}.
米
заваре
болам
James,
CONFIDENTIAL
Office of the British Chargé d'Affaires,
PEKING.
10 September, 1968.
(74)
As you can imagine, we have been following developments over Chung Wah very closely. I see that so far the communists are not applying for a new school but are using the premises in various other ways. This will not of course prevent them from applying for a new school at a later date though it does leave a dangerous twilight period in which they may fall foul of the law by their use of the premises. It also illustrates the extreme difficulty of getting them at the present time to make any concessions or fit in with any compromise solution. What may appear to us as a sensible arrangement involving some give by both sides is seen by them as an intolerable surrender. It is rather similar to the situation we faced over the import of rice: we then offered them something very near their demands but they refused. The rice issue, however, had a spurious, propaganda quality about it whereas with communist education we are touching a nerve.
2.
This brings me to the point in paragraph 2 of Hong Kong telegram 1038, the new name for Chung Wah. Though this issue is still an academic one, since there has been no application for a new school, it could become real and urgent at any time. I am sorry to see that such a name as "New Chung Wah" may not be acceptable to the Governor.
As we know, the Chinese have been informed that an application for a new school with new staff etc. would be treated in accordance with the normal criteria. If they apply we must expect them to choose either a name close to the old one like "New Chung Wah" or a militant name like "Mao's Thought School". They are likely to sail as close to the wind as possible and they are unlikely to choose a name that appeals to us.
If we make undue difficulties about a new name we give them an opportunity to claim that our assurances about a new school were false and that we are introducing a new condition, i.e. that the name should suit us. They will thus be confirmed in what is already their inclination to make no compromise. If they do show signs of applying for a new school it would seem very much in our interests to make the concession as easy for them as possible. After all, Ministers have decided that we are prepared to see a new communist school on the premises. If we object to some such name as "New Chung Wah" we may well find ourselves in the position of having a crisis not on a point of substance, i.e. whether to have a communist school on the premises but on the marginal question of what the communist school is to be called.
3. I notice that in answer to Mr. Foley's remarks on our wish to improve relations with China and the proofs of good will the Chinese might give, e.g. access to detained British subjects (your telegram 825), Shen P'ing at once retorted
James Murray, Esq., C.M.G.,
Far Eastern Department.
/with
CONFIDENTIAL