TO BE A FROMAL STATEMENT BY A SENIOR CHINESE OFFICIAL. I THEN .POINTED TO THE LINK BETWEEN HONG KONG'S PROSPERITY AND MARKET CONFIDENCE ON THE ONE HAND AND THE SENSITIVITY OF MARKETS TO THOUGHTS ON THE OTHER (YOUR TELNO 1018 REFERS). THIS MEANT THAT TH SIDES MUST BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THEIR PUBLIC STATEMENTS.
1
(E) THIS SUBJECT WAS ONE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE. IT INVOLVED THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF OUR JOINT ENTERPRISE. WE SHOULD NOT DEPEND ON NEWSPAPER CUTTINGS FOR REPORTS OF THE OTHER SIDE'S IDEAS. WE AGREED THAT IT WAS TIMELY TO DEAL WITH THIS QUESTION: THIS WAS WHY WE HAD SUGGESTED AN INFORMAL DIALOGUE.
1 REITERATED THAT I WOULD WISH TO REFLECT ON KE'S REMARKS AND SUGGESTED THAT THE SUBJECT MIGHT BE DISCUSSED AGAIN LATER
DURING THIS JLG MEETING.
KE'S SECOND INTERVENTION
14. KE REPLIED THAT HE HAD NOTED MY INTENTION TO REFLECT ON HIS OWN STAEMENT WITH A VIEW TO SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION. HE WAS, HOWEVER, SLIGHTLY DISAPPOINTED BY WHAT I HAD SAID. I WAS NORMALLY A VERY REASONABLE MAN SEMICOLON BUT ON THIS OCCASION I SEEMED NOT TO HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL THOUGHT TO THE MATTER.
15. THE BRITISH REMAINED OF THE VIEW THAT REFORM OF GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE WAS PART OF THE DAY TO DAY ADMINISTRATION OF HONG KONG, AND ON THAT BASIS WERE WORRIED ABOUT DISCUSSION OF THE SUBJECT IN THE JLG. I HAD ALSO SAID THAT WHAT THE CHINESE SIDE WANTED WOULD AMOUNT TO A RIGHT OF VETO OVER ACTIONS OF THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD. HE ABSOLUTELY COULD NOT ACCEPT THIS ARGUMENT. IT WAS VERY CLEAR WHAT WERE AND WHAT WERE NOT MATTERS OF DAY TO DAY ADMINISTRATION. IT WAS NOT A QUESTION OF CHINA INTERFERING IN THE DAY TO DAY ADMINISTRATION OF HONG KONG, BUT RATHER A QUESTION OF BRITAIN INTERFERING IN THE WORK OF THE BASIC LAW DRAFTING COMMITTEE, WHICH WAS TANTAMOUNT TO A BRITISH VETO OVER THE BASIC LAW. THE CHINESE SIDE HAD NO WISH OR INTENTION TO INTERFERE WITH, LET ALONE VETO, CERTAIN MATTERS, BUT CHINA COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO LET THINGS WHICH WENT BEYOND THE PROVISIONS OF THE JOINT DECLARATION CONTINUE AFTER 1997. IF 'VETO''WAS MEANT IN THAT SENCE THEN PERHAPS IT WAS USED INCORRECTLY. IT WAS FOR THE CURRENT REFORMS TO BE MADE CONSISTENT WITH THE BASIC LAW AND NOT (NO) THE OTHER WAY ROUND, IE THAT THE BASIC LAW SHOULD ADAPT TO THE RESULTS OF THE CURRENT REFORMS. THE CHINESE SIDE WANTED TO SEE THE TWO CONVERGE AND HOPED THAT BOTH SIDES WOULD CO-ORDINATE THEIR ACTIONS TO MAKE SURE THIS HAPPENED. IF THEY FAILED TO DO
THA