TNAG-0851-FCO40-1061-Future-of-Hong-Kong-New-Territories-leases-1979 — Page 49

>

598

PACIFIC COMMUNITY

be unwise to negotiate at all with China about Hongkong, because of the understandable unwillingness of any Chinese government or any Chinese politician or official to be seen publicly to make concessions to foreigners, especially on a matter concerning Chinese soil. It is for this reason that nobody seriously believes in the possibility of an extension of the lease, it being one thing for the Chinese to acquiesce quietly in what they have inherited from history, quite another for them to put their own signature to a completely new privilege for foreigners on Chinese soil.

The next area of possible action on the part of the British to maximize the chances of Hongkong continuing into the twenty-first century in more or less its present status quo is a purely internal one. It is possible for the British to stretch their own legal defini- tions, if they are willing to do so. At the moment the leasehold of any piece of land in the New Territories of Hongkong is given by the Hongkong government only up to a maximum period which ends before July 1997. This is all it can do, under British law. But a political decision could be made for the government to begin issuing leases of a longer duration, if necessary with additional clauses absolving the Hongkong government from any liability in the event of the enjoyment of the leasehold title after July 1997 being interfered with by another authority (i.e. the People's Republic),

This kind of title would give residents, investors and entre- preneurs in Hongkong the assurance which they need, namely that as between themselves and other contenders in Hongkong for the use of that land, their right will be protected. The title will not give them protection against a takeover by China: for assurances against that they would have to seek some kind of political guar- antee or understanding from the Chinese authorities themselves. All this would have to be fought out against the opposition of the majority of British lawyers, but there come times when the rigidity of the law calls to be overidden by political necessity.

Another possibility for Britain would be simply to ignore the expiry of the lease, and to continue after July 1997 to administer the same territory as before, pending the Chinese government's decision to take up a bilateral resolution of the question. The Chinese, after all, already regard the whole of Hongkong as their own territory, albeit under temporary administration by Britain, regardless of the distinction between cession and lease, although through its own voluntary courtesy and magnanimity it respects the situation as if Britain's rights were legally valid. But for all