No.
How
eventually conceded in the Basic Law. The Chinese could pick on this phrase to help their case that we have turned our back on the BL etc. I do not know what exactly to suggest instead - "outline"?
4. The commitments to continued cooperation in paragraph 9 are essential. I wonder if they might not be strengthened. Part of the propaganda campaign that is likely to follow any breakdown of the talks will be to fix the blame for any future non cooperation, and consequent harm for Hong Kong, on the other side. We should perhaps make as firm a commitment as we can to the principle of continued cooperation with the Chinese.
5. Is there room somewhere in the introduction for some elaboration of our (and HKG's) commitment to the interests of Hong Kong. Perhaps to counter the arguments that the Chinese will put that these constitutional proposals are all a British trick designed to destabilise Hong Kong, prolong British influence after 1997 and so on. I would not suggest answering such criticisms directly but we should be trying to show that we have the interests of Hong Kong, rather than a selfish British interest, at hear when putting forward the proposals and arguing them with the Chinese.
6. On reading through Part 1 again, I was struck by the speed with which the constitutional development in Hong Kong in the years prior to 1984 was dealt with. Admittedly there was very little of it, but it is a period for which we are answerable. One of the questions that constantly recurs about our handling of the democracy issue is why did we leave it so late in the day to bring it to prominence. It is a difficult question to answer and most of the reasons are given in the introductory paragraphs, but it still strikes me as a rather blunt presentation.
This White Paper is likely to be the last major document on constitutional issues that we produce, it will in effect be HMG's defence of its record over democratic development in Hong Kong. It might be worth considering whether or not it would be sensible to add to the sections explaining our attitude on two key questions: why was independence never considered a a realistic option for Hong Kong (this is stated in paragraph one but not really argued) and why did democracy come so late.
7.
Paragraph 14 deals with the 1985 White Paper. I think it would be helpful again if it could explain the thinking behind why we introduced the concepts of functional constituencies and an electoral college. Not all readers of the White Paper will be that familiar with the concepts. As you know the Chinese have argued that the limited franchise they contain was our idea in the first place and we should stick with it. The paper needs at some stage to counter that argument.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.