!
3
753)
CONFIDENTIAL
Cypher/Cat A
IMMEDIATE PEKING TO FOREIGN OFFICE
Telno 720
6 August, 1968
CONFIDENTIAL
Addressed to Foreign Office telegram No. 720 of 6 August. Repeated for information to:
Hong Kong.
1752
My telegram No. 718: Exit visas.
Counsellor obtained an interview with Kao (Deputy Head of. the Consular Department) today.
2. Cradock began by referring to the assurance given by Yuan of the Consular Dept. on 27 July, (my telegram No. 691) that if we 728 submitted a list of outstanding exit visas they would be issued. Cradock said that so far only four out of the 18 applications had been granted despite repeated reminders. The Consular Dept. had also asked for a separate note about my visa. We had sent them a Note requesting a visa issued not later than 2 August but the visa had still not been issued. Cradock asked how this could be reconciled with Yuan's assurance, and also asked for the remaining exit visas.
3. Kao replied that Yuan had said that the outstanding exit visas would be granted. These requests were being dealt with, including mine. If they had any news they would let us know. This was a concrete answer. Cradock said that he noted that Kao had reaffirmed Yuan's assurances that outstanding visas would be granted. But Kao's answer was unsatisfactory in part since it was difficult to believe that the visa formalities took so long. Other Missions got their visas in 2 days at least. This was strong discrimination against us. Cradock then reminded Kao that we had sent a Note saying that I had been instructed to leave China on 10 August. Cradock asked for an assurance that I would be allowed to leave on that date.
4. Kao said that he could not agree that there had been any delay or discrimination. The Chinese had is sued over 20 entry and exit visas this year. We had no grounds for dissatisfaction. My visa was being dealt with. Even in normal circumstances it was unreasonable to demand that exit visas should be issued on the date for which we requested them, let alone when relations were abnormal. Cradock pointed out that this was an open admission of a breach of diplomatic licence. Diplomats were free to come and go, as were the Chinese officials in London. Our grounds for complaint were that our personnel including the Chargé d'Affaires were still being detained. The fact that the Consular Dept. refused to give an assurance that I would be allowed to leave on 10 August suggested that a further detention of diplomats was planned. This could not go unnoticed, although the Chinese side might like to keep it
/hidden
CONFIDENTIAL
REF
ED IN
752
7
RCHIves No.03
AUG 1968
REF.
HWA?/