CONFIDENTIAL
3
China earned its foreign exchange in HK through free trade, beneficial to both sides. It would be futile to try to swing a deal in Britain's favour if it bargained slyly on the question of foreign exchange. The editorial also quoted the Dong Guan County Chronicle to show that HK had been inhabited by descendants of a rebel leader about 2 000 years ago to prove that HK was Chinese territory. It concluded by calling on Britain to discard theories evolved on validity of treaties, public opinion or foreign exchange and sincerely to thrash things out at the negotiation table. In a commentary devoted mainly to amplifying Ding's article, Ta Kung Pao said there should be no illusion about China's unequivocal stand on the sovereignty question. It pointed out that the article was the second published in well- established academic magazines in China, following the article in "World Knowledge" last August. The New Evening Post, in a leader entitled "Slyness will not work", said foreign exchange was valuable, but sovereignty was priceless. It said it might be coincidence that Ding's article was released on the day the Governor was returning from London. This might also indicate that Beijing took measures to counteract Britain.
The HK Economic Journal viewed the publicity given to Ding's article as China's propaganda strategy to tilt the balance in its favour in the Sino-British talks. The article lost its objectivity in studying the issue because it contained terms such as “sly" and "cunning" which sounded like slogans used in mass rallies to condemn British imperialism. The paper asked: if China did not recognise Britain's legitimate position in HK then why should it hold talks with the HK Government on such matters as water supply and immigration, or extend hospitality to officials during their visits in China; and why should Beijing-funded firms buy land in HK? The paper also held that it would not be easy for Britain to abrogate the treaties governing HK because it would need Parliament's approval to do so. However, should Britain remain unyielding, the paper believed China would organise mass rallies within the country in support of its claim to sovereignty over HK. The dispute would reach the stage of no return should the HK Government counteract China's move with a referendum to
allow local residents to decide their own fate.
3.
WEN WEI CRITICISES TREATIES' VALIDITY:
A statement by a senior Government official at an unattributable briefing on 24 January became a target of attack by the left-wing Wen Wei Po. The official was quoted saying HK Island, Kowloon and the New Territories were treated as a single viable unit and the treaties governing HK were considered valid under international law. The talks had slowed down, perhaps as a result of new postings of some Chinese officials involved. Clarification was made by another senior Government official the following day about Lord Belstead's three-legged table analogy, Wen Wei chose to ridicule the validity of treaties in two separate commentaries. The first said it was a 19th century imperalist invasion that sent warships to another country to force it to cede its territory and asked this "British ruler” not to insult the Chinese people on the doorstep of China. The second said the view on the validity of treaties was even more high sounding than the three-legged table metaphor. It implied that HK Island and south Kowloon would belong to Britain perpetually. He said India, Sri Lanka and other countries had gained independence from Britain and this was proof that unequal treaties could be abrogated. It said clause 52 of the UN Treaty Convention stipulated that treaties signed under duress or threat of military might were against the UN
CONFIDENTIAL