TNAG-1307-FCO40-1664-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1984 — Page 22

what I hear, our negotiators are split into the diplomats

and the others. The diplomats being pidgeons (you don't eat

doves but you do eat pidgeons!) and the others being hawks. The

diplomats main argument is that we must willy nilly trust the

Chinese and we must get in our ideas before the September

deadline and it is better, therefore, to negotiate quickly

rather than stall so that the seminal ideas are planted in the

Chinese minds before they announce their unilateral decision.

And under no circumstances can we risk confrontation.

The hawks say that even if one believes in the good faith of

the Chinese Government, one must act as if one cannot trust the

Chinese Government. Many of us living here remember being in

Shanghai, when, in 1949 various promises were made which had

all been broken one year later. Many of us living here

travelled in China for years through all the many campaigns and

experienced the incredible political and idealogical reversals

engendered by these campaigns (it is in the nature of dictatorships

to change suddenly and violently). The hawk's advice is to

negotiate slowly, risk confrontation, and do not conclude any

kind of agreement unless there are outside guarantees.

I think now is the time to stop negotiations and wait for the

Chinese unilateral announcement. When this is available a

referendum must be held in Hong Kong under Commonwealth or

United Nations supervision with all identity card holders being

eligible to vote, which should give three choices:

1.

The Chinese unilateral solution

2. The status quo

3.

An independent Hong Kong on the model of Singapore.