more so, British government officials) to lobby on behalf of
China in this matter.
potential
not
At the meeting you pointed out the economic damage to Hong Kong if m.f.n. status were continued, and the duty of the Hong Kong government to take
steps to protect Hong Kong against that eventuality. I would
make two points to this.
Firstly, the lobbying was, I understand, for the continuation of unconditional m.f.n. treatment, without any
attached requirement that China's human rights record improve
before m.f.n. would be continued at the end of the coming
year.
The alternative proposal in Congress was for
conditional m.f.n., attached to human rights conditions. Your
view seems to assume that, if m.f.n. were conditional, China
would be certain to fail to improve her human rights record, and so m.f.n. would be ended in a year. The implication is
that you are aware that China's human rights record is bad,
and is not likely to improve. This is a view which is surely
even more worrying for the people of Hong Kong.
Secondly, you take the view that the economic damage
to Hong Kong from a loss of m.f.n. is more important that the
exerting of pressure to improve the human rights position in
China. I take the view that China's human rights record is
one of the reasons for the substantial exodus from Hong Kong at present. The corollary to this is to say that pressure on China to improve her human rights record is, in fact, for the long-term good of Hong Kong.
In any event, it now looks as if unconditional
m.f.n. will go through this year, though I suspect it will be different next year if China's human rights record does not
improve.
I certainly
dir mit
Jay this
Yours sincerely,
Phily Ody
Philip Baker
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.