“It doesn’t need to mention the lease.”
But you said it was because of the lease.
Now you’re down to arguing “because I say so”.
Who holds the lease?
Just because it’s not mentioned doesn’t mean that’s not the cause. Both sides understood that keeping UK control of the 8% of Hong Kong not covered by the lease would be stupid. So they made the treaty for a graceful exit. Even if they hadn’t made a treaty the area would have been handed over though. No I’m holding to the argument of understanding what happened. Meanwhile you’re not holding any argument at all. You called me a liar, you present NO facts that contradict me. Apologize or $#%% off.