Х
In
from the one held in 1979, reflecting "'a drastic change in attitude" by the international community towards refugees. a long news analysis filed from Bangkok, Steve Erlanger of the New York Times provided a somewhat more balanced perspective in explaining the difficulties faced by the Hong Kong government. On the boat people, the New York Times was strongly critical of HMG's policy urging the UN Conference to reject Sir Geoffrey Howe's "inhumanity" and "rekindle worldwide sympathetic action". In a scathing editorial The New York Post likened HMG's policy over repatriation of the boat people to the failure to admit Jews fleeing Nazi Germany and to the forceable return of Russian nationals after the
war.
Editorial comment remained critical. The New Republic welcomed HMG's decision to suspend the talks leading to the transfer of Hong Kong questioning whether China would adhere the terms of the joint declaration and urging HMG to grant safe haven to the Hong Kong Chinese. The Christian Science Monitor also questioned whether Beijing could be counted on to permit 50 years of autonomy. It urged HMG to "prepare for something other than full compliance" if the hardliners remain in power in Beijing. The Monitor also urged the government to accelerate the move to democracy in the Colony and to ensure that Hong Kong passport holders were not trapped after 1997. On the op-ed pages the Washington Post and Houston Chronicle carried a harsh and unbalanced piece accusing HMG of "a blatantly racist attitude" towards Hong Kong passport holders arguing that the government was allowing Hong Kong to go Communist without adequate safeguards. The piece concluded by urging the US to ban all new investment in China until Hong Kong's special status is given substance. In other editorial reaction, the conservative Arizona Republic took a cautiously optimistic line noting that Hong Kong had surmounted political difficulties before and that even the most repressive Communist regimes needed to do business with capitalists.
European Elections and the UK:
The consensus was that the government was bracing itself for a political shock following a poorly run campaign and a significant change in the political environment. In scene setting reports, the prevailing themes were that the elections would be seen as a test of support of the government and that the British voters would endorse Labour's revamped platform. Voter indifference and "Euro boredom" were the biggest problems facing British candidates. Writing from London, David Broder of the Washington Post considered that the elections were "a barometer of the political balance in each country and only secondarily a policy mandate for the EC". Early Monday morning network news reporting of the results interpreted them as a "significant rebuke" to HMG.