TNAG-1246-FCO40-1560-Press-reports-on-the-future-of-Hong-Kong-1983 — Page 37

Reference

CONFIDENT IAL

21

Mr Hoare

i. Moms tr.

HKGD (WH 312)

74671/3

11

нии

HAK 040/2.

9 MAR 1983

(12.

attached

CODE 18-77

CHINESE PRESS COMMENTS ON HONG KONG

1. You asked for comments on the Guangming Daily article on the 1841 Chuanbi Convention, reported in Mr Peirce's teleletter of 3 February.

#1

2. I agree with Mr Peirce's assessment of the article. The evidence adduced by the author that Qishan did not in fact sign the Convention is probably the main point which would be of interest to historians. The article nevertheless acknowledges that he had written a letter to Captain Elliott agreeing to the cession of the whole island of Hong Kong and had authorized an emissary to hand this over providing Elliott did not adopt an "intransigent attitude". The article adds that the letter was not in fact handed over because of Elliott's "extremely malevolent attitude".

Thus

3. As the article acknowledges, the Chuanbi Convention was ratified neither by the Chinese nor by the British government. I do not think that it has any relevance for legal argument bearing on the status of Hong Kong.

4. Although the article contains distortions it is a serious historical study. In present circumstances it is scarcely surprising that such articles should appear in the Chinese press. Besides the article of 19 January mentioned by Mr Peirce (in his paragraph 4), Richard Margolis (in his teleletter of 7 February) has drawn attention to one in the journal Modern Historical Research reprinted by the Hong Kong Ta Kung Pao. The author of the latter article is Ding Genan, a member of the Modern History Institute of the Academy of Social Sciences. According to a report of this article carried by the China News Agency, of which I attach a translation, this article contains some rather more offensive wording, especially in referring to resistance to the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong.

5. The content. of these articles is for the most part predictable. The appearance of at least three articles on the history of Hong Kong and Sino-British relations in the first few weeks of the year shows that the Chinese have been doing their academic groundwork and are using this to back up their more general propaganda on Hong Kong. However, the level of publicity on this subject in the Peking press is still far from high by the standards of Chinese propaganda.

4 March 1983

cc:

N J Cox Esq, FED

карачка

R P Margolis Esq, Hong Kong RN Peirce Esq, Peking

KC Walker

Far Eastern Section Research Department

G 59/4 233 3473

JJ Crowley Esq, PUSD D G Martin Esq, Cabinet Office

CONFIDENTIAL