The Recovery of Hong Kong } 597
the western side of Lantao to construct a large modern airport had been
considered in the early 1980s, but abandoned because of costs. The plan was
revived in October 1989 as part of a British push to “restore confidence” in
Hong Kong.^45
Beijing reacted with “intense suspicion” to the revival of the airport pro-
posal, seeing it as an attempt by London to saddle the Hong Kong government
with a huge debt. Or perhaps it was a way for British companies to empty the
Hong Kong treasury before Britain’s departure in 1997. Eventually, an MOU
on the airport was signed in August 1991 during the visit by Prime Minister
John Major to Beijing. Major’s visit was, according to McLaren, an “integral
part of the package” and one incentive for Beijing to agree to London’s airport
plan. Beijing required that London guarantee a sum to be left in the Hong
Kong treasury upon completion of the airport, along with tight limitations
on borrowing for the airport.
The Beijing Massacre and Britain’s Democratization Program
After the Beijing Massacre, London became much more concerned with cre-
ating an element of democracy (actually a rather modest element) within
Hong Kong’s political structure prior to reversion. London believed that the
bloody repression in China in June 1989 had greatly deepened unease in Hong
Kong about reversion. “The Beijing of today is the Hong Kong of tomorrow”
became a popular saying in Hong Kong after 6-4. A wide section of Hong
Kong’s populace had watched with hope the development of China’s democ-
racy movement in April and May, and the crushing of that movement roused
deep trepidation. The danger of panic and capital flight increased. John
Major’s election as prime minister in November 1990 contributed to the shift
in British policy. Relations between Major and Thatcher’s key China advisor,
Percy Cradock, became strained, and Cradock soon retired. Major turned in
1992 to veteran Conservative politician Chris Patten to take over Hong Kong
affairs as Britain’s last governor of Hong Kong. Patten believed strongly in
Britain’s moral obligation to the people of Hong Kong to leave them with as
much democracy and autonomy from Beijing as possible within the frame-
work of existing Sino-British agreements. More democracy in selection of the
Legislative Council (LegCo) was seen by London as a way of giving Hong
Kong a hedge against harsh CCP measures after reversion, as well as of reas-
suring Hong Kong public opinion and thereby stabilizing Hong Kong.
According to Xu Jiatun, Beijing feared that democratization of LegCo
would allow “Western and Taiwan forces” to effect a change of system in
inland China and undermine inland security by turning Hong Kong into an
anticommunist outpost. In fact, since “Western and Taiwan forces” had long
since acted in this way, the issue was “whether they would go so far as to