CONFIDENTIAL
2
its visit to Beijing earlier this month. Six papers commented over the weekend on Sir Edward's latest mission. The Financial Daily quoted unnamed political analysts saying that Sir Edward appeared relaxed and forthcoming. This suggested that his trip was rewarding and he might have some good news apart from taking instructions from Mrs. Thatcher. Sing Pao agreed that premature release of information would impede progress of the talks. It believed that Sir Edward would reflect Britain's position to China in his Beijing mission. Tin Tin Daily News said editorially that the absence of any optimistic remarks by the Governor might indicate that the diplomatic talks had not made any substantial progress. If this was the case, it showed that the two sides were deadlocked on the sovereignty issue; Britain should first recognise China's sovereignty claim to break the deadlock. The New Evening Post said, should the Governor take part in the talks, he would only represent Britain and not HK because after all they were Sino-British talks and not tripartite negotiations. The Express, which said he would participate as head of HK, viewed Sir Edward's reiteration that the talks must be conducted in confidence as indicative that the negotiations were more than technical discussions. The HK Times hoped HK people would support the Governor in maintaining freedom here and that he would canvass as much public opinion as possible before participating in the talks.
2.
ARTICLES ON THE LESSONS OF HOW HK WAS CEDED:
Britain was strongly criticised in an article on how HK was ceded by a history researcher of China's Academy of Social Science. The article, written by Ding Mingnan, was in the Academy's “Contemporary History Research" magazine and was quoted at length by China News Service, whose despatch was played up by the local left-wing press with the two principal communist papers, Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Pao, using it as their front page leads. The article said Britain, under its gunboat policy, occupied HK Island in the Nanking Treaty of 1842 and Kowloon Peninsula in the Beijing Treaty of 1860. Following the Sino-Janpanese War Britain forced the humiliated Qing Government to lease north Kowloon peninsula (New Territories) for 99 years under the Treaty of 1898. It described the three treaties as the criminal record of Britain's barbarous invasion of China and testimony to the Chinese people being subjected to oppression and humiliation. The CNS despatch said Ding had documented history to show Britain forced the corrupt Qing Government to sign the three unequal treaties under duress and threat as well as by invasion. The article praised Chinese people, including compatriots in HK, for putting up a long-standing struggle against Britain's occupation of HK. During the Japanese occupation of this territory in World War II, there were only Chinese people here to continue their fight against the Japanese. When Japan surrendered, Britain returned and continued its rule here. It said the era of imperalism was gone and the Chinese people had already stood up. To distort international law in order to put up a sly defence of the unequal treaties or fraudulent claims about China's foreign exchange earnings in HK would not do Britain any good or ensure its continued occupation. It was the common wish and the legitimate right of 1 000 million people in China to recover HK. There would be nothing to stop them from accomplishing this mission of the era. All three principal left-wing papers commented on the article. In a strongly-worded editorial Wen Wei Po said few compatriots in HK disputed China's sovereignty claim. Any attempt to extend the "history of invasion" would be tantamount to manipulation of public opinion.
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.