B
in the territory (The Times' piece of 12 August about which the Secretary of State expressed concern), we were not asked what our position was - that being known but whether we were maintaining it. In responding, we tried to strike the balance between not overstating our objective, and having it reported that our resolve was weakening as a result of Chinese pressure.
5. The Wiggham speech (attached), made on 14 August, described the potential PLA presence in Hong Kong after 1997 as "a subject of -
great anxiety among the population". It went on to say that the question needed to be addressed as to whether there was a need for the PLA to be stationed in Hong Kong in time of peace. Wiggham, in raising such questions, said that he hoped to "contribute to the
current discussion on the draft Basic Law."
6. His language seems carefully chosen. He does not, for instance, do more than ask questions; and makes clear that responsibility for drafting the Basic Law rests with the Chinese. There appears to be nothing in the speech which could sustain the Chinese charge that
it is a violation of the Joint Declaration.
с
UA
D
7. This charge was, however, made by the People's Daily on
21 August. Mr Maude responded on the BBC World Service the same day (transcript attached). This has elicited favourable comment in eg. The Daily Telegraph (leader of 22 August). Meanwhile, Peking have suggested a press line to take account of these developments (Peking
telno 1563, attached).
8.
The only element in Mr Wiggham's speech which had not previously
been made in public was the comment that certain parts of the Basic Law might not accurately reflect the Joint Declaration. The Chinese
have not however picked up that point.
9.
Hong Kong Department have seen this minute in draft.
JD K Grant ·
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.