2
Of course Britain has a particular justification for keeping in touch with Peking. We have steadily to prepare for the day in 1997 when Hong Kong returns to China. Because of this I had the total understanding of my EC colleagues when I told them that Francis Maude was going to Peking. There was no question of reaching an agreed EC line. It had always been understood that there were particular reasons why Britain (and indeed Portugal because of Macao) should need from time to time to send a Minister to Peking. In Hong Kong too that need is recognised. The comments from Hong Kong which reach the British media tend to be of the noisier kind. There is a widespread but quieter welcome in Hong Kong for the fact that we are, by frequent discussion, with Peking taking seriously our responsibilities under the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984. The idea that we would in some way be helping Hong Kong by cutting ourselves off from China does not survive a minute's serious
examination.
x
fassport X
prikage.
The
What form should and do these discussions with Peking take? Obviously they do not consist of finding out what the Chinese would prefer and then doing it. charge of 'kowtowing' may be irrestible journalism, but does nto fit the facts. If that had been our policy we would not be moving to the direct demmocratic election
18 next year of 20 seats in the Hong Kong
Legislative Council. If that had been our policy we
Nationality
giver
Lfirs
would obviously have dropped the Passports 'Bill as soon as the Chinese criticised it. If that had been our policy Hong Kong would not have first asylum to the boat people; and there would be no Bill of Rights. We wrestled with all these problems, and took the decisions which we believe to be in the best interests of the people of Hong Kong.