...............................................................................
ON THE RECORD
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC-1 DATE: 14.11.93
...............................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon.
The Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten,
travelled to London this week to seek the support of the Cabinet for the tough
stand that he's been taking in his negotiations with China. Did Mr. Patten get
the backing he wanted? I'll be asking him.
But first Hong Kong. Governor Patten's
proposals to broaden democracy in Britain's last remaining colony have hit the
proverbial brick wall - in this case the great wall of China. He's running out
of time if he's to get those proposals enacted before the Chinese take over.
If he pushes too hard he'll frighten many people in Hong Kong, but if he lets
the Chinese have their way he'll be accused of betraying the very principles
he's sworn to uphold. So what can he do without threatening the stability of
the colony? Michael Gove reports.
HUMPHRYS: Well, last week I spoke to Chris Patten,
the Governor of Hong Kong, after his talks with the British Government. I asked
him first whether he had the full backing of the Prime Minister for his
strategy.
CHRIS PATTEN: Well, we've I think, got the absolute
support of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet for the approach that we've been
taking. We want to get a deal which is reasonable. We're trying very hard to
do that and we got the endorsement of the Cabinet for that approach.
HUMPHRYS: If you can't get a deal that is
reasonable have you got the endorsement of the Cabinet to say to the Chinese,
"That's it, no more talks"?
PATTEN: Broadly speaking, that's certainly the
case. We haven't actually gone into enormous detail about what happens if
there's a complete breakdown, but the Cabinet has a very clear idea of what our
bottom line is, and if we can't get there in the time that's available, if we
can't get a deal based on that, then I'm afraid we'll have to pull the plug on
the talks, but none of us want that because we'd like a settlement if that's at
all possible. Hong Kong would like a settlement if that's possible, but I
think there is a general feeling that we can't have a settlement at any price.
HUMPHRYS: And if that proves to be the case you
won't have to come back to London again and go back to see the Cabinet and say
"Can I now tell them it's all over"? You can actually tell the Chinese on
your own authority "Sorry we can't do a deal".
PATTEN: I think it would depend when precisely
we reached that position and the circustances in which we reached it, but as
things stand at the moment if we don't make the progress that we would like in
the way that we would like, if we don't have that spirit of sincerity on both
sides of the table which is necessary for a deal, then I think the Cabinet is
pretty clear about what the consequences would be and it wouldn't be essential
for me to come back to London to explain things, but I wouldn't now like to
commit myself not coming back.
HUMPHRYS: There hasn't been much of that spirit of
sincerity has there?
PATTEN: Well, we're still negotiating and one
must still hope for the best. I think it's fair to say that after fifteen
rounds, over a hundred-and-fifty hours of discussion, we are now - and you may
say "about time too" - we are now talking about the really difficult
substantive issues, so there has been a bit of progress, not nearly as much
progress as one would have liked.
HUMPHRYS: And if you've not been able to agree on
what are the simple issues after fifteen rounds of talks, it's pretty unlikely,
indeed inconceivable, surely that you are going to agree on the complicated
issues.
PATTEN: Well it may be that the simple issues
have been left on the table by others for tactical reasons. It's not perhaps
for me to speculate too noisily (sic) progressively on that, but I very much
hope that since I think the Chinese recognise that time is passing as well as
we do, I mean the Foreign Minister Mr. Chen Che Chen (phon) has made that point
himself. Since they recognise that time isn't particularly friendly, I hope
that we can get some movement on both sides of the table, that's what it takes
frankly.
HUMPHRYS: But there is a danger in this isn't
there and that is that they are filibustering and that they are going to try to
drive you out of time?
PATTEN: Yes, some of those who comment - often
very accurately and sometimes less accurately - on the sidelines are concerned
that we are being strung along. I don't think you can think the worst of those
you are negotiating with. You have occassionally to pinch yourself but you
have to think the best until it's perfectly obvious, if it ever is, that
you are being kidded. I hope that the reason why we have taken so long in
these negotiations isn't because the Chinese are trying to string us along, but
because they find the issues very difficult and, truth to tell, the whole
enterprise is an extremely difficult one.
This is a unique enterprise, not just a
peaceful transfer of sovereignty but one which seeks to guarantee Hong Kong's
way of life, which isn't just capitalism, it's all the freedoms one would
associate with a plural society and related to that argument is this one simple
issue which, you know, I wish had been sorted out a long time ago, but it's
remained on the table. We're committed under the joint declaration to have a
legislature elected, we're committed that that legislature should be comprised
through election, nobody says fair election, but then I assume that the people
who have signed the piece of paper weren't proposing unfair elections, but what
looks like a fair election to us, clearly doesn't always look like a fair
election to the Chinese, or perhaps I should put it the other way round.
HUMPHRYS: When you talk about intensifying the
talks, intensifying the process, does that mean banging the table now?
PATTEN: It's very often said that I/we have been
banging the table. Actually we have gone on behaving with that civilised
courtesy which we would expect, but we're absolutely firm on principles and if
being firm on principles, if trying to stand up for Hong Kong, is to be
described as banging the table then so be it. I think we're doing what we
should be doing responsibly, which is trying to keep our word to the people of
Hong Kong.
HUMPHRYS: Is there no other option than simply
breaking off the talks? Could you not say, alright we can't reach agreement on
the whole broad spectrum of issues, so we are going to hold the first stage of
the elections - we're going to hold the district elections - but in the
meantime we'll keep talking?
PATTEN: You can't strip out the local elections,
the district and municipal elections, and give yourself a lot more time. It's
I'm afraid fool's gold because the real pressures on us are the timetable for
putting in place the arrangements for the legislative council elections. It is
true - which is what we're proposing - it is true that you can take out some of
the simple issues covering the ...... of council elections and the district
boards and municipal councils and get on with those, and you then have more of
an opportunity I think to crack the more difficult issues, but the logic of
so-called de-coupling the dictrict board and municipal council elections
doesn't unfortunately work on its own.
HUMPHRYS: Does it bother you that you appear not
to have the support of the legislative council now?
PATTEN: Well, I think that remains to be seen.
At the end of the day the legislative council will have to vote for or against
whatever proposals are put in front of them. The only times that the
legislative council has voted on the proposals we've put forward on political
development it's supported them by large majorities but we've always made it
clear that we couldn't go any further than the people of Hong Kong wished nor
would we want to less far. The legislative council as a democratic instrument
is, some people would argue, less than perfect....
HUMPHRYS: But it's not democratic...
PATTEN: Well, that's perfectly true. The
majority of its members are now elected, there are a number who are appointed
as well. I think, as you probably know, virtually all those who were elected
directly through geographical constituencies representing the public, either
support the approach we have been taking or would like us to go further. A
lot of the criticism has been that not that we've been too confrontational, not
that we've been too tough, but that we haven't gone far enough in pressing for
democracy.
Public opinion, insofar as one can
measure it from an endless series of polls, has been astonishingly supportive,
even when the going has been quite choppy and quite rough, when there have been
Wagnerian claps of thunder from the north, and the public have still been
absolutely solid in supporting the sort of approach we've taken. So I think
that as we get into legislation later on, the legislative council will need to
take account of that.
HUMPHRYS: Why can't you test public opinion
directly by doing what people like Emily Lou want you to do and hold a
referendum?
PATTEN: I am probably one of the few political
leaders who is opposed to holding a referendum even though I've got no doubt at
all that we'd win it hands down and I'll tell you why I am against holding a
referendum - I don't think that we can give the legislative council any excuse
for thinking it can duck out of its responibilities for dealing with the
legislation that sooner or later we'll have to put in front of it.
HUMPHRYS: But you've already said that the
legislative council isn't a democratic body.
PATTEN: It's not a wholly democratic body, it's
the only legislative council we've got and politics being the art of the
possible we have to deal with what is there and what exists. So I am against a
referendum though I recognise the force of what people like Emily say, that
public opinion measured in a referendum would probably be hugely supportive of
the sort of line that we've taken. One of the paradoxes is that I think the
core of the opposition to the proposals we've put forward is that it tends to
come from appointed members or they are the ones who are perhaps are least
enthusiastic about some of our proposals.
HUMPHRYS: Because what they are saying effectively
is - look, stop rocking the boat now. Maybe we didn't want you to do what you
did in the first place, but we let you get away with it because we want to see
what the Chinese reaction was going to be. We now know what that's going to
be. You the Governor can get up and go, the British can get up and go, we're
stuck here and we're going to be in serious trouble with the Chinese unless we
can get this thing sorted out.
PATTEN: Well, there are going to be different
pressures on us between now and 1997 and I don't think anybody should think
that things in Hong Kong will remain exactly the same, they won't, and there
will be different pressures, different tensions the closer we get to 1997 and
my own judgement is that the balance between people's aspirations will change.
On the whole what all the polls show, what anecdotal evidence suggests, is that
people in Hong Kong want three things - they want a Government which will stand
up for them in relation to Peking, Hong Kong people running Hong Kong, Hong
Kong people defending our system. Secondly, they want a bit more of a share in
determining their own future, a little more democracy but their aspirations I
have to say are extremely modest. Thirdly, perfectly reasonably, they want a
quiet life.
Some people say you can't reconcile
those aspirations, doesn't this make Hong Kong very curious, not at all.
Everywhere I have been, for example in the United Kingdom, people want things
which are irreconcilable; they want for example, lower taxes and higher public
expenditure, it's not surprising that a similar situation should exist in Hong
Kong. The fact of the matter is that at different times one of those
aspirations is more obvious than the others and I suspect that between now and
1997 we'll go through periods when people are saying to us, you're not
standing up enough for Hong Kong. If things are going to survive 1997 then
you've got to be more vigorous in defending them now. I think if we're
consistent, we'll have more authority and credibility when it comes to 1995
1996 and the run up to 1997.
I'm absolutely certain that we've got
to take as our Bible the joint declaration which was signed by both Britain and
China in the mid 1980's which seeks to describe and guarantee Hong Kong's
freedoms and way of life. If we take that as our beginning point and end
point, which I am tryng to do, I don't think we'll go far wrong, but we will go
wrong if we don't believe what we put our own names to.
HUMPHRYS: But you must surely believe that if the
Chinese wish all of that can simply be scrapped away.
PATTEN: Yes.
HUMPHRYS: So what's the point?
PATTEN: The point is first of all to try to
discharge what is our last major colonial responsibility honourably and
decently; the second thing is that we do have - while we are sovereign - we do
have to do everything we can to safeguard Hong Kong, believing, and I hope I am
right to believe this, that China is serious in its... in what it has said
about safeguarding Hong Kong as well. It should be, because Hong Kong is a
hugely precious asset, it's worth almost a fifth of China's GNP. My main worry
is that I hope we can encourage China to understand what it is that makes Hong
Kong special, what it is that has made Hong Kong such an astonishingly
successful community. It's partly, of course Shanghainese, Cantonese
entrepreneurialism, but it's also the rule of law and good clean honest
Government and those things together have produced the astonishing economic
success in Hong Kong.
HUMPHRYS: Governor Chris Patten thank you very
much.
PATTEN: Thank you.
...oooOooo...
|