terms of an elected Legislative Council. But this does not mean that we cannot envisage a considerable and meaningful extension of democracy at the local government level."3
It should be emphasised that Britain does not accept China's position on Hong K
FOOTNOTES
1. Hansard (Commons), 30 April 1974, Col. 444.
2. Hansard (Commons), 27 March 1974, Cols. 436-438. One would like to know who Ennals
means by "the occupants of the area."
3. Hansard (Commons), 26 April 1967, Cols. 1789-1790.
China's Position on Hong Kong
The three texts below, dating from 1963, 1967 and 1972, state clearly China's position on Hong Kong, setting the question in its historical and political context.
“A Comment on the Statement of the Communist Party of the USA”
46
With an ulterior purpose, the statement of the CPUSA referred to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao. It said that the Chinese comrades were "correctly not following the adventurous policy in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao that they advocate for others. Why this double standard approach?”
We know from what quarter they have learned this ridiculous charge. And we know, too, the purpose of the person who manufactured it.
Here we should like to answer all those who have raised this matter.
For us there never has been a question of a “double standard”. We have only one standard, whether dealing with the question of Taiwan, whether dealing with the questions of Hong Kong and Macao, or whether dealing with all international questions, and that standard is Marxism-Leninism, proletarian internationalism, the interests of world peace, and the revolutionary cause of the people of all countries. In international struggles we are opposed both to adventurism and to capitulationism. These two hats can never fit our heads.
Inasmuch as some persons have mentioned Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao, we are obliged to discuss a little of the history of imperialist aggression against China,
-
In the hundred years or so prior to the victory of the Chinese revolution, the imperialist and colonial powers the United States, Britain, France, Tsarist Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Por- tugal · carried out unbridled aggression against China. They compelled the governments of old China to sign a large number of unequal treaties: the Treaty of Nanking of 1842, the Treaty of Aigun of 1858, the Treaty of Tientsin of 1858, the Treaty of Peking of 1860, the Treaty of Ili of 1881, the Protocol of Lisbon of 1887, the Treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895, the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong of 1898, the International Protocol of 1901, and others. By virtue of these unequal treaties, they annexed Chinese territory in the north, south, east, and west and held leased territories on the seaboard and in the hinter-
land of China. Some seized Taiwan and the Penghu Islands, others occupied Hong Kong and forcibly leased Kowloon, still others put Macao under perpetual occu- pation, and so forth.
At the time the People's Republic of China was inaugurated, our government clared that it would examine the treaties concluded by previous Chinese govern- ments with foreign governments, treaties that had been left over by history, and would recognise, abrogate, revise, or renegotiate them according to their respec- tive contents. In this respect, our policy towards the socialist countries is funda- mentally different from our policy towards the imperialist countries. When we deal with various imperialist countries, we take differing circumstances into consider- ation and make distinctions in our policy. As a matter of fact, many of these treaties concluded in the past either have lost their validity, or have been abro- gated or have been replaced by new ones. With regard to the outstanding issues, which are a legacy from the past, we have always held that, when conditions are ripe, they should be settled peacefully through negotiations and that, pending a settlement, the status quo should be maintained. Within this category are the questions of Hong Kong, Kowloon, and Macao and the questions of all those boundaries which have not been formally delimited by the parties concerned in each case...
Why is it that after the Caribbean [Cuban missile] crisis this correct policy of ours suddenly became a topic of discussion among certain persons and a theme for their anti-China campaign?
These heroes are apparently very pleased with themselves for having picked up a stone from a cesspool, with which they believe they can instantly fell the Chinese. But whom has this filthy stone really hit?
You are not unaware that such questions as those of Hong Kong and Macao relate to the category of unequal treaties left over by history, treaties which the imperialists imposed on China. It may be asked: In raising questions of this kind, do you intend to raise all the questions of the unequal treaties and have a general settlement? Has it ever entered your heads what the consequences would be? Can you seriously believe that this will do you any good?
Superficially, you seem to agree with China's policy on Hong Kong and Macao, Yet, you compare it with India's liberation of Goa. Anyone with a discerning eye can see at once that your sole intention is to prove that the Chinese are cowards. To be frank, there is no need for the Chinese people to prove their courage and staunchness in combating imperialism by making a show of force on the questions of Hong Kong and Macao. The imperialists, and the US imperialists in particular, have had occasion to sample our courage and staunchness. Shoulder to shoulder withe Korean people, the finest sons and daughters of the Chinese people fought for three years and shed their blood on the battlefields of Korea to repulse the US aggressors. Don't you feel it "stupid" and "deplorable” on your part to taunt us on the questions of Hong Kong and Macao?
We know very well, and you know, too, that you are, to put it plainly, bringing up the questions of Hong Kong and Macao merely as a fig leaf to hide your disgrace- ful performance in the Caribbean crisis. But all this is futile. There is an objective criterion for truth, just as there is for error. What is right cannot be made to look wrong; nor can wrong be made to look right. To glory in your disgraceful perfor- mance will not add to your prestige. How can the correct policy of the Chinese people on the questions of Hong Kong and Macao be mentioned in the same breath with your erroneous policy in the Caribbean crisis? How can such a com- parison help you to whitewash yourselves?
47