both areas. So the only way to keep the way of life and industry intact was to keep Hong Kong itself intact. As a result, sovereignty was transferred as one piece.
Hong Kong Island wasn’t leased, but ceded to Britain after the war; only the New Territories were leased for 99 years. The governments of the PRC and UK signed Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong[sup]1[/sup] which handed sovereignty of the island to China on the same date as the New Territories lease ended.
[sub]1. Say it three times fast[/sub]
That’s what I meant 
only the New Territories were leased for 99 years. The governments of the PRC and UK signed Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong[sup]1[/sup] which handed sovereignty of the island to China on the same date as the New Territories lease ended.
Makes me wonder, why 99 years? Why not 199 or 999? Only thing I can think of is that at the time Britain was a major worldwide empire and China was a backwards vassel country and the Lords who handled Her Majesty’s affairs couldn’t predict that one day the British Empire would experience downsizing while China would become a major superpower. but still, why not just cede the New Territories in perpetuity instead? I mean it would avoid alot of forms to fill out and extra negotiating later.
Is that the longest name for a treaty? 
(i see on preview this has been largely answerd but what the hey)
HK Island only was the perpetual lease. Kowloon & New Territories were not included in the original deal, and later added under the 99 year lease.
reality is that this was gunboat diplomacy at it’s best, and unlikely to have lasted until 1997 given UK colony divestitures. because there was a 1997 deadline, i think it was convenient for all parties to use that deadline.
china could have easily taken HK by turning off water, power & food in the two decades before the handover.
That’s one way to do it, but isn’t Hong Kong self sufficient? Produces its own electricity and water? Or had the capability to do so? Singapore is about 25% smaller and working towards that goal to avoid problems with Malaysia if relations get really sour. As for importing food, being one of the main trading hubs for the world, I don’t thing that would have put Hong Kong in dire straits.
Not even close to being self-suffiicient for water, power or food. If it was HK island only, the place would have gone belly up in a week.
HK’s population is what, 3 or 4 times greater than Sing?
The Chinese shut off the water in the 1960’s. It is fictionalized in one of James Clavel’s books. IIRC it was only intermitent and for a few months (?). It was meant (and successful) to send a warning shot across the English bows. I’m sure there’s a write up on Wikipedia or somewhat. Apologies, I’m posting from a PDA in the Shanghai airport before getting on a 15 hour flight to Hotlanta and can’t really give you a link.
China always considered all the treaties it made to “unequal” and therefore not enforceable. Even the Nationalists considered them unequal.
In fact when the dictatorship was ended in Portugal and that country was decolonizing it told China to take back Macau. China and Portugal then came to an “agreement” about the colony. Portugal didn’t want it but China like the economic benefit of Macau so they said “Keep it in name and if we ever want it we’ll take it.” That is bascially what China and Britian had. China could’ve easily taken Hong Kong but China like the economic benefit of having Hong Kong.
So China could “officially protest,” while <wink> <wink> not really wanting it, so they could get the money.
Slight correction - like HKI, Kowloon was ceded rather than on a 99 year lease but Kowloon was ceded in 1860 after the Second opium War.
This fellow discusses 99 year leases.