CONFIDENTIAL
(as they were in the 1968 negotiations) he was busy undermining them as soon as they were given. There seems no way of putting the
conflict to rest although there are signs that C.R.E. are getting the upper hand and that Mr. Stewart may at last be drawing in his horns.
This, I think, is evidenced by what we regard as a most successful
outcome for the last round of talks with the Swedes in Geneva earlier
this month where we still could not get a firm endorsement of
Hong Kong's line before the negotiations started but successfully
combined with C.R.E. to outflank Industries Division in the end.
Hong Kong who do not know all the intricate machinations involved
at this end may not appreciate this and probably feel less kindly
about it all. But we see it as a victory not the last by any means but just one in a campaign.
7. How to proceed now? It has been my view since July last year that we should have it out with the Board of Trade and try to get their agreement to the basic points in Mr. Haddon-Cave's paper. But it seemed appropriate to wait until after merger (when we might
make use of the fact that in negotiations abroad it would be for an F.C.O. representative to take the chair if necessary). When I
brought the matter up again and proposed to submit on the basis that
we raised the whole issue at a suitably high official level with the
Board of Trade, I encountered some hesitation on the part of Hong Kong officials (Mr. Sellers of the London Office and Mr. Jordan, the Deputy Director of Commerce and Industries) who seemed to feel
that it was possibly undesirable to try for agreement on what amounted
to codification of a situation that had evolved in practice.
think they feared that when practice was set out for all to see
principles might be invoked to secure some changes. Nor did I find much enthusiasm for this approach when the matter was briefly raised with the Governor and Sir A. Galsworthy in October.
I
8. I do not see what other course is open to us if we are to avoid
lengthy wrangles every time Hong Kong embarks upon commercial negotiations. I cannot see what principles could be invoked to question past practice (although quite clearly in putting this to the Board of Trade we should have to avoid the contentious point raised in paragraph 4 of the paper). But there is a case, I think,
for postponing our approach until the argumentative Mr. Stewart has left the scene (which if rumour and his own confidences are any guide may not be long distant)
CONFIDENTIAL
/9..