THE PRESS TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1989. Hong Kong’s future

Press, 11 July 1989, Page 20

THE PRESS TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1989. Hong Kong’s future

The plight of the people of Hong Kong is appalling. Outside China itself, the massacre on June 4 in Tiananmen Square, Peking, can present no greater menace than it does to the people of Hong Kong. At its starkest level the problem is that, in eight years, the People’s Liberation Army will be in charge of Hong Kong. The recent events in China represent a form a barbarism to a people who live in a territory much of which has been under British rule for the last 150 years. What will be the fate of the 5.7 million people who now make up the population of Hong Kong? Britain and China agreed in 1984 that Hong Kong would revert to China on July 1, 1997. The two countries had been negotiating since 1982. Britain had acquired Hong Kong from China in three stages: Hong Kong Island through the Treaty of Nanking in 1842; Kowloon Peninsula through the Convention of Peking in 1860; and the New Territories, comprising a mainland area and 235 adjacent islands, through a 99-year lease arrangement in the Second Convention of Peking in 1898. This meant that most of the land area of Hong Kong was due to revert to China by 1997. Hong Kong Island and Kowloon Peninsula were, in theory, British in perpetuity. Under the Chinese-British declaration in 1984 all the territories were to be returned to China. The massacre offended against a host of norms of accepted international behaviour. To the people of Hong Kong the most obvious offences included the brutality by the military, the loss of human rights, the lack of any reliable jurisdiction, and the absolute disregard of any pretence of press freedom. Events since the massacre include the encouragement given to families to report on any member of the family supporting the demonstrations, and the use of the State apparatus to control not only the actions but the thinking of the people of China. For people accustomed to the British system of justice the prospect that they would come to be governed by the country which has just indulged in such activities cannot fail to be frightening. The right of Hong Kong citizens to live in Britain was lost in 1962. Of the present population of Hong Kong, possibly about 3.6 million could claim to have been born in Hong Kong and to be British citizens. The British Government has ruled out any possibility that it would relax its rules to allow immigration. However, many British people and newspapers are showing great concern for the people of Hong Kong and are urging the. British Government to give them right of abode. ' No Government can view the prospect of throwing open its doors to five million or even-, three million people without alarm. Some’ people who favour a relaxation in Britain’s rules argue that nothing like such a

number would want to emigrate to Britain. Britain is unsure about this. Its latest suggestion is that, since a British passport will soon mean an entitlement to settle anywhere in the European Community, the problem should be a European one. Britain’s European Community partners, many of which are somewhat sceptical of Britain’s commitment to the Community, will regard this idea as interpreting the 1992 single market concept in a remarkable way. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, visited Hong Kong at the beginning of July, but he was unable to say much that Hong Kong people found reassuring. He talked of the need for the international community to “rally round Hong Kong.” He promised action on a Bill of Rights for Hong Kong people. How the adherence to such a Bill of Rights could be monitored is difficult to say. Britain is itself subject to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and in any event could be expected to put forward a liberal and humanitarian document; but it is improbable that the United Nations will be allowed to monitor China after 1997 to ascertain how well a law is being observed. Suggestions have been made to the British Government that it abandon the 1984 agreement to hand Hong Kong back to China in 1997. At the time of the signing of the agreement it seemed that China was slowly coming to adopt reasonably enlightened policies. Such agreements as the one made between China and Britain in 1984 are based on trust. Whatever the attitude of the British Government towards trust now, there is good reason to believe that the people of Hong Kong will have little trust in China and it is they, not the Government of Britain, who will have to live under the rule of China. Sir Geoffrey Howe said in Hong Kong that the 1984 declaration, and its prospect of the greatest possible autonomy remained the best foundation for Hong Kong’s future. Presumably his argument is that, if Hong Kong does not revert to China Under the 1984 agreement and its safeguards, whatever they are worth, China will simply take Hong Kong back and the people of Hong Kong will have no safeguards in any case. One of the most practical suggestions is that the establishment of democratic institutions within Hong Kong should be speeded up. This might give rise to the hope that Hong Kong will be left alone by China because of its usefulness to China’s economy. However, China might not regard the establishment of a full-blown democratic system with favour. After all, the cry of the students in Tiananmen Square was for democracy. They meant something different from what the people of Hong Kong would mean, but the present Chinese Government is not given to fine distinctions.