*
14-
Berard Le
[
L
Dunkirk, Hong
e most recent letter I received from Hong Kong ended “Don't forget us". I shall not; but why should such an exortation be necessary? Be- of course, the Braish governant, with the Foreign Office the vanguard, is doing everything it can to ensure that Britam des forget Hong Kong.
cauic
As we all know, Britain is commpted to giving Hong Kong
by which I do not mean a few souare miles but some tive and a hati million human beings to China. This is to be done under the terms of the original "lease". which expires in 1997, and it is worth pointing out that since the present Chinese authorities have
never
recognized the treaty under which the lease was signed, they were in no position to insist on the enforcement of its terms. It was our Foreign Office, which would give the Isle of Wight to Outer Mongolia if the Outer Mongolians would care to ask for it, which was so eager to get shot of the crown colony and all the people in it.
If you want to know, with a single example, the reason why I would never be a politician, just consider Sir Geoffrey Howe's recent explanation to the House of Commons of the reason that it would not be appropriate to ask the people of Hong Kong hon- estly what they want, and why it would be even more unfortunate if they were to elect their own representatives to try to ensure that they get it.
(If you are greedy enough to want a second reason, you can find it in the statement to the Commons of Mr Timothy Eggar, Sir Geoffrey's understrapper, in which he said "We have no intention of washing our hands of Hong Kong." when he meant "We are washing our hands of Hong Kong as quickly and thoroughly as we can." He also said "We will not walk away from the problem of transition," when he meant "We are running away as fast as we can from the problems of transition.")
"
Of course, no one can usefully guess what kind of government China will have in 1997, nor what will be its attitude to Hong Kong. But if we abandon fruit-
less speculation about the future and concentrate on the available facts in the present. the omens are not auspicious. It should not be necessary, but unfortunately is, for me to remind people that China at this moment is a country which has none BORC - of the most fundamental and elementary rights which alone can define feedom.
In China. there is no right to a inal in a count of law for anyone accused of a crime (and of course no trial by an independent judic- tary anyway), no protection from arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, torture ur execution without trial, no form, however sketchy, of habeas corpas, no right to travel within the country let alone to leave it, no right to freedom of expression or publi- cation. no freedom of religious practice. no legal redress for grievance, no trade unions, and naturally no part for the people in the choice of government.
And it is to that state that Britain, airily and untruthfully, proposes to hand over five and a half million human beings, and is constantly striving to ensure that as much darkness as pos- sible is strewn over our govern- ment's guilty intention.
The central argument 31 present is over the Basic Law, the formal instrument which will establish the constitutional na- ture of Hong Kong when it is incorporated as a part of China.
B
roadly speaking, every time the Chinese au- thorities insist on their interpretation of yet another section of the Basic Law, the British authori- ties acquiesce in it. while maintaining either that they have not in fact acquiesced, or that the Chinese interpretation is not really wha, it says or that it really makes no flerence, or that the people of tiong Kong are happy with the new ruling, or any two or more of these excuses (full perm.. 24 lines. £1.20 staked). Let me give an example.
The original Joint Declara- tion, following the British gov- ernment's cager capitulation, includes a vital preamble, which includes these ringing words:
the provisions of the Inter- national Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant оп Economic. Social and Cultural Rights as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force.
But the Basic Law Drafting Committee, which in plain Eng- lish is an instrument of the Chinese rulers, has abandoned that test, preferring (naturally) to base the human rights pro- visions on the Chinese "Consti- tution". The result is that, among the human rights not guaranteed will be the right to life, to freedom from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, to freedom from forced or compulsory labour, to
the right no retroactive cl dom to information kinds (those from the Co to the right prior presum and freedo: crimination, public hearin undue delay. No doubt
will flap an ir saying that s under discus speculations Government' tence on furth under British free to believ