|
|
CHINA: No Regrets
By Margaret Thatcher
Hoover honorary fellow Margaret Thatcher wonders whether she did the right thing when she signed the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, under the terms of which Hong Kong reverted to Chinese rule. She doesn't wonder long.
I am not naturally given to raking over past events and decisions. But now
that China has resumed control of Hong Kong, I may permit myself the
thought: Did I and Britain do the right thing when, in December 1984, I put
my name to the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which established the
framework for Hong Kong's future? Yet I do not think I shall ponder long.
For, with all the qualifications allowed by hindsight and with all the
inevitable uncertainty about how events will evolve, I believe that the
answer is undoubtedly "yes."
Beating Retreat
Of course, I would have much preferred that this British Dependent
Territory, like dozens of other such territories, should have been given
full independence to pursue its own destiny. But this was simply not an
option, any more than continued British rule was an option. China's leaders
1 template="Digest"
had made it clear that in 1997 they would resume control over Hong
Kong--both the lands held by the ninety-nine-year lease, which applies to
some 93 percent of the total territory, and Hong Kong Island, which
Britain has held in full sovereignty. Indeed, the Chinese had said that they
would resume control by force if necessary.
Moreover, the business community of Hong Kong was anxious that, in
order to underpin vital confidence, Britain should reach agreement with
China about Hong Kong's future well before then. Otherwise, no new leases
for Hong Kong development would have been granted after 1982. So it is
not surprising that the business community insisted that we should
engage the Chinese authorities in early discussions. This, then, was the
background to the two years of intense negotiations that followed my
meetings in Beijing with Zhao Ziyang and Deng Xiaoping in September
1982.
Successful diplomacy predicates both a realistic understanding of
the possibilities and a single-minded determination to maximize one's
advantages. Judged by these criteria, I believe that our negotiations were
successful. The results took shape in the form of undertakings given by
China in the Joint Declaration. The Chinese--solemnly, in an international
treaty--undertook that Hong Kong would continue to enjoy a high degree of
autonomy. It would have its own government comprising local inhabitants,
would retain its social and economic systems, and would keep its common
law and independent judiciary with its own Court of Final Appeal.
Fundamental freedoms such as free speech, a free press, free assembly,
free association, and freedom of religious belief would be secured. And all
these (and other) terms of the Joint Declaration would apply for 50 years.
Naturally, it would be naive to imagine that simply because
assurances are set out on paper they will be honored. The politicians in
Beijing, who show such little regard for the basic freedoms of their own
dissidents, like Wei Jingsheng and Wang Dan, are suspicious of the liberal
political and economic system of Hong Kong. But, that said, the Chinese
government does have a very strong practical interest in ensuring that
Hong Kong remains successful. After all, Hong Kong is nowadays the
world's seventh-largest trading entity, fifth-largest banking center, and
busiest container port. Hong Kong is also the source of some 60 percent of
all external investment in China and is China's second-largest trading
partner. It provides China with a highly efficient channel of contact with
international markets. It is, in short, an indispensable element in the
emergence of China as a major force on the global economic scene. I
believe that the government of China does understand the economic
benefits that Hong Kong brings. But I am less sure that it understands all
the political conditions required in order to continue those benefits.
This, I suppose, is understandable. The Chinese quasimarket
economy, at once creative and chaotic, has not been accompanied by a rule
of law, nor by sound administration nor property rights nor full personal
freedoms. By contrast, Hong Kong's developed market economy--its gross
domestic product is, remember, equivalent to 21 percent of China's and its
GDP per head higher than Canada's--is crucially dependent on a free way of
life continuing. Hong Kong's is a highly sophisticated, heavily
international economy, and those who make it function so successfully are
as sensitive to the prevailing political conditions as to the economic. Thus
every time that the Chinese issue statements that seem to cast doubt on
the undertakings given in the Joint Declaration they risk jeopardizing Hong
Kong's confidence. China's proclaimed intention of dismantling Hong
Kong's elected legislature is particularly short-sighted. China will need to
proceed with prudence and with due regard to the opinions and feelings of
the local population if Beijing is to make a success of the formula of "one
country, two systems."
The wider international community is also involved in Hong Kong's
future, however much some of the old guard in China bristle at the
thought. The Sino-British Joint Declaration is an international treaty.
China's willingness to honor it will rightly be seen as an important
indicator of its wider future intentions in the region. A China that could
not adjust to the requirements of a flourishing Hong Kong would inevitably
be seen as a trading risk and a potential strategic threat. It is good that
the United States is taking such a clear interest in Hong Kong's future. But
Britain too must keep a close eye on developments and be prepared to
speak up if things start to go wrong.
Sense of Realism
I am an unashamed defender of the record of the British Empire in bringing
the rule of law and the prospects for self-improvement to millions who
would never otherwise have known them. The people of Hong Kong, however
much historians argue about the circumstances of the territory's original
transfer to British rule, are an outstanding example of these benefits.
But, equally, the age of empires is over; that of nation-states has
succeeded it. I can see exactly why China--even beyond material
considerations--wants Hong Kong back: The Chinese have rediscovered a
strong sense of their own traditional identity. But I also believe that, in
due course, the ideas of the Chinese people of Hong Kong, who enjoy a
lifestyle of which mainland Chinese only dream, will penetrate deeper
into China itself. From that perspective, perhaps a future generation will
be able to look back on the ceremonies of June 30 not so much as marking
the end of Hong Kong's colonial past, but as marking a new impulse toward
freedom and democracy in China and the rest of Asia.
Adapted from the Wall Street Journal, June 27, 1997. Used with permission. © 1997 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved. Available from the Hoover Press as part of the Essays in Public Policy series is "Freedom's Fall in Hong Kong", by Alvin Rabushka. Also available is "Red Flag over Hong Kong," an episode of the weekly television show Uncommon Knowledge, jointly produced by the Hoover Institution and the San Jose PBS affiliate, KTEH, which features as guests Hoover senior fellows Rabushka and Lawrence Lau. To order, call 800-935-2882.
Margaret Thatcher is an honorary fellow of the Hoover Institution.
|
QUICK LINKS:
FREE ISSUE
EMAIL ALERT
CONTACT US
TOOLS:




|