It is tempting to say that Britain should be the last country expressing its concerns over proposed internal security laws for Hong Kong. Bill Rammell, British parliamentary under-secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, did just that this week in talks with Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui and other senior officials in Beijing. Telling them that if the enactment of legislation covering Article 23 of the Basic Law is mishandled it will undermine international confidence in Hong Kong, Mr Rammell said the British government's view was that the widest possible consultation on the issue was desirable. Such comments will no doubt infuriate the nationalistic-minded in Hong Kong. Many, however, might say just the opposite: that a statement like this from Britain has been a long time coming. It has been almost four months since the Hong Kong government unveiled its consultation paper on the Article 23 laws, and Britain has been conspicuously subdued in its official view. It issued a statement through its consulate 'noting' the lack of precise detail in the paper. A debate was conducted in the British Parliament, but no formal discussion had been held with Chinese or Hong Kong leaders. Fortunately, the international community in Hong Kong has been more outspoken. Concerns have been expressed by a number of chambers of commerce - including Britain's - that the proposed legislation could undermine Hong Kong's freedoms. Britain's soft approach might be appreciated as recognition of its duty not to inflame rational debate in Hong Kong. But Britain is also the signatory to an agreement with China that is supposed to guarantee Hong Kong's freedoms for another 45 years. It has a duty to see that the terms of the Joint Declaration are not infringed. It could similarly be said that the Hong Kong government has a responsibility to enact laws that not only comply with its mini-constitution, but that do not undermine its sovereign's international agreements.
