XN000022-1996-01-08 — Page 15

-

14-

Mr Rifkind: We know and we are, I don't think, in disagreement that the transition will take place June 30th of next year. That is a legal obligation. That is something which is unavoidable, not simply in political terms but in legal terms as well. We have to ensure that the Chinese Government are in no doubt that the success of Hong Kong, to which they also attach great importance, will best be safeguarded by the clearest demonstration by the Chinese Government that they wish to respect the autonomy of Hong Kong and to allow the continuation of its way of life. It will always be a matter of judgment whether certain changes that they may wish or not wish to implement, what impact that would have on confidence, what impact that would have on Hong Kong's unique identity.

With a relatively short period to go between now and the transition, the British Government can make both its own views and the views of the people of Hong Kong known very clearly, very frankly, albeit very courteously to the Chinese Government. We cannot impose solutions upon them. I cannot suggest to you, nor would I wish to, that we have a physical power which is not available to us given the constitutional situation. And therefore our duty is to represent these matters, to warn of the implications of unwise action, and together with you and your colleagues and the people of Hong Kong, to try to persuade the Chinese authorities as to which steps by them would help confidence in Hong Kong and which would damage confidence in Hong Kong.

Mr Martin Lee: Now, if they were really to go ahead and scrap this LegCo and replace it with an appointed one, that is a clear breach of the Joint Declaration which is an international agreement. Surely there is something your government can do - by taking the other party to the World Court for example. Has that ever occurred to you? And you don't have to sit back and lament over us or even pray for us.

Mr Rifkind: I am very willing to look at any legal or other avenues that would be available if there was any proposal to breach the Joint Declaration or the Basic Law. Of course if there are opportunities available to us, if such an eventuality was to arise. then it would be a duty upon us not to exclude these possibilities and if they seemed likely to be fruitful, to pursue them. And if you wish to draw to our attention avenues of that kind, please do so. Of course we hope that these are hypothetical questions, that they will not be required to be considered. But certainly those matters that are within our power to ensure respect for the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, of course you are correct to say it would be proper for us to respond positively if there were means available to us to achieve what is the desired result, and indeed the result already agreed between the two sovereign states.