三级aa视频在线观看-三级国产-三级国产精品一区二区-三级国产三级在线-三级国产在线

At last the truth is revealed concerning the true feelings of the British and US governments over the return of Hong Kong to China on July 1, 1997. Developments emerging in the past few weeks in London and Washington suggest both governments did not want it to happen. Now we are faced with a serious question: To what extent were these two countries prepared to go to ensure the failure of the 50-year tenure of the Hong Kong SAR after its return to China? And in what behind the scenes mischief making - in Hong Kong - might these two countries have been slyly involved over the past 17 years, particularly the previous colonial master, Britain?

On Sept 2 the United States put its big foot right into the middle of the Hong Kong situation when, through State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, it made it clear that it also supports the pro-democracy movement here. "The US supports universal suffrage in Hong Kong in accordance with the Basic Law and the aspirations of Hong Kong people," she said. This provocative statement drew a very strong rebuttal from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), which said China "would not tolerate any foreign interference in Hong Kong affairs".

Returning to London, the most influential Briton also meddling in Hong Kong affairs is without doubt its last governor Chris Patten.

Patten was governor from mid-1992 until the handover. And throughout those five sensitive years he deliberately placed every imaginable obstacle in the way of a smooth transfer of power. Now he has found a staunch anti-Chinese supporter in Conservative Richard Ottaway, chairman of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, which in July had the unmitigated gall to launch an inquiry into Britain's relations with China, in particular, to examine the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which states that Hong Kong should have a high degree of autonomy and executive power, and that personal rights in the territory must be enshrined by law. Ottaway said Beijing appeared to have breached these undertakings. "If you have a committee that is not neutral and is nominating a limited number of candidates, there seems to be a prima facie case that the undertakings given have been breached," Ottaway told the BBC.

Amazingly, Ottway had apparently also been considering Britain applying sanctions against China - an action that could have led to a serious diplomatic confrontation between the two countries. Later, however, he had a re-think about such a drastic course, lamely admitting, "As for sanctions, frankly we are in a fairly weak position... as we were right from the beginning when the declaration was signed."

Somebody should point out to Ottaway that a lot of water has passed under the bridge in the 30 years since the 1984 declaration. He might also turn his attention to the statement by MFA spokesman Qin Gang earlier this week in which he made a very clear point to Patten, Ottaway and other China critics: "Issues concerning the political reform of Hong Kong fall under the umbrella of China's domestic affairs, which allow no interference from the outside..."

China is part of the community of nations, and knows when to offer help when asked, but also knows not to interfere in its neighbors' business. Perhaps we all should learn to appreciate the wisdom of American poet Robert Frost who wrote: "Good fences make good neighbors."

Now let's get down to some tough soul-searching about what's been going on in Hong Kong ever since the handover. It is hard not to suspect that what might be termed "outside influences" have been influencing not only the political scene in Hong Kong, but also everyday affairs. Before our very eyes Hong Kong has gradually become more and more mired in confrontational matters that have been cleverly "baited" so they have become everyday issues. For example, how has "Occupy Central" become such a big issue, taking up so much time in public debate and hanging like a dark cloud over the Central business district - the economic heartbeat of Hong Kong?

We have been rocked to our very heels by the machinations of the media magnate Jimmy Lai who has splashed out at least HK$14 million in donations to numerous opposition lawmakers in the Legislative Council - men and women who for some years have consistently proved by their recalcitrant conduct to be more interested in causing trouble than carrying out their responsibilities.

Should our accusing finger be pointing at London and Washington?

The author is a seasoned observer of Asian affairs.

(HK Edition 09/22/2014 page9)