CO129-609-5 Future policy- Press accounts of Chinese unrest over Kowloon evictions 19-1-1948 - 16-3-1948 — Page 16

TRANSLATION

NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUE OVER KOWLOON.

16

Flagge:

freen

Ta Kung Pao, Shanghai, 9th February.

From our Special Correspondent in London, 8th February.

The reactions of British public opinion to the Chinese reply on the Kowloon case are worthy of study. From these reactions it can be seen to what a great extent prejudice, lack of contact and subjectivity can hinder international understanding.

of the whole of the national press, only the London Times and the Manchester Guardian reported the contents of the Chinese reply to the British public. Under the head- line "China's Sharp Reply to Great Britain" the "Times" summed up the Chinese reply in one sentence as follows, "The most recent Chinese Note maintains that jurisdiction over Kowloon City is clearly reserved to China in the Peking Protocol of 1898 and the action of the Paoan (Po-on) magistrate in looking into the matter was quite in order. The responsibility for the clash between the police and the people which followed rests with the Hong Kong Government."

The "Times" Diplomatic Correspondent further comments; "The sharp tone of the reply has caused some surprise in London. It expresses no regret at the incidents which occurred and deals almost exclusively with the question of jurisdiction in this matter. The British Government hopes

to reach an amicable settlement of the matter with the Chinese Government."

The Manchester Guardian's method of presenting the news was particularly surprising. Under the headline "China does not Apologise Canton Riots", it says, "Yesterday evening the Chinese Embassy published the long Note on the recent Canton incident which the Chinese had sent to the British Government yesterday. The British Consulate General in Canton was burnt down in an anti-British demonstration, the cause of which was the arrest in Hong Kong of two Chinese. These two Chinese had broken the law by resisting the police who had attempted to make them evacuate houses unfit for habitation in Kowloon. This paper, like the Times, summed up the whole contents of the Note in one sentence and commented; –

"No matter what the rights and wrongs of the complicated question of jurisdiction may be, in the whole of this long Note China made no expression of regret whatsoever regarding the burning of the British Consulate General in Canton."

The Chinese in London are surprised that two important English newspapers should distort the facts to this extent. We all remember the Chinese Government's proposal to the British Government that the Kowloon and Shameen Incidents should be discussed at the same time but the British Government refused and insisted that the two matters should be dealt with separately. This is on record and may be investigated. The Note sent by the British to the Chinese Embassy on the 20th January mentioned only the Kowloon incident and in the whole text there was not one word about shameen. The Chinese reply was an answer to the British Note just mentioned. In order to meet the Britian request that the two matters should be discussed separately, the Chinese Ambassador did not bring up Shameen in his Note on the Kowloon incident. Chinese

circles/