CONFIDENTIAL
Chinese Comments on Issues Related to the Sino-British Talks
(September 14 to 23, 1993)
Introduction
The Chinese side has criticised Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd, Governor Chris Patten and British representative to the talks Sir Robin McLaren in different contexts during the period under review. Attempts were made to hold the British side responsible should there be a breakdown in the talks, while the Chinese still insist that they are sincere about the negotiations.
The Chinese side has been quick to jump on Mr Patten for saying on September 15 that he would have to submit the reform package to Legco should there be no agreement reached at the talks. It pointed out that once the package was tabled in Legco, the talks would break down and the Governor would be responsible for all the consequences. NCNA HK Vice- director Zhang Junsheng warned Mr Patten not to make any miscalculation, and a series of commentaries accused him of being insincere, creating obstacles and using political intimidation to force the Chinese side to give way. Chinese officials stressed that arrangements that were not in line with the BL would be overturned in 1997, while commentaries said the Chinese side would safeguard HK's stability and prosperity during the sovereignty transfer.
Sir Robin was criticised for saying that he was one with Mr Patten in the talks. The left-wing commentaries said people could now see clearly from his and Mr Patten's remarks that the British side's insistence on the "three violations" package was the cause of the deadlock in the talks. The Oriental Daily quoted Chinese sources as outlining the Chinese side's proposal on the Election Committee responsible for returning 10 legislators.
Mr Hurd's objections to Peking being given the right to host Olympics 2000 and his remarks on the JD upset the Chinese side, which in response accused him of damaging Sino-British relations and creating more obstacles to the talks.
Attacks on the proposal for a civil service functional constituency continued but were fewer and less orchestrated. The Chinese side remained convinced that the proposal, which would affect the neutrality and stability of the civil service, constituted a fundamental change to the system. On the new localisation policy, a few commentaries reiterated that the Government was abusing the Bill of Rights and that the aim of the new measure was to extend British influence here beyond 1997.
As for the through train, the Chinese side maintained that there would be no starting point for discussion without an agreement on the electoral arrangments in the first instance. Chinese sources said the Chinese side would be willing to set out clearer criteria for the through train if the British side gave up the Patten package.
CONFIDENTIAL