The war of words between China and Britain over Hong Kong in recent days raises profound questions of legal and political principle. The announcement that a committee appointed by the Chinese authorities is to repeal or amend some 25 laws passed in Hong Kong since 1992, yesterday drew shocked and bitter words from Mr Chris Patten, the governor of the colony, who said this was retrogressive and would create a dangerous legal muddle. In Beijing a Chinese spokesman pointed out that these laws had been passed unilaterally by Britain in abrogation of solemn commitments to legislate only by joint agreement.
The differences therefore go to the heart of Mr Patten's period of office and his conduct of policy during this final period of British rule. He has sought to introduce a much more democratic set of norms and structures to a colony that was ruled by the British for decades without recourse to such modern political methods. There is no established democracy in the colony and there has not been time for the small but courageous group of democrats around Mr Martin Lee to put down sufficient roots to ensure that there would be full continuity in the political system between British and Chinese rule. It should be recalled that there has been substantial disagreement on the British side between those who support the Joint Declaration and Basic Law reached in 1984 with China - which specified that there should be joint agreement on legislative changes - and those who have supported Mr Patten's efforts to develop democracy and further entrench human rights.
Given his record it is not surprising that Mr Patten should have reacted with such feeling yesterday to the Chinese decisions. Undoubtedly they will substantially reduce the human rights available to Hong Kong citizens. Police would once again have the right to ban certain demonstrations and political parties suspected of having links with foreigners. China's own record on human rights is not such as to reassure Hong Kong citizens or the international community that such a reversal will not be used in an authoritarian or repressive manner.
But there is a thin line between such a judgment and the likelihood that an aggressive British line in opposition to the Chinese decision might actually make the situation worse. This is because Beijing has international law on its side; in addition the affair tests to the limit the issues of sovereignty, national pride and political face that are central to the Chinese government's case. The words of its spokesman, Mr Shen Guofang, in Beijing yesterday resonated with these sentiments when he described the British protest as "inadmissable, unjustified and short sighted".
His case should be listened to carefully by an international community which wishes to engage fully with China but which is not prepared to curtail concern for human rights as it does so. The hope must be that China will find it necessary in its own interests to protect the basic freedoms, including the established and functioning political freedoms, of Hong Kong citizens in order to demonstrate its own good faith as an international partner. Its leaders are well aware that precedents set down in Hong Kong will be watched with great interest in Taiwan and will determine the decisions of nationalist leaders there about whether they should negotiate a settlement with Beijing.