............................................................................... 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...