understanding the framework of the Joint Declaration one has to recognise a
number of points. It does two things. It says that the lifestyle and the
laws then in force in Hong Kong in 1984 shall continue but it also
indicates some points at which there is going to be protection and
development in order in a sense to give effect to the underlying
philosophy, that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be an
area where after 1997 there will be protection for individuals and for the
economic system. Action by the British Government which promotes and
involves engaging in developments that are consistent with the lifestyle
and the arrangements that are spelled out in the Joint Declaration to
govern after 1997 cannot in my view be regarded as incompatible with the
Joint Declaration because they involve certain changes from what had been
there in 1984. In effect the Joint Declaration envisaged that between 1984
and 1997 there would be a period of transition towards the guarantees that
are spelled out in the Joint Declaration. I think that is an important
perspective to bear in mind when looking at ciriticism of measures that
have been adopted or have been proposed.
Mr Gapes
99.
Can I take you back to the Exchange of Letters in 1990? Mr
Keller referred to the Foreign Office position as weak and said that they
had got very close to an agreement. What is your view of the statement in
the paper we received this morning from Mr Chamberlain which says that the
status of the Exchange of Letters in 1990 "is no more than an exchange of
diplomatic correspondence between the two sides"? Do you think it is more
than that? If so, could you you expand? I would be interested in the
comments of the other two on what Mr Keller says.
(Mr Keller) I think the conclusion that is contained in the Foreign
Office paper is a conclusion on the contents, that it "is no more than an
35