56
HONG KONG & MACAO
solved by the Chinese and British Governments through talks. The Joint Declaration signed by China and Britain on 19 December 1984 confirms that the Chinese Gov- ernment will resume sovereignty over Hong Kong on 1 July 1997. It is a transition period prior to this date and Hong Kong affairs are those between China and Britain; Hong Kong affairs will be purely Chinese internal affairs after 1 July 1997. According to the principle of equality in state sovereignty in international law, a country shall not interfere in the internal affairs of another country. Nevertheless, these "international law lawyers" went as far as to disregard the most fundamental principle of international law, overrode the Sino-British Joint Dec- laration, and made irresponsible remarks. People cannot help asking: What right and power have you to meddle in Hong Kong affairs and to make remarks about and comments on Hong Kong's current and future affairs? The dignified "international law lawyers," however, discarded the principles of international law and perpe- trated unlawful acts. Do you not feel that you have brought disgrace on the honorable title of "international law lawyers"?
It is untrue to allege that "the Sino-British talks neglected the Hong Kong people's human rights." The Joint Declaration published by China and Britain through talks and the Memorandum exchanged by the two sides show that China and Britain attach great importance to the Hong Kong people's human rights. The Memorandum reads: “All Hong Kong Chinese com- patriots, whether they are holders of the 'British Depen- dent Territories Citizen Passports' or not, are Chinese citizens." After China resumes sovereignty over Hong Kong, Hong Kong people will possess PRC special administrative region [SAR] citizen status and their citizenship will be provided for and protected by Chi- nese law. According to the provisions of the Joint Dec- laration, the Hong Kong SAR will enjoy a high degree of autonomy, which includes administrative, legislative, independent judicial, and final adjudication powers. Regarding Hong Kong compatriots' civil rights, the Declaration reads: "According to law, the Hong Kong SAR protects the rights and freedoms of the person, speech, the press, assembly, association, procession, movement, correspondence, strike, choice of occupa- tion, academic research, religious belief, and others." It also provides: “Private property, ownership of enter- prises, legitimate rights of inheritance, and foreign. investment are all protected by law." The provisions of the Hong Kong SAR Basic Law regarding the high degree of autonomy Hong Kong is to enjoy and regarding Hong Kong compatriots' civil rights guarantee that the prom- ises made by the Chinese Government in the Sino- British Joint Declaration concerning Hong Kong's autonomy and civil rights will be carried out. It can be seen that the allegation that the Sino-British talks neglected the Hong Kong people's human rights runs. counter to the facts. However, crowned with a laurel wreath, the "international law lawyers" obliterated the
FBIS-CHI-92-113
11 June 1992
facts that China and Britain attach importance to the Hong Kong people's human rights. How can this be a law-abiding action?
The allegation that the Sino-British Joint Declaration "does not vest the Hong Kong people with the right of self-determination" is not false. The Joint Declaration only specifies that the Hong Kong SAR enjoys a high degree of autonomy, not rights of self-determination. This stands to reason because the right of self- determination and autonomy are fundamentally dif- ferent concepts. Autonomy refers to power conferred on the local government by the central government to proceed with self-administration. The high degree of autonomy that will be enjoyed by the Hong Kong SAR belongs to this local autonomy. However, the right of self-determination is different and refers to the right of an oppressed nation to determine its fate until it breaks away freely and establishes independence. The "Interna- tional Convention on Civil and Political Rights," adopted by the UN General Assembly on 16 December 1966 and open for all countries to sign, expressly pro- vides: "All nations enjoy the right of self-determination and on the basis of this right, freely decide their political status and freely embark on their economic, social, and cultural development." The "international law lawyers" possibly thought that they had found a legal basis for striving for the Hong Kong people's right of self- deter- mination but forgot a fundamental fact: Hong Kong was seized through unequal treaties by British aggressive wars against China in the last century. In the light of the spirit of international law, the unlawful invasion and occupation of another country's territory by means of unjust war and treaties concluded under the threat of force are null and void. New China has never recognized this kind of unequal treaty, nor has it recognized Hong Kong as a British colony. In a letter to the chairman of the UN Special Committee on Decolonization on 18 March 1972, China's permanent representative to the United Nations stated: "Hong Kong and Macao are the results of a series of unequal treaties imposed on China by imperialism that were left over by history. Hong Kong and Macao are parts of Chinese territory that have been occupied by the British and Portuguese authorities and the solution to the Hong Kong and Macao problems belongs completely as an issue within the scope of China's sovereignty and fundamentally does not belong to the usual category of so-called 'colony'." Furthermore, China has never had a Hong Kong nation, only a Chinese nation. Hong Kong compatriots are members of the Chinese nation, Chinese citizens, as well as citizens of the Hong Kong SAR. I would like to ask, because Hong Kong is not a colony or a nation, why is there a right of self-determination? Is it not sorrowful that the "interna- tional law lawyers" have abused the principles of inter- national law!
It was the original intention of people who advocate "self-determination by Hong Kong people" to hinder China from resuming sovereignty over Hong Kong. According to their argument, Britain did not carry out a