TNAG-2709-FCO40-3915-House-of-Commons-Select-Committee-on-Foreign-Affairs-and-Par-1993 — Page 75

Frow/3915

·

or any relevant agreements or understandings, but they have

not done so. We have also said that we would welcome

alternative proposals which they believe are compatible

with the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. They have

not responded.

We have not lost sight of the importance to Hong Kong

of China's goodwill, nor have we been provocative in our

dealings with China. Had we wished to be provocative, the

Governor could have proposed an increase in the number of

directly-elected seats for LegCo in 1995. He did not do

so. He could have invited some elected representatives of

LegCo to serve on the Executive Council. He did not do so.

What he did was to formulate a set of proposals designed to

accommodate both the desire of Hong Kong people for a

moderately faster pace of constitutional development, and

the Chinese insistence that the Basic Law cannot be changed

before 1997. In short he sought to propose a reasonable

basis for a compromise, and furthermore said that he would

welcome alternative ideas. It is disappointing that the

Chinese have responded unreasonably.

You ask what we are going to do about this. As I said

in my letter of 24 March, we shall continue to work calmly

for cooperation with China to ensure the future success of

Hong Kong. The only sensible way to proceed is to sit down

together to discuss our differences, and we remain ready to

do this at any time.

DOUGLAS HURD

とい

Page 75Page 76