There were other newspaper items in similar style in the following
weeks, but the most explicit statement on the position of Hong Kong came
in
an article by the People's Daily "Commentator" entitled "Hong Kong is
Chinese Territory", published on 20 August 1967. This rejected claims,
allegedly being made in the Hong Kong press and radio, that Hong Kong
was British territory.
IŲ L
Hong Kong has been Chinese
+
territory from time immemorial.This is known all over the world.More
than a hundred years ago, British imperial -ists sailed to China in
theiypirate ships and unleashed the criminal Opium War in which they
massacred countless Chinose people and,morcover forcibly occupied our
territory of Hong Kong.This was followed by their annexation of our
Kowloon and' the seizure of our New Territories. This is a heavy debt in
blood which British imperialism owes to the Chinese people. The Chinese
people will sooner.or lator completely settle this account with British
imperialism." "Commentator" also asked : "Is it conceivable that Hong
Kong will for ever remain under British rule?" replied, "Of course not,
a thousand times no, ten thousand times no!"
6)
and
"Commentator" repeated some of these themes in another article on
"Baring British Imperialism's Crafty Features", which appeared on 21
August, but thereafter, references to the Hong Kong disputo became less
and less frequent and were usually confined to details of specific
"struggles" carried out by the "patriotic' compatriots." As far as wo.
can trace, the Chinoso do not appear to have referred to the status of
Hong Kong nor to its eventual takeover by China until Chou En-lai did so
with Kalcon KacDonald,
+
22 September 1971.
+
ཀ་ཨྠ བར
RESTRICATI
+
J. Hoare
Far Eastern Section, Research Department.
+
入
+
C
Sir M MacLehose
انا
UNCLASSIFIED
P
B
FRANK ROBERTSON'S ARTICLE ON HONG KONG : DAILY TELEGRAPH
14 OCTOBER 1971
1. We have consulted Research Department about your question. They do
not have full records of all NONA pronouncements on Hong Kong but are
reasonably certain that no such sentiments have been published in XCHA
since 1969. ir Davies who studied NCNA daily in Peking since the
beginning of 1969 confirms this.
2.
From the tone of the passage quoted it seems likely to date from 1967 or
1968. Recently NCNA has even taken to wentioning "the Hong Kong British
authorities" in straight- forward news items from Hong Kon;. The most
recent example of this was a report of attendance at National Day
cele.rations in Hong Kong. The passage quoted Ly Frank Robertson is
therefore far from being typical at present.
+
18 October 1971
R.b. horson
t
Crowson
Far Eastern Department
L
+
This is
i
reassuring.
definition of It C. R. G's attituck
It C. P. G's attituck
but Mi Riterton
trowds H.K..
refeiring
t
I thought this
ttt
Hy ky
• Macan
fritler lift
for the past
which would to settled of mystiction when the tim
NJA
itt until then the status quo. wild to mintirid.
right then as such is stteant must recyth maky
ल् wife ht
UNCLASSIFIED CMM. The
म
* J.
?
19/10.
Z
¡
"
I
PP
-
+
·
I
RA
+
F
DAILY TELEGRAPH
14 OCT 1971
Colony in the dragon's mouth
FRANK ROBERTSON considers Hongkong's future and the tregties that
created it
IR DAVID TRENCH'S 14. as
Stirement next wees
Governor of Hongkong marks the end of an era, for he was the last
oficial ap pointed to this post by the former Colonial Office. Sir
Murray Maclchose, his suc- cessor, is a carcer Foreign Office man with
China service.
At this turning-paint, how does the future of Britain's last important
colony look? Whule 'vast new long-range investment projects, both public
and private, are being avidly under written, Hongkong's money men know
well that they can enjoy their remarkable prosperity only so long as
China wills it.
For Peking, fervidly jealous of all its prerogatives, regards the
British colony as Chinese territory which sooner or later must revert to
the homeland, *Sooner or later? There's the crux of the astonishing Kong
kong gamble.
The colony's legal position is regulated by three treaties, all regarded
by
Peking "unequal" and therefore not binding. The first of these, sigued
under the mouth of British guns at Nanking by Manchu oficials in 1842,
slates:
It being obviously necessary and desirablo that British gubi 1 Jerta
"should have same Port whereat they may careen and refil their Ships,
when To quired, and keep Stores for That purpose, His Majesty the
Emperor of China redes to Rer Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, eir,
the Island of Ilone kong, to be possessed in neg petuity by lier
Britannic Majesty, Her leirs and Suc
Cossory
+
+ +
This dealt only with long kong Island. In 1860 the Con+ vention of
Peking was signed, granting Britain the tip of Kow- Joon Peninsula on
the facing 'mainland-needed to ensure the Now of supplies from China,
and to control pirates operaling
· from that side of the port.
On June 2, 1838, a second convention was signed in Peking I came into
force on July 1. 1898) extending British terntory on the mainland, and
to outlying islands, under lease for 99 years. These are the New
Territories which should revert to China on June 30, 1997.
Without these added lands lfongkong's four million (a Agure that
presumably will be Increased greatly by 1997) would
he forced to live in an Impos sibly restricted area.
More than that, the colony would Jose much of its reservoir water
supply, most of the northern side of the narrow harbour would be in
potentially national airport might well ba hostile hands, and even the
inter claimed by China.
Clearly China can strangle Hongkong quickly and quite legally in 1997.
But will Peking act before then? Every couple of years the Chinese
restate their attitude towards Hongkong.
•
10
Peking People's Daily said: In the last such reference the
territory since "inngkong has been Chinese ancient times. This is fact
known to every: bady in the world, old and young. More than a century
ago British imperialism camē China in pirate ships and pro- raked the
criminal opium war." massacred Numerous people and occupied the Chinese
Chinese
territory of Hongkong ... This is an enomnious blood debt British
imperialism owes to the Clunese people. Sooner or later the Chinese
people will make a thorough-going liquidation of this debt."
Declining role
Cerlainly Peking is still mak. ing a lot of money from long- kong, bul,
is being rapidly opened up to now that China
direct foreign trade, this is: hecoining less important to the mainland.
་
H
correct.
Ists always seek pretexis to Since the Chinese Commun. justify, for
their party history books, the political ness of any major political
action, in Hongkong's case they would certainly claim inistreat- ment of
the colony's Chinese subjects.
Not that Peking really needs to justify action against the colony, for
the Chinese know United States would try to That neither Britain nor the
defend Hongkong.
kong's prospects by the Honver An American study of Hong- Institution of
Stanford Univer sily has predicled that China could move against the
colony predicated on the basis of a as early as 1974, but this is
violent power struggle following the death of Chairman Mao.
kong are disturbed by such pre- If the money men of Hong dictions of
disaster they are careful not to show it.
H
6 6. d
Is this
recont
A
7
·
tyj
reference
Ethitha 16/10
1
L
RESTRICTED
Reference...
L
4
·
Mr Davies, Far Eastern Department.
CHINA/HONKONG
1) As you are aware, the Chinese regard llong Kong as part of China, and
refer to the "compatriota" of Hong Kong. Specific references to the
status of Hong Kong are, however, few.
2) On 8 March 1963, the People's Daily published an editorial entitled
"Comment on the Statement of the Communist Party of the U.S.A." Although
nominally directed at the American Communist Party, this was in fact a
reply to Khruschev's attacks on the Chinese position over the Cuban
crisis. Khruschev, in the course of his attacks, had made somewhat
disparaging references to China's failure to and the colonial status of
Hong Kong and Macao. The Chinese in reply, stated that: "With regard to
the outstanding issues, which are a legacy from the past, we have always
held that, when conditions are ripe, they should be settled peacefully
through negotiations and that, pending a Bettlement, the status quo
should be maintained. Within this category are the questions of Hong
Kong, Kowloon and Kacao...
3) Although Soviet propaganda occasionally returned to the subject of
Hong Kong and liacao in subsequent years, the Chinese do not appear to
have paid much attention to such references. However, the Chinese
delegation to the World Youth Forum held in Moscow in September 1964 did
protest strongly at a resolution which called for the independence of
various Asian colonial territories, and included Hong Kong and Kacao in
the list of such territories. The Chinese insisted that Hong Kong and
Macao were different from the other colonies because they were Chinese
territory, taken by unequal treaties.
4)
During the disturbances in Hong Kong in the qummer of 1967, there were
several Chinese references to the position of the colony. While these
were often delivered in somewhat militant language, they seemod to
indicate, at least obliquly, that the 1963 statement in the People's
Daily still hold good. Thus a Teople's Daily editorial of 3 June 1967
called upon the
patriotic compatriots" of Hong Kong to unite against "British
imperialism". It went on :- "The fate of Hong Kong will be decided by
the patriotic compatriots there, by the 700 million Chinese people,
absolutely not by decadent British imperialism." Šimilar sentiments were
expressed by Chi Pen-yu, then a member of the Cultural Revolution Group
under the Central Committee,at a meeting of the Afro-Asian Writers
'Bureau on 5 June. He also said, as a warning to British imperialism,
that "The old debt you owe us for launching the dirty Opium War and
forcibly occupying Hong Kong by taking advantage of the corruption in
the Ching court is not yet repaid."
L
RESTRICTED
+
/ 5)
1
P
:
5)
RESTRICTED
There were other newspaper items in similar style in the following
weeks, but the most explicit statement on the position of Hong Kong came
in
an article by the People's Daily "Commentator" entitled "Hong Kong is
Chinese Territory" August 1967. This rejected claims, allegedly being
made
published on 20 in the Hong Kong press and radio, that Hong Kong was
British territory.
4
"Hong Kong has been Chinese-·
territory from time immemorial. This is known all over the world.More
than a hundred years ago, British imperial -iats sailed to China in
theippirate ships and unleashed the criminal
Opium War in which they nassacred- countless Chinese people and,norcover
forcibly occupied our territory of Hong Kong. This was followed by their
annexation of our Kowloon and'the seizure of our New Territories.This is
a heavy debt in blood which: Britishı imperialion owes to the Chinese
peopl The Chinese people will sooner.or
later completely settle this account with British imperialism."
"Commentator" also asked : "Is it conceivable that Hong Kong will for
ever remain under British rulo?", and replied, "Of course not, a
thousand times no,ten thousand times no!"
became
6) "Commentator" repeated some of these themes in another article on
"Baring British Imperialism's Crafty Features", which appeared on 21
August, but thereafter, references to the Hong Kong dispute less and
loss frequent and were usually confined to details of specific
"struggles" carried out by the "patriotic' compatriots." As far as we
can trace, the Chinoso do not appear to have referred to the statua of
Hong Kong nor to its oventual takeovor by China until Chou En-lai did so
with Halcom MacDonald.
22 September 1971.
L
Klizare.
J. E Hoare
Far Eastern Section, Research Department.
·
+
"
RESTRICTED
4
+
PRIN PITY CYPHER CAT A
FM PEKING 220400Z
CONFIDENTIAL.
CONFIDENTIAL
TOP CUP
L
R
จ
TO PRIORITY FCO TELNO 1094 OF 22 OCTOBER INFO PRIORITY HONG KONG.
YOUR TELNO 7501 FUTURE OF HONG KONG.
FEH 2/2
1.
I HAVE SPOKEN TO MR MACDONALD WHO SAYS THAT HE DOES NOT
WISH TO INCLUDE THE STATEMENT AS IT STANDS AND ASCRIBE IT TO CHOU
EN-LAI AS HIS MEETING WAS OF AN ENTIRELY PRIVATE CHARACTER AND HE
HE WILL. IS SURE THAT THE PREMIER WOULD NOT WISH TO BE QUOTED,
HOWEVER, INCLUDE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE STATEMENT AND SAY THAT HE
CONSIDERS THIS IS THE ATTITUDE OF THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT.
DENSON
[REPEATED TO HONG KONG]
FILES:
FED
HKD
DTGD
PS
PS TO MR. ROYLE
SIR L. KONSON
JIR S. TOMLINSON MR. VILFORD
+
CONFIDENTIAL
+
7
I
E
INDIATE
CYPHER/CAT A
CONFIDENTIAL
FM FCO 291645Z
+
[FCH 2/2]
+
1
1
6
CONFIDENTIAL
TO IMMEDIATE PEKING TELEGRAM NUMBER 753 OF 20 OCTOBER INFO HỒNG KÔNG.
YOUR TELEGRAM NO. 1976: FUTURE OF HONG KONG.
1. PLEASE PUT IT TO MR MALCOLM MACDONALD THAT WE WOULD SEE CONSIDERABLE
ADVANTAGE IF HE COULD INCLUDE IN HIS ARTICLE FOR THE SUNDAY TIMES CHOU
EN-LAI'S STATEMENT THAT CHINA HAD NO INTENTION OF SEEKING TO GET BACK
HONG KONG UNTIL THE EXPIRY OF THE NEW TERRITORIES LEASE**.
2. MR MACDONALD WILL NO DOUBT BE ABLE TO ASSESS WHETHER ITS INCLUSION
WOULD CAUSE ANY OFFENCE TO CHOU EN-LAT.
DOUGLAS-HONE
FILES
FED
HND
JIR I KADUN SIR S TOMLINSON PS TO MA. ROYLE
CONFIDENTIAL
Registry No.
DEPARTMENT
FED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
Top Secret JALM
Secret
Confidential
Restricted
Unclassified
PRIORITY MARKINGS
(Date)
Despatched
20/13/immed late.
Routine
* Date and time (G.M.T.) telegram should
reach addressct(s).
20/10/1
1944
ER
CONFIDENTIAL 2016452
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIÍ
PRIVACY MARKING
In Confidence
En Clair.
[Cypher
Draft Telegramlo:-
PEKING
No.750 (Date) 20/10
And to:-
ation]
'Security classification' -if any
[ Privacy marking
[Codeword-if any]
1
PEKING
Addressed to
telegram No.
720 (date)
2040
And to
HONG KONG
Repeat to:-
HONG KONG
Saving to:-
HKD
repeated for information to
Saving to
BALLIA LLOGA
YOUR TELEGRAM NO 1076: FUTURE OF HONG KONG
1. Please put it to Mr Malcolm MacDonald that we would
see considerable advantage if he could include in his
article for the Sunday Times Chou En-lai's statement that
China had no intention of seeking to get back Hong Kong
until the expiry of the New Territories Lease".
2. Mr MacDonald will no doubt be able to assess whether
its inclusion would cause any offence to Chou En-lai.
20
Mwv.2%
V.
Distribution:-
FILES Sil Monu
FED
Su S, Torben
P.S. BS/Mhhop
Copies to:-
[Si M. Machahma
wruns]
1648948748
CONFIDENTIAL
x
ર
enter & fex
S.M
Mr sixford
221√
CONFIDENTIAL
Sir S Tomlinsonlarina
in Marya
Могда
I agree that
Azi ei
A very
important statement. R. Marthe home R.M. Marthe home + H. K
10
Mr Logan
A
1.
will b
FEH 2/2
AR
THE FUTURE OF HONG KONG
Peking telegram No 1076 reports that Chou En-lai
told Mr Malcolm MacDonald that
"China had no intention of seeking to get Hong Kong
back until the expiry of the New Territories Lease."
2. This is the first such categorical statement by any
Chinese leader that their attitude to the future of Hong
Kong is linked to the Lease.
3.
While theoretically it could be argued that this would
leave it open to the Chinese to prolong the Lease, in my view
it is more probable that the Chinese would feel themselves
obliged to take possession of the Colony. This is, of course,
on the assumption that the Chinese leadership at that time
had the same basic policy as at present.
19 October 1971
Copies to:
SALMugan
J A L Morgan
Far
Eastern Department
This is a very important state wit
Private Secretary But everything
Mr Daunt
Sir L Monson
Hong Kong Dept
Sir M MacLehose
But everything will repaid upon Govt wilt which we
China
the sevk of
reaking in
the date for the Tammistion
Ки
of the lease approves Ker
CONFIDENTIAL
laatu. H.R.
مواد
CYFHER/CAT A
L
EK PERING
CONFIDENTLİL
1908302
CONFIDENTIAL
TO IMMEDIATE FCO TELNO. 1076 OF 19 OCTOBER.
PERSONAL FOR WILFORD FROM DENSON
L
MY TELNO. 1875:
1075 MR MACDONAL'S MEETING WITH CHOU EN-LAI
L
+
1.
MR MACDONALD HAS GIVEN ME A FULLER ACCOUNT THAN THAT RECORDED IN HIS
TELEGRAM TO JOHN MORGAN (WHOM I DISCOVER ON CHECKING WILL STILL BE OUT
OF THE OFFICE). CHOU EN-LAI INDICATED THAT THE CHINESE THOUGHT THAT IN
MAINTAINING THAT THE STATUS OF TAIWANI WAS UNDETERMINED WE MIGHT (A)
WISH TO BE FREE TO RECOGNISE AN QUOTE INDEPENDENT UNQUOTE TAIWAN WHICH
MIGHT BE SET UP BY THE US AND JAPAN AFTER THE EXPULSION OF THE
NATIONALISTS FROM THE UN SEMICOLON (B) WE MIGHT FEAR THAT IF WE
ACKNOWLEDGED CHINA'S SOVEREIGNTY OVER TA
IWAN THIS WOULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE STANDING OF HONG KONG. CHOU SAID
EMPHATICALLY THAT THERE WAS NO, REPEAT NO, PARALLEL TO BE DRAWN BETWEEN
TAIWAN AND HONG KONG.
CHINA HAD NO INTENTION OF SEEKING TO
GET HONG KONG BACK UNTIL THE EXPIRY OF THE NEW TERRITORIES LEASE. MR
MACDONALD SAID SPEAKING PERSONALLY THAT HE DID NOT THINK THAT CHINA'S
FEARS ABOUT OUR POSSIBLE FUTURE ATTITUDE TO TAIWAN WERE JUSTIFIED AND
ALSO DISCOUNTED ANY CONNECTION IN BRITISH MINDS BETWEEN THE POSITION OF
TAIWAN AND HONG KONG.
2. MR MACDONALD GAVE AS HIS STRONG PERSONAL ADVICE THAT THE CHINESE
SHOULD GO AHEAD ON THE BASIS OF THE AGREEMENT SO FAR REACHED. THIS KOULD
HAVE SEVERAL ADVANTAGES FOR CHINA IF THE ANNOUNCEMENT WERE MADE IN THE
COURSE OF THE NEXT FEW DAYS WHILE THE UN DEBATE WAS STILL IN PROGRESS.
THE SWITCH OF THE VOTE AND WITHDRAWAL OF OUR CONSULATE WHILE THE
ASSEMBLY WAS IN SESSION WOULD HAVE A POWERFUL
CONFIDENTIAL
/ EFFECT
CONFIDENTIAL
EFFECT ON OPINION WITHIN THE UN WHICH COULD ONLY WORK TO CHINA'S
ADVANTAGE. IT WOULD REPRESENT A SERIOUS BLOW TO TAIWAN'S CLAIM TO
REPRESENT THE WHOLE OF CHINA AND AGAIN SPEAKING PERSONALLY HE DID
NOT THINK THAT HAVING REMOVED THE CONSULATE THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT WOULD
EVER THINK OF SEIDING IT BACK AGAIN.
P
3. I THINK THE LINE MR MACDONALD TOOK WAS MOST HELPFUL. LET US
HOPE IT WILL DO THE TRICK, IT IS NOW UP TO THE CHINESE TO SUMMON ME
AGAIN AND I SEE NO ADVANTAGE IN OUR MAKING ANY MOVE BEFORE THEN.
IF AT THE NEXT MEETING THEY MAKE ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO GET US TO CHANGE
OUR POSITION OR TO GIVE THE SORT OF PRIVATE ASSURANCE WHICH IT WILL NOT
BE IN OUR POWER TO HONOUR, E.G. THAT WE WILL SAY NOTHING IN
PUBLIC ABOUT OUR LEGAL VIEW, I ASSUME THAT YOU WOULD WISH ME TO TAKE A
VERY ROBUST LINE, TO DEPLORE WHAT APPEARS TO BE A HARDENING IN THE
CHINESE POSITION SINCE THE LAST MEETING AND TO'URGE SETTLEMENT ON THE
PRESENT TERMS. IF THE CHINESE RAISE THE QUESTION OF WHAT OUR ATTITUDE
WOULD BE TOWARDS AN INDEPENDANT TAIWAN I COULD
REPLY THAT THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION BUT I WOULD
RAISE THE MATTER WITH YOU. WOULD WE IN FACT BE PREPARED TO GIVE WIY
INDICATION OF WHAT OUR POSITION NIGHT BE? THE QUESTION OF INDEPENDENCE
IS A MATTER WHICH S CLEARLY VERY WORRYING TO THE CHINESE. A POINT I
COULD MAKE TO THE CHINESE IS THAT IF THE TALKS BREAK DOWN, WE SHALL BE
OBLIGED TO INFORM PARLIAMENT AND THAT THE QUESTION OF THE STATUS OF
TAIWAN IS BOUND TO COME UP. THIS MAY HAVE THE EFFECT OF AIRING THE IDEA
OF AN INDEPENDENT TAIWAN EVEN IF IT IS NOT INTENDED TO, WHICH IS
PRECISELY WHAT THE CHINESE WANT TO AVOID.
SEXSON
DEPARTMENTAL DISTRIBUTION:
FED
BAX DEPT
FLANKING STAFF RES DEFT (FE SEC)
UID(ODA)
POD
1
CONFIDENTIAL
J
UNCLASSIFIED
-UNCLANSIRIED
4
Sir MoLohose
Desp. 19/10
! FEM 2/2
PRALA RO" KTSON'S ARTICLE ON HONG KONG : DAILY T 1GRAPH
14 OCTOBKA 1971
:
1. We have consulted Research Department about your question. They do
not have full records of all NCNA pronouncements on liong Kong but are
reasonably certain that no such sentiments have been published in NCNA
since 1969. Mr Davies who studied KCNA daily in Peking since the
beginning of 1969 confirms this.
2.
From the tone of the passage quoted it seems likely to date from 1967 or
1968. Recently NOWA has even taken to Zentioning "the Hong Kong British
authorities" in straight- forward news itens from Hong Kong. The most
recent example of this was a report of attendance at National Day
celebratione in Hong Kong. The passage quoted by Frank Robertson is
therefore far from being typical at present.
18 October 1971
R Crowson
Far Eastern Department
UNCLASSIFIED
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.