CONFIDENTIAL
Cypher/Cat A.
PRIORITY PEKING TC FOREIGN OFFICE
Telno. 630 3 July, 1968.
CONFIDENTIAL
طلاعا
Addressed to Foreign Office telegram No. 630 of 3 July. Repeated for information to Hongkong, Washington and Polad Singapore.
199
Your telegram No. 696 (not to all) : Exit Visas.
>
As there was no news of my exit visa by 2 July I requested an interview today with Vice Minister Lo Kuei-go but was told he was busy, so accepted one with Mr. Kao Deputy Director of Consular Department instead.
I spoke along the lines suggested in your telegram No. 068 (not to all).
2. Kao claimed that the abnormality in the question of visas was only a reflection of abnormality of our relations for which we were entirely responsible.
Outstanding applications for exit visas for members of British office, It was including my own, were all "under consideration". therefore slanderous for me to suggest that we were being detained here as hostages, though if we wished to put this interpretation on the position this was our own affair.
3. I said that abnormality in visa question was all on the Chinese side as the Chinese staff in London had complete freedom of movement whereas we had 12 people who wished to leave, detained in China. This is a flagrant breach of international practice. Kao had implied that this was due to political differences between our two countries. I would therefore have to report to my government that our worst suspicions were well founded in that we were being kept in China as a means of pressure, and protested strongly against this.
4. Kao said almost exactly what we expected him to say but he was noticeably on the defensive, particularly in claiming that there was no "detention". He stressed that visa applications were "under consideration" and mentioned twice that my own was being "handled" and that I would be informed when there was any news. One feature of the discussion was that although he referred in general to abnormality in our relations he never mentioned Hong Kong by name once.
5. Although my interview was at a relatively low level and one can hardly regard the outcome as
as "satisfactory" nevertheless it serves its purpose and I therefore see no particular point, although no strong objection, to Chinese Chargé d'. Affaires being summoned for similar treatment in London.
6. At the same time I should be grateful for confirma ti on that recommendations in my telegrams Nos. 558, 559 and 560, including those about publicity have been accepted.
J799
640
(583) (584
7. Meanwhile
CONFIDENTIAL
+w/