TNAG-2702-FCO40-3908-Memoirs-of-Sir-Percy-Cradock--diplomat-and-sinologist-1993 — Page 28

informed analyst and historian, indicated the kind of

doubts that arose. The reasoning behind the treaty, it was

admitted, was impeccable; but, illogically, the question

recurred, could not some other solution have been found?

These misgivings, stemming from the fact of the

lease and the nature of the Peking government, were

aggravated by the painful history of nationality

legislation and the removal, in 1962, of the right of any

Hong Kong residents to settle in Britain. The hard

political reality, that no British

government could

contemplate as immigrants the numbers involved, was in

practical terms a complete answer. But again there was the

nagging doubt, perhaps we should have done more. Perhaps

the territory had to be handed back, but not the people.

Communist

There was also a belated sense of guilt over the

failure to introduce democracy to Hong Kong well before the

negotiations and an exaggerated claim for its efficacy as a

defence against

encroachments. What was

overlooked was its inefficacy if it merely provoked a

backlash, and the certain hostility of the reaction from

Peking in the years after the Communist take-over in 1949 to

any moves toward more popular government in the colony. The

Chinese had made it plain enough to us and their contacts in

Hong Kong that moves towards self-government would be seen

by them as steps along the normal colonial road towards

independence and would therefore be out of the question.

Talk now of democratic opportunities missed in the 1960s

and 1970s is therefore unreal. It is also worth noting how

رنا