1984年初，英反共作家Peter Dally著書指戴卓爾政府借條約論做擋箭牌，拒為港人企硬，漠視在國際社會守護人權的基本責任。他認為共產政績人所共知，即使英政府今天承認中共政權，都無理由將500多萬港人交他們。
英國反共作家Peter Dally指九七後中國一定不會給港人自由，香港將成為另一個西藏，他認為英國不應放棄香港。
Peter Dally(1984) Hong Kong Time Bomb, p.14–17:
It is because of the belief that Hong Kong cannot be defended that the present British Government, although very anti-Communist, is prepared to surrender the entire colony to the Communists on 'pragmatic and legalistic' grounds. The argument is that as the majority of Hong Kong is leasehold, it must be given up on the due date if all negotiations fail.This ignored the fact, however, that Britain is under the Charter of Human Rights of the United Nations and pledged to uphold those Human Rights wherever and whenever it is at all possible. It is not disputed that the Communist regime is totalitarian and denies Human Rights as defined by the UN Charter and understood by Britain. Moreover the fact that Britain gave de facto recognition to the Communist regime in Beijing does not excuse Britain from its UN obligations.Neither the Communists in Beijing nor the Free Chinese in Taipei have ever controlled Hong Kong. But the original treaty documents are in the possession of the Republic of China in Taipei. The majority of Chinese in Hong Kong are there because they prefer British colonial rule to the Communist dictatorship from which they escaped as refugees... The de facto Communist Government in Beijing is there with Soviet help, and also because of what we might politely call 'mistakes' made by Britian and the United States at Yalta and after. While Britain can claim that it had no option but to recognize the fact that the Communists had gained control over mainland China, it is under no obligation to prejudge the final outcome of the Chinese 'domestic dispute' between Taipei and Beijing. It should not hand over 5½ million Chinese to the regime that the vast majority thoroughly detest. To do so would be a negation of everything Britain stands for, and a negation of the UN Charter of Human Rights.Hong Kong has no democratic government...The British Government has refused to allow political parties and elections on the grounds of maintaining public order. The real reason is that it would upset the Chinese Communists if the Kuomintang (Nationalists) won a resounding victory. It is expected that such a victory would be inevitable, and that would be followed by claims that Hong Kong be handed over to the Republic of China in Taipei…In circumstances like this, nothing is inevitable unless the inevitability itself becomes believed in. Then it takes the form of reality and further convinces the believers that they were right, and that their fate, their destiny has no other course.Britain's diplomatic recognition of the Communist regime simply acknowledged the fact that the Communist rebel government had, in its control the majority of Chinese territory. Such recognition in no way committed the British Government to hand over territory which the Communists did not control.As neither side in the Chinese 'civil war', now suspended by an informal, 'de facto' armistice, recognizes the validity of the treaties by which Britain occupies and administers Hong Kong, it follows that both sides claim the colony. Both sides recognize 'de facto' that Britain is in possession because, by force of arms, by right of conquest, call it what you will, Britain was able to impose the unequal treaties upon the former weak and corrupt imperial Chinese Government.As neither Taipei nor Beijing recognize the treaties, it follows that the expiry date of the lease is of no significance to either. The only factor to be considered is how long Britain intends to remain there. Also, is force going to be used by either Taipei or Beijing to seize the colony on behalf of the Chinese people?...If Beijing threatens such action, or tries to carry it out, there are of course alternatives open to Britain, and serious dangers for Beijing. Firstly, Britain could immediately withdraw diplomatic recognition from Beijing, and then send an ambassador to Taipei in Taiwan in return for substantial help from the ROC. Moreover, the Chinese Communist army is inefficient and unreliable...After the Falklands war, Beijing cannot be certain as to what Britain would do, unless of course it announces a surrender first and hands Hong Kong to the Communists on a 'silver platter'.Beijing could not be certain about the security of its coast opposite Taiwan. It should not be forgotten that the two islands of Quemoy (Kinmen) and Matsu, about a mile or so off the mainland coast, still remain in ROC hands...There is also the problem of what Russia might do if there is trouble in Hong Kong. Moscow has been trying to goad Beijing into doing something for some time. Why? Could it be because either the Soviet Union or its ally Vietnam wish to take advantage of the situation?...Clearly the de facto recognition argument is irrelevant in determining the future of the people of Hong Kong. To ignore the wishes of 5½ million people, the majority of whom are there expressly because they do not want to live under a totalitarian Marxist dictatorship, would be a denial of basic Human Rights....
餘論：回應投降派，實疑軍事實力與糧草問題
The idea that Britain has no choice but to do a deal with the Communists does not stand up to serious examination. There is an echo of defeatist arguments from the past which have only encouraged dictators to use force to get what they want...First, let us look at the argument that we have no defence against the '1 billion' Chinese. This assumes that the People's Liberation Army is an efficient, loyal fighting force against which there is no defence. If this is so, why did it fail to take the island of Kinmen (Quemoy), in 1949 when it landed a substantial force?...Again, the 'Chinese People's Volunteers' failed to secure the defeat and occupation of South Korea. Outnumbered American and British troops, together of course with many other nations, aided the South Koreans, and secured the freedom of the South.Again when the 'mighty' PLA went to 'teach Vietnam a lesson' it was in fact humiliated and learned a lesson itself...Now let us look at the argument that all that Chinese Communists have to do is 'turn off the water' and 'blockade' Hong Kong. This kind of treatment has been used against West Berlin, Gibralta and the Falklands without success. Such an action would of course be very uncomfortable, but it would damage the Communist development in the Pearl River delta as well as depriving Beijing of its much needed foreign currency. It would also drive Hong Kong into the arms of the ROC who would, from well equipped ports and airfields, rush all manner of aid and equipment.Then there is the 'Chinese terrorist campaign' theory and 'riots'. Once again this can be counterproductive and, can only really succeed if a substantial section of the population want the Communists. They do not...The 'Taiwan card' is a powerful one in the Hong Kong context, and it is only because Britain is planning a sell-out to the Chinese Communists that it has not been mentioned. Incidentally, for the legally minded, the actual lease is in the safe keeping of the Republic of China in Taipei, and if the property is to be surrendered to anyone, it should be to the lease holders in Taipei and not to the usurpers in Beijing.The whole attitude of the British to date has been simply that as nothing can be done to keep Hong Kong from the Communists then Britain had better make the best deal it can, and hope for the best. This is absolutely wrong, and is a policy which is doomed to create an unstable situation.
Hong Kong Time Bomb, p.55–57.
延伸閱讀：
— 歡迎分享，更多材料見內容導覽 —
搜尋本站資料，可用Google自訂引擎
考古陣地一覽
facebook.com/recall.hk
instagram.com/recall.hk
medium.com/recall-hk
mewe.com/join/recall-hk
odysee.com/@recall-hk
twitter.com/recallhk
mastodon.social/@recallhk
t.me/s/recallhk
#世代懺悔錄 #香港前途考古 #夕陽帝國買賣 #大英帝國 #戴卓爾政府 #撤離殖民地 #聯合聲明 #福克蘭 #直布羅陀 #無險可守 #HongKongTimeBomb #PeterDally #解放軍 #條約論 #YaltaConference #蘇聯扶植 #投降派 #中華民國 #台灣牌 #金門 #馬祖 #越南
