Mr Ricket
setts
SECRET
Mis
Miss some 5/17
pa Constitutional
Development (3)
Btogether w. minute referred to
"at & in M Rickett's minute when
it pens up.
FROM: CO Hum
DATE: 3 July 1992
CC:
( times to catel Mr Patte
defore departure ...)
HONG KONG: CRITICAL PATH
PS/Mr Patten
ўслых
PS/Mr Goodlad Sir John Coles or Mr Davies, FED Mr Llewelyn
6/7
1. Thank you for your minute of 2 July commenting on Mr Patten's questions. I am replying in haste and in brief because the focus of work on these issues is likely to transfer to Hong Kong with Mr Patten's departure this weekend. What follows is therefore largely comments on your comments.
2. I entirely agree with you (your para 2) that we should put continuity above a unilateral increase in directly elected seats for the 1995 elections. We all recognise that we still have significant scope for introducing greater democracy in other areas not determined by the Basic Law, and that these could make up a reasonably defensible package.
3.
I believe you may actually under-state in your para 3 the likely effects on Hong Kong if we were to force through a unilateral increase in the number of directly elected seats. I am convinced that the resulting hostility and non-cooperation from the Chinese would not only destroy confidence but also lead to a major polarisation of opinion in Hong Kong. Those who praised us for "standing up to China" would be a dwindling minority, while the rest of the community would come
us of jeopardising the real interests of Hong Kong people. We have a foretaste of that in current Hong Kong perceptions of our differences with China on the airport and related issues: the United Democrats praise us while others express concern about the effect of Sino-British frictions on Hong Kong's interests.
4.
I agree (your para 5) that our opening bid with the Chinese on 1995 electoral questions should be a broad package covering the whole range of outstanding issues as well as the question of directly elected seats. We should retain our bid on this issue as far as the end game in order to secure the maximum leverage over the other elements in the package. Our position on directly elected seats would not necessarily have to be stated in precise terms ('x' seats in 1995) so as to preserve manoeuvrability and perhaps to ease the pain of our eventual concession, but it should certainly imply that 'x' was greater than twenty.
SECRET
Page 45Page 46