TNAG-0802-FCO40-1006-Immigration-from-China-to-Hong-Kong-1978 — Page 43

409

Debate on the Address

[ 8 NOVEMBER 1978]

I now turn to Cyprus, on which a number of noble Lords made substantial speeches. I undertake to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, to look into the matters he has raised. I have a note here about postal and telegraphic communications with Northern Cyprus. It is too lengthy to be given to the House at this hour and I do not wish to detain your Lordships, who are no doubt anxious to get home to But I prepare for tomorrow's debate. have to say this. The Government any Government in Britain-can recognise only one Government in Cyprus, that of President Kyprianou, and therefore the only authority in Cyprus with which the Post Office has dealings in the Cyprus telecommunications authority. However, the points that the noble Lord, Lord Spens, raised are worth looking at again. I know that my honourable friend the Joint Minister of State has spent some time over this, as a result of letters sent to him by Lord Spens. I undertake to draw his attention to what has been said this evening on this point.

This takes me across almost automati- cally to Greece and to Turkey. I was asked whether we were thinking of any initiative to help Turkey vis-à-vis the Greek application to join the EEC. Of course, we are strongly in favour of the enlargement of the Community by the enrolment in due course of the three countries who are making application- Spain, Portugal and Greece. Turkey has association status. I could not antici- pate what the Community as a whole would find right and necessary, nor would the House expect me to do so, but I think that the point is well taken. We should perhaps look beyond even the accession of these three very substantial countries, these three new or restored democracies-Spain, Portugal and Greece-to other implications; and cer- tainly Turkey-politically, strategically as well as economically-is of immense importance to us. All of us will be thinking about the points which the noble Lord has made.

May I move back a little now to Hong Kong, which the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, raised. The noble Lord is well aware of the position there. He asked ine whether political refugees are sent back to China. The answer is, No. If the Hong Kong Government is satisfied that it is a genuine case of political

(Fourth Day)

B)

410

dissent, the genuine political refugee is not sent back, nor do the Chinese Government insist that he should be. Indeed, the Chinese Government have been most helpful and understanding about the entire question of the relationship between. mainland China and Hong Kong and our own presence there. It is, in a way, a curious arrangement whereby we operate without quarrelling and without arguing about the ultimate status of Hong Kong. And it works. I am tempted to think sometimes that it is very British or that it is very Chinese. It is based on mutual interest and mutual agreement, without too much precision about signed docu- ments and so on.

As to human rights, to which the noble Lord moved after mentioning Hong Kong, of course I agree with him. I and my fellow Ministers take every opportunity to speak absolutely forthrightly to the repre- sentatives of the totalitarian countries, both here and in their own countries. They understand what our attitude is. We do not muffle our voice on human rights. I was grateful to the noble Baroness for her reference to the part that we played at Belgrade. I think it is recognised that the British voice on human rights was strong and clear. We are in the van now of preparing the ground for the second conference in Madrid-I hope in 1980. Already we are having bilateral talks with a wide range of countries, not all of them like minded. But one must speak to the others, too.

The whole point of CSE is that you want to influence people, as I keep on saying to them, and not to overturn their system (it is counterproductive to speak in those terms) but gradually to establish a floor of assumed basic human rights and freedoms which every system must respect: whether it is, as it is sometimes desribed, a Communist system, or even a Fascist system (which is a little hard to imagine) or a mixed economy: a Social Democratic or a Liberal-Capitalistic economy. The system is not in question. Human rights

are.

Sometimes I feel fairly confident that, so long as we are prepared not to overturn systems---because we ask them not to try to overturn ours, do we not? And we send them home if they try--but instead are prepared to bang away at the central fact that human beings every- where, whatever the system under which