TNAG-2224-FCO40-3195-Gulf-War-burden-sharing-Hong-Kong-contribution-1991 — Page 33

- 11

-

From her studies over several years of the Middle East question, Mrs. Elsie Tu was convinced that there were rights and wrongs on both sides of the war. A solution could have been found, but both sides were unwilling for their own reasons. She was fundamentally against the war and

and that coloured all her thinking on the whole question of cost. She considered that the war had far exceeded the bounds of

of the Security Council's resolution. The bombing of cities and killing of civilians were amounting to genocide. She would support donating money to the IRC or the Red Crescent but did not think the precedent should be set of taking the HK people's taxes to do that. She preferred voluntary donations to

to be made by people who wished to do so. HK's taxes could hardly provide for its own sick people and HK still had to carry the heavy burden of caring for the economic victims of the USA's war in Vietnam. She did not think that public money could be used without public agreement and therefore proposed a voluntary fund. Mrs. Tu sympathised with Mr. Martin Lee's proposal but did not think the burden should be put on the people of HK without their consent.

Mr. David Cheung

Cheung said that to reciprocate international help to HK he felt that HK had the obligation to make a contribution. $230 million would not contribute much to the cost of fighting the war, but if $230 million was available for non-military purposes, particularly relief and medical, it would be very significant. He could only agree to the contribution for the latter purposes.

MC.

Kingsley Sit noted that the chances of deferring the proposal were not good and therefore gave his views. He doubted whether it could be assumed that the majority of HK people were in support of making a war fund contribution. He noted the amended proposal but considered that logistical support meant launchers for missiles, launch racks for bombs and other ancillary uses and was therefore no different from contributing money to the war effort. He reminded Members that HK had come into being as the result of an invasion 150 years ago. HK's future had been resolved and he did not think

should

venture

into

another

HK

He

invasion because HK was the product of an invasion. did not agree that HK's lack of a contribution would generate international ill feeling, especially from the USA.

He doubted whether the USA granted the most-favoured-nation status to China primarily because of HK.

He noted that China had abstained from the Security Council resolution and considered

considered that China should be worried because it stood to lose even more if the most-favoured-nation status was not granted again.