CONFIDENTIAL
445
LAST
PEKING TO
FOREIGN OFFICE
F
444
15 April 1968
501
Cvrher/Cat A
IMMEDIATE
Teino 304
C. CONWIDENTIAL
Addressed to Foreign Office telegram No. 304 of 15 April. Repeated for information to Hong Kong.
1.
My immediately preceding telegrams.
The interview lasted nearly 2 hours and Chinese comments were not always very clear. Lo gave impression of not having ma-tered ་ his brief, particularly on such subjects as Grey and visas. Tone
was mild. On the whole I would regard meeting as giving us slight grounds for encouragement. The fact that Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs received and was prepared to spend so long with me indicates that Chinese are seriously interested in a settlement.
i
1/
2.
t
As regards Hong Kong, some of Lo's opening remarks e.g. on arrogance and emptiness of our reply, should be regarded as prefatory abuse of a standard Chinese kind and need not be taken too seriously. The original charge that we had failed to reply to the Vice Minister- for Foreign Affairs' statement of 8 March was later modified to one that we had not given a satisfactory reply. On the question of mao study and compensation, Lo did not deny that we had taken account in our reply of some of Chinese demands. However on central issue or prisoners he made it clear that our proposals at least in their present form are unacceptable. It is just possible that in subsequent dis- cussion, and if we were to introduce the idea of released prisoners residing in China temporarily until term of their sentences had expired, we might get agreement. I think we must be ready [gp undec] this idea at a later stage. But on the face of it the Chinese seem likely to insist on release in Hong Kong.
3. Lo's concluding questions and remarks strongly support our earlier impression that the Chinese wish to continue discussions on the question of Hong Kong. It is not clear whether they intend further discussion in Peking or possibly some separate and specific negotiation on Hong Kong question. But they seem to wish to settle the matter though of course on terms advantageous to them. I realise that the question of entering into discussions with the Chinese about Hong Kong is a highly delicate matter but from our point of view it would seem important to continue the dialogue. It is for consideration whether we should give some kind of official reply to Lo's three questions and affirm our wish to continue discussions. On balance I think it would be wiser for us to wait, for a while at least, to see If the Chinese will make the next move. This may allow us to obtain. further information on Chinese position via channel referred to in Hong kong telegram No., 331. It should also give us a chance to see whether anything is forthcoming on visas.
4.
564A
As regards visas, Lo's remark that on receipt of confirmation from London (i.e. that there was no barrier to free movement) the Chinese would make their arrangements on exit/entry visas in accordance with normal procedures is obscure and we shall have to wait and see what it means. It could mean a limited thaw. It is relevant that Lo failed to repeat his remark of 8 March about difficulties of discussing visas fruitfully while the Hong kong question remains unsettled and merely said that Sino-British relations could not really be adequately served if the Hong kong question were avoided. There might therefore be some tendency to move back to bilateral dealing on visas. The Chinese may realise that our removal of exit visa requirements and granting of entry visas to Chinese officials puts them in a potentially weak position in any diplomatic or publicity campaign. But their officials may sit tight in London and avoid travelling from Peking to London for some time yet.
150
CONFIDENTIAL