19
Mr Rifkind: Absolutely agree. I very much endorse the view that it is through a constructive dialogue and a joint set of objectives that we can best ensure the success for Hong Kong that we seek. Over a vast range of issues there is agreement. Over a number of issues, which are important, there are either not yet decisions which have been reached or there are slight differences of view. Inevitably in a discussion of this kind the exchanges focus on those areas where there are differences of view. Otherwise there would be little benefit in such exchanges. And that also goes for my meetings with my Chinese colleagues. We don't spend our time discussing the whole range of issues where we have reached agreement, the huge progress that has been achieved in many areas. In order to make the best use of these exchanges, as today. we concentrate on unresolved matters or on difficulties and that is not a policy of confrontation with the Chinese Government any more than 1 would wish to have a policy of confrontation with LegCo or with those who have asked me some difficult questions. It is the stuff of dialogue that hopefully will gradually lead to a common position that you and we and they can all endorse as being in the best interests of Hong Kong. None of us can be certain that that will be able to be achieved in every area. 1 don't want to go in for mindless optimism, but there is a huge amount that has been achieved. Nobody will benefit, neither the Chinese nor the British, nor of course the people of Hong Kong, if issues are unresolved or are resolved unsatisfactorily and therefore we will use every means available to minimise areas of disagreement and hopefully resolve them completely. That is the objective.
Mr Albert Ho (in Chinese): After 1997, we talk about protection of human rights after that and LegCo has two points. First, according to the Joint Declaration the Chinese Government has reporting obligations in relation to the two international covenants on human rights and they will also have to attend hearings. And then secondly, in Hong Kong we should continue to have the BORO, the Bill of Rights Ordinance and existing legislation should be amended to comply with the Bill of Rights Ordinance. And yet the Chinese Government is strongly against these two points and it is pointed out by them that the Chinese Government will not report on Hong Kong's behalf and after 1997, the BORO will be diluted and amended legislation will be reverted to its original version and it will target Hong Kong's press freedom, freedom of assembly
etc.
And so, our question is, first, what is the UK Government's stance? In other words, in relation to the altitude of the Chinese Government, is this against the Joint Declaration?
And secondly, if it is not in line with the Joint Declaration, what can you do?
Page 20Page 21