PEK/4
चिया F413/112
CONFIDENT TAL
चिओ
13
€/508 M.. Boy/fe 174
Exter
Office of the British
Charge d'Affairos,
PEKING.
9 April, 1968
14
Copy 15 M Saminaia Co
Sam spp. Ju 1874
• RECEIVED IN
ARCHIVES NG 31
17 ark med
F213/1
We have already written two letters on the discus si ons Hans Bargmann, the DPA correspondent here, had with Fei Yi-ming and other Hong Kong communists in January (Sir Donald Hopson's letter to Elliott of 13 February and mine to Davies of 22 February).
2. Bargmann has now produced another point which he said emerged during his discussions with the Chinese. He claims that they maintained that one of the main reasons why we were susceptible to pressure over Hong Kong was that we were desperately anxious not to lose the economic benefit we gained from the Colony. Bargmann said that the communists several times mentioned the figure of U.S.400 million a year. When I pointed out (I hope correctly?) that Hong Kong represented a net loss to the British exchequer, Bargmann replied that in arriving at this figure the Chinese were taking into account the profits earned by Briti sh companies in Hong Kong.
Ab
3. I report this for what it is worth. There may be nothing in it. It may be pure Bargmann fishing for a little more information for his next book. On the other hand it may represent a basic factor in the Chinese reckoning and hence something to which we should pay due regard in planning our own strategy.
4. We should, in any case, welcome your comments on the Chinese figure.
I am copying this letter to John Denson in Far Eastem Department.
G. G. H. Walden, Esq. HOANG XONG,
(R. W. WHITNEY)
CONFIDENTIAL