LAST
HWB.22/13
Confidential
COMMONWEALTH
22nd February, 1967
152
4
As agreed in conversation last night, I enclose copy of a letter dated 6th September, 1966, from the Governor of Hong Kong to Sir Saville Garner about the possibility of a visit by H.M.The Queen in 1968 to open the Plover Cove Water Schame. The original of this letter has been mislaid and a copy has had to be obtained from Hong Kong.
2.
The only Foreign Office reference that I can pick up on the back dorrespondence of 1964 (to help you trace it) is on a complimentary slip bearing the reference 7.1941/1. There is also Garvey's telegram from Paking No. 1234 of 16th December, 1964.
3.
You were sent a copy of the Governor's letter of the 16th December, 1964 but mát a copy of John Highan's reply of the 18th Jammary, 1965 to which reference is made in the Gover...or's present letter. That merely stated:-
"Thank you for your letter of 16th December about a possible Royal Visit. We are most grateful for your very clear analysis of the dilemma; we will of course do our best to keep the final decision open for as long as we can, I will write to you „fter the Royal Visits Committee has met next month,"
and then went on to deal with the possibility of the Duke of Edinburgh visiting Hong Kong to open British Week in March, 1966.
4.
The Governor now argues that there is a difference between "a generalised visit..............which might be objected to as a gratuitou s display of sovereignty and a visit primarily to open a project........................... clearly designed for the benefit of the people of Hong Kong..............". The question is whether the Chinese would see and recognise such a distinction. The Governor's reference to amicable dealings with them over water supplies is, to my mind, a little beside the point. The Chinese have been amicable over water supplies either because they have been able to sell water to Hong Kong for much needed foreign exchange or because they have been able to represent their assistance as the benevolent actions of the mother country to its citizens in Hong Kong or both. It may be rather a different story when the water supplies in question emphasise the Colony's growing independence of Chinese mupplies.
5.
Whether or not the Chinese would recognise the distinction the Governor makes, it seems to me that given the unpredictability of Chinese attitudes (which the Governor acknowledges) we could be no more hopeful than we were in 1964, of avoiding the difficulties and dangers discussed in the Governor's letter of 16th December of that year. Since the Governor's most recent letter was written there have been (a) developments in China which must tend to increase the dangers of Chinese unpredictability and (b) the Macao incident which provides an illustration of the way in which Chinese anti-colonialism can manifest itself.
6.
To sum up.
While there was little enough to suppert reappraisal of our attitude towards a visit by The Queen when the Geverner wrote in September last, more recent developments have completely removed what grounds there may have been for reversing our view that the risks are too great to run.
B. Bolland Esq.,
17.
Foreign Office, S.F.l.