IF as seems possible the Sino-British talks have come to a standstill and the parties are preparing to go it alone, it is time for Hong Kong people and their legislative representatives to take stock of the parties' adherence to the Sino-British Joint Declaration. This is, after all, the most important of China's often asserted ''three convergences'', the one to which both parties are bound by international law.
In this regard it must be remembered that an international legal order that favours self-determination for colonial regions, as is expressly provided in the United Nations Charter, is the backdrop against which the Joint Declaration was entered. Any peculiar exceptions the parties created for Hong Kong did not erase the general tenor of this commitment. It would have not been acceptable to ignore totally the concerns of Hong Kong.
It was in this context that the parties in 1984 entered an agreement with many specific promises of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The failure of the current Sino-British negotiations and the recent Chinese attacks on the Hong Kong Bill of Rights provide reasons for grave concern about adherence to these commitments. But the attack on the Bill of Rights cannot be considered in isolation. A broader assessment in these three important areas reveals what might be called the ''three non-convergences''.
These are revealed on the face of the Basic Law if regard is given to what appears as recent interpretations of that document by China's representatives in Hong Kong. One can only hope that China distances itself from such non-complying interpretations. Especially if the parties are to go it alone China must be careful to ensure that excessive zeal by members of its Preliminary Working Committee (PWC) and others does not produce increasing divergence from the principles of the Joint Declaration. By the same token Britain is bound as a colonial power and as a signatory to that agreement to insist on compliance.
As it was written the Basic Law, while questionable with regard to achieving its stipulated compliance with the Joint Declaration, was subject to some interpretations that would bring it reasonably close. This required extremely liberal interpretations and possibly a few amendments. In other words, its deficiencies were repairable through interpretation and amendment in a liberal spirit. Is that spirit prevailing? In the current atmosphere the answer is obviously no. The interpretations of the Basic Law now offered in the three key areas outlined above are noteworthy for their glaring non-convergence with the Joint Declaration.
Regarding democracy, the Joint Declaration promised that the SAR Chief Executive would be chosen by ''elections or consultations'' held locally and that the Legislature would be chosen by ''elections''. Presumably there was to be some distinction betweenthe two. Elections generally mean elections.
In this area the Basic Law is, at face value, grossly deficient. The only hope at its promulgation was that it might be amended after some successful experience or, at least, broadly interpreted to expand the numerous legislative constituencies that are so small as to amount to nothing more than consultative institutions. As now strictly construed, the Basic Law does not comply with the Joint Declaration's requirement for ''elections''.
