CONFIDENTIAL
19371
1
EQUALITY AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF STATES AND OPPOSED COLONIALISM
>
ETC.
4. UNDER B IT IS ARGUED THAT AS SOVEREIGNTY IN LAW STILL BELONGS
TO THE INVADED PARTY AND NOT THE INVADER IT IS NOT LEGALLY POSSIBLE
FOR THE INVADER TO TALK OF EXCHANGING SOVEREIGNTY FOR ADMINISTRATION
IN ANY CASE ADMINISTRATION IS THE CONCRETE EXPRESSION OF A STATE'S
SOVEREIGNTY OVER ITS TERRITORY AND THE TWO CANNOT BE SEEN AS
SEPARATE ENTITIES. THE THEORY THAT SOVEREIGNTY COULD BE DIVIDED
UP WAS A REACTIONARY WESTERN ONE CREATED TO JUSTIFY THE OCCUPATION
OF THE TERRITORY OF OTHERS. IT HAS BEEN SWEPT INTO THE RUBBISH
BIN OF HISTORY.
5. UNDER C IT IS ARGUED THAT A BRITON REPRESENTING THE
PEOPLE OF HONG KONG IN THE TALKS IS A NOTION WITHOUT LEGAL OR
LOGICAL FOUNDATION. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BRITISH AUTHORITIES
AND THE PEOPLE IN HONG KONG IS STILL ONE OF COLONIAL RULE.
THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN HONG KONG ARE CHINESE
AND SO ONLY THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT CAN TRULY REPRESENT THEM.
THE SPECIAL POLICIES THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT WILL ADOPT TOWARDS
HONG KONG TO PRESERVE ITS WAY OF LIFE ARE EVIDENCE OF THE
CHINESE CONCERN AND SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PEOPLE OF HONG
KONG.
6. THE ARTICLE CONCLUDES THAT A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THESE
THREE MATTERS SHOWS THAT CONTINUED BRITISH OCCUPATION AND COLONIAL
RULE WOULD VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW. BUT CHINA'S DECISION TO
RECOVER HONG KONG IN 1997 IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW.
THIS IS RECOGNISED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD AND EVEN AMONG SOME
PEOPLE IN BRITAIN.
7. THE ARTICLE IS SIGNED BY JIN PU, PROBABLY A PSEUDONYM. THOUGH
A NEW ONE TO US.
2
CONFIDENTIAL