TNAG-2453-FCO40-3571-Seminar-regarding-Hong-Kong-matters-hosted-by-Douglas-Hurd---1992 — Page 62

میں

Mr Ricketts

CONFIDENTIAL

Reference

Pan Muz 07/2 Нивостр

pa

Mr. G

Thanks. Piky circumstances prevented you getting,

ikere Brin!? I me Jefore I filmitted: many of Kem and have improved He peper.

SECRETARY OF STATE'S SEMINAR ON HONG KONG

Fair Point

1. I liked the substance of your discussion paper for this occasion (your submission of 4 February) but, for the record and for future reference, was sorry to see some of the issues blurred by the use of rather tendentious language:

(a) Para 2: is it our task "to hold the ring" between the

directly-elected LegCo members and Peking? We need

The internationaft

medias He US Congress', He Labour Part

(ek).

But His is not He fill stormy hence the probleyn.

C

Don't

indestand distinction

True

rather to avoid a break-down in our own relations with either and to try to facilitate a modus vivendi between them.

(b) Para 3: what is the "gallery" to which the LegCo members

have been playing so irresponsibly? The

(c)

"Western-educated liberal elite" mentioned in your para 10 first tiret? Or the majority who "would not rate democracy above continuity"?

Para 6 2nd tiret: "how far we have pushed the Chinese". This implies that there is an equality of position between Britain and China and that give-and-take is natural: it ignores the view in Hong Kong that all these negotiations are about the Chinese demanding a better deal than they got in the JD and about Britain agreeing to greater or lesser concessions our "realistic" negotiating position. Other problems in our securing support in Hong Kong are the damage each negotaition does to British and HKG "face", whatever points of detail we may gain, and a widespread lack of confidence that HMG are defending Hong Kong's interests.

(d) Para 10 1st tiret: the Chinese have said (not "made

clear") that there is no question of amending the BL; the choice is between a through-train and more democracy unless there is significant change in Peking.

(e)

This tirel

is explicith dealing with Clegho

CODE 18-77

Same tiret: the democracy/continuity discussion is slanted. It is not entirely clear if by continuity you mean a through-train LegCo in 1997 or something much broader. Even if it is true that the coolie is generally less interested in democratisation than are the "Western-educated liberal elite", there are good reasons, in the interests of all, for trying to press ahead with it. If the post-1997 LegCo is to be a rubber-stamp I see little prospect of Hong Kong preserving its freedoms and prosperity. But it is fair to say that some businessmen disagree.

CONFIDENTIAL

NC2ABK

make clear implies an objective situation,

BIL what point, and at what price, is really the issue

"jay" is just that.

©