Basic Law, or any relevant agreements or understandings, but
they have not done so. We have also said that we would
welcome alternative proposals which they believe are compatible with the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.
They have not responded.
We have not lost sight of the importance to Hong Kong of
China's goodwill, nor have we been provocative in our
dealings with China. Had we wished to be provocative, the
Governor could have proposed an increase in the number of
directly-elected seats for LegCo in 1995. He did not do so.
He could have invited some elected representatives of LegCo
to serve on the Executive Council. He did not do so. What
he did was to formulate a set of proposals designed to
accommodate both the desire of Hong Kong people for a
moderately faster pace of constitutional development, and the
Chinese insistence that the Basic Law cannot be changed
before 1997. In short he sought to propose a reasonable
basis for a compromise, and furthermore said that he would
welcome alternative ideas. It is disappointing that the
Chinese have responded in a signally unreasonable fashion.
As I said in my
You ask what we going to do about this.
letter of 24 March, we shall continue to work calmly for
cooperation with China to ensure the future success of Hong Kong. The only sensible way to proceed is to sit down
together to discuss our differences, and we remain ready to
do this at any time. As to Zhang Youyun, I was unable to
meet her myself, but Alastair Goodlad had a talk with her and made clear our wish to settle quickly on arrangements for
talks.
DOUGLAS HURD
Page 105Page 106