zhich H.M.G. are responsible.
Hong Kong.
This clearly includeɛ
L..
I agree with Kr. Berman' view (paragrah 5 of
his minute at (5)) that a siuple extension of the
1964 Agreement would not only be permissible, since
this Agreement does not concern itself with who
opates the vessel (unless.5. Government eration
only
was tacitly understood when the "xchange of Notes tock
place), but also desirable. kr. Lune, in his minute
of € April at (3) makes the very valid point that we
should not overlo k the purely safety sopects of the
visit, since the vafety of Life at Ces Convention has
been extended t. lcg Kong. Aguin, Mr. Lerman points
out that the sufety usjects would be taken care of 1o
1
the 1964 Ag cement were simply to be extended in the
ouse of this visit to Hong Kong. Should we not have
to tuke account f this if a new Agreement were drawn
The U.S. draft onits mention of this entirely.
5.
Hong Kong Department (ar. Geminare) are now on the
point of consulting the Hong Kong Govemment about all
this (c.f. paragraph & of Ar. Bergan's minute at (6)).
But since the departure of the "Savannen" from the
United States is becoming iminent and since we have
not established that a visit would be politically
acceptable, I should be grateful for your urgent views
on the various moans by, which we may achieve what is
required - acceptance by the United States Government
of its liability in the event of a nuclear incident
involving the "Savannah" whilst in Hong Kong. I under-
stand that the United States Government would accept
an extension of the 1964 Agrcement as meeting the caseE
but that they would preier an entirely new Agreezent.
If in fact you share the U.S. Goverment's doubts as to
the validity of the 1964 Agreement in view of the changed circumstancea of the "Savannah's" operation,
/I enola