ANOTHER VOICE

A man capable of apologising for the Irish potato famine should not avoid Hong Kong now

MATTHEW PARRIS

The Governor will be there. The For- eign Secretary will go. The heir to the throne sees it as his duty to attend. For the Prime Minister now to back out on the grounds that the occasion looks likely to prove embarrassing would be unworthy, and an ominous sort of farewell to those we leave behind.

In little more than two weeks' time, Hong Kong must be returned to China. This is a pity but cannot be avoided. The handover may take place in circumstances which, if Peking is minded to contrive this, will appear humiliating to the former impe- rial power and intimidating to the citizens we are abandoning.

This too is a pity. And of course it could have been avoided — Sir Percy Cradock is quite right. If over the last five years Chris Patten had been prepared to lick the boots of communist China, Peking would have been happy to save the Governor's face during the ceremonials which will precede the imperial power's departure. But that was too high a price to pay. It is to Chris Patten's and John Major's undying credit that they long ago made it clear to Peking that if we could not stop China pushing Hong Kong around, we would at least refuse to connive in it.

Former Foreign Office chaps for whom the word 'connive' describes one of the higher pleasures of life would have done things differently. They could have secured a handover which despatched to the archives photographs and newsreel of everybody smiling — like those 1930s pic- tures of Churchill meeting Mussolini. Mer- cifully they were thwarted. Upon the faces of those looking toward the future we are now more likely to see expressions conso- nant with the future they face. Britain's dig- nitaries and officials will look awkward, Peking's stubborn and unfeeling, and the whole occasion anxious, confused, humili- ating and sad.

Far from being an end-of-era snapshot to be regretted, no other picture would be appropriate. Something is about to die. The ceremonies, besides being a 'handover', are also a kind of funeral, and should look like one. That we were in the end powerless to save liberty and the rule of law in Hong Kong in no way relieved us of the duty to try, and we did try. That we failed in no way justifies our pretending to look pleased about it. Actions are rendered fitting not by results alone, but by the circumstances they confront. Impotent in the presence of tyranny, a good man should still shake his fist even if, for all the difference it will make, he might as well lend a hand. 'It needs must be that offences come, but woe unto those men through whom they come' (Luke xvii 1).

Peking's likely aim in its own planning for the handover ceremonies will be to find ways of embarrassing the Governor and his British guests. This would not be difficult. They could fail to send a representative of comparable status to Prince Charles or the Prime Minister. They could play Box and Cox with the arrangements until the last minute. They could swear in their usurping lick-spittle Legislative Council early, or withdraw their new chief executive, C.H. Tung, from the British half of the occasion. If surprise is Peking's aim it is probably pointless to speculate how this may be achieved, beyond remarking that there is no way Government House can guarantee Tony Blair the sort of happy snaps his pre- miership has with such success collected for the album so far.

It is therefore certain that 10 Downing Street will have asked Government House in Hong Kong for advice on whether the Prime Minister should, as had originally been planned, attend. My guess is that the recommendation is negative.

I think Tony Blair should ignore this, and go anyway. This is for three reasons.

First, it would not deprive Peking of its mean little propaganda victory. Red China would simply crow that the Governor had lost his grip already, and that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom no longer had confidence that his man could control the ceremony. Peking would add that this was proof of Britain's shame. Our politi- cians were trying to slink away unnoticed.

Second, it would undermine the democrats in Hong Kong whose cause Chris Patten has worked to bolster. Martin Lee of the Democratic Party has already said that if Mr Blair stays away this will be seen not as a snub to Peking but as leaving Peking's critics in the territory to swing. Their sponsor has failed to turn up. The unspoken message will be: 'It looks bleak. You're on your own.' Of course they know that soon they must be on their own, but they still hope British concern may contin- ue, and help at the margins. The Prime Minister's attendance on the last occasion when his country has the power to com- mand would be some earnest of this.

Finally, some advice of a lower sort for Mr Blair. Some of his image-tenders will have whispered in his ear that it's not a good marketing strategy to be seen juxta- posed to failure. Blair's communications machine has done well so far to associate their man with an impression of optimism, dynamism and success. Cynics among us may doubt whether everything Mr Blair touches does indeed turn to gold, but cer- tainly his staff have taken care to see that nothing ungildable comes within a mile of the prime ministerial fingertips.

The Hong Kong handover might prove the exception. Here the world at home would see our PM at the centre of a poten- tial fiasco: a ceremony from which the sig- nal sent would be one of British impotence, and of impending ill. 'These', the PM's men murmur to him, ' are not the photographs and this is not the story you want to feature in.'

That isn't even good PR. It would look like running away. Critics would say it was running away. They would write that Mr Blair hadn't the guts to stand by the heir to the throne and the Queen's own Governor at a traumatic moment in British history. They would remind us that nobody is going to blame Mr Blair personally for our pre- sent and future agonies over Hong Kong, and ask what he was afraid of. A man who finds himself able to apologise for the Great Potato Famine might at least have the grace not to turn away, whistling, when something more current goes wrong.

Perhaps the rumours will have been dis- pelled even by the time this comes to be printed. I hope so. The Prime Minister should take an unflappable view both of what is appropriate and of what is in his interests. The ceremony may prove a disas- ter. The invitation should be edged in black. And Mr Blair should accept it.

Matthew Parris is parliamentary sketchWriter of the Times.