TNAG-2289-FCO40-3293-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Basic-Law-1991 — Page 31

..plec

2.

FE Rickentf

Iow Birute. M Rickalt

RESTRICTED

Ref

32

$8.012./3.

Mr. lox münte below 6 DEC 19911991

Mr

Riordan

HKD

You asked

h

MB. In due couns

Mr Bradly and Ms Roger way well also chip in. I's not convinced that these in

HONG KONG: BASIC LAW

scape

1.

a reopening

& not

trevedens The BL to the's claudentge. The

reverting

d-elicted seat is

Kyst

we will

Please refer to your minute of 22 October.

I am not de convinced that it is necessarily true that by reverting to the Chinese about amending the Basic Law in certain aspects we run the risk of reopening other aspects detrimental to Hong Kong's

The Clearass interests. On the other hand, it is sure to provoke a confrontation with the Chinese and they will be most unwilling to entertain the notion that the Basic Law could be amended in the ways proposed. So while we will not necessarily lose anything with regard to the Basic Law, we will not necessarily gain anything either, other than a confrontation with the Chinese from which neither side will find it easy to back away with grace.

nothing.

2. One of the strongest arguments in favour of leaving the Basic Law as it is and not seeking to amend it at this stage (apart from the fact that we did, however unwillingly, agree to the numbers over representative government), is that to get it amended now to suit our interests would provide a precedent for the Chinese at any future date to re-amend it suit theirs. Just as the Joint Declaration is meant to be an internationally binding and unchanging guarantee that the Chinese will provide certain special privileges and rights for the Hong Kong SAR, so the Basic Law provides a similar guarantee in Chinese domestic law. To put the Basic Law in the position of being constantly open to amendment would considerably weaken its force as a guarantee of Hong Kong's special status. There is something to be said for such arguments, although ultimately of course the Chinese do retain to power to amend the Basic Law whenever they want through the National People's Congress. The lack of any present precedent would not necessarily inhibit them from so doing in the future. So long as those amendments were not in contravention of the Joint Declaration, it would be difficult for us to argue that they should not be made.

3. As far as the Chinese are concerned, they have given Hong Kong a very good deal. They will be unwilling to amend the Basic Law as it now stands. There is no particular reason why they should seek to add any further amendments to the Basic Law, since they do not want to amend it at all. Their reaction to any request to reopen the issue is likely to be to say that it has already been agreed between our two sides and that the Basic Law has now been passed into law and cannot now be altered in the way we wish. They might threaten to make other changes at the same time which would be less agreeable to us, but for them the main point is, I think, that the Basic Law should stand as it is now that it has been approved by the National People's Congress.

RESTRICTED