UNCLASSIFIED
ni na akamata."
...
14 53
51
MDHOAN
PAINS TO ASSERT THAT THEIR POLICY TOWARDS HONG KONG REMAINS UNALTERED, AND HAVE CONSISTENTLY REAFFIRMED THEIR COMMITMENT TO THE JOINT DECLARATION AND TO THE CONCEPT OF QUOTE ONE COUNTRY, TWO SYSTEMS.
5. BUT MORE IMPORTANT IS THE SECOND ANSWER. CHINA HAS A MASSIVE AND GROWING ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL STAKE IN HONG KONG AND IN ITS CONTINUING SUCCESS. THE ECONOMIC STAKE LIES IN CHINA'S INVESTMENT IN HONG KONG ITS TRADE WITH THE TERRITORY, AND THE PART WHICH HONG KONG CAPITAL AND ENTERPRISE HAS PLAYED IN ENERGISING THE NEIGHBOURING AREAS OF THE MAINLAND. THE POLITICAL STAKE LIES IN THE DAMAGE TO CHINA'S INTERESTS AND PRESTIGE WHICH WOULD BE CAUSED IF HONG KONG WERE TO GO DOWNHILL AFTER 1997. SINCE THE JOINT DECLARATION CAME INTO FORCE IN MAY 1985, WE AND THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT HAVE BEEN WORKING CONSISTENTLY TOGETHER THROUGH THE JOINT LIAISON GROUP TO MAKE PRACTICAL AND LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS THAT WILL ENDURE AFTER 1997, AND THAT WILL BE FAITHFUL TO THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE JOINT DECLARATION. CHINA HAS RECENTLY COMPLETED NEARLY 5 YEARS' WORK ON THE PROMULGATION OF THE BASIC LAW. IF THE CHINESE HAD THE CONTEMPT FOR THESE ARRANGEMENTS THAT THE JEREMIAHS WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE, IT IS ODD FOR THEM TO HAVE WASTED SO MUCH TIME AND ENERGY IN THIS WORK. IF THEY SIMPLY INTENDED TO IGNORE THE ARRANGEMENTS, WHY WORRY SO MUCH ABOUT THEIR CONTENT QUERY
AND
6. THE BLUNT TRUTH IS THAT CHINA HAS ALWAYS HAD THE CAPACITY TO INTERVENE DECISIVELY IN HONG KONG'S AFFAIRS. 1997 MAKES NO SERIOUS DIFFERENCE TO THAT. THEY HAVE NEVER DONE SO FOR TWO REASONS. ONE IS THAT IT WOULD HAVE BREACHED CHINA'S INTERNATIONAL LEGAL OBLIGATIONS. THE OTHER IS THAT IT WOULD DESTROY AN ECONOMIC DYNAMO INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT FOR CHINA. BOTH OF THESE FACTORS WILL BE AS POWERFUL IN THE YEARS AFTER 1997
AS THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST. IN THAT LIES HONG KONG'S BEST SURETY FOR THE FUTURE UNQUOTE.
HURD
YYYY
PAGE
2
UNCLASSIFIED