C. & 1. 200
2700206
5,000-7/66-B55340
BY DIPLOMATIC BAG
TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS:---
DHONG" HONG KONG
YOUR
OUR
REF.:
CR EIC 294/2/4
REF.:
Dear Michael,
RECEIVED IN
REGISTRY No.51
1.) Mr. Carter M%
CONFIDENTIA: 2.) Mr. Wilford - 0.5.22/1/2
R&R
6131.
(3) Th.
(
Sto - we hail bite, disumus
how to handle this lase
COMMERCe &1⁄4ndusTRY DEPARTMENT,
FIRE BRIGADE Building
HONG KONG.
11 December
ر قرن
1969.
17/12
Recel.17/12 (Recel. 17(12)
I sympathise with the perhaps reluctant recipients
of the Stewart/Jones correspondence. I had asked Derek to copy his first letter widely because Stewart's remarks on the subjects of voluntary restraint and 'the UK case' had been made not privately but at meetings attended by a number of people from different Departments. Indeed Stewart appears to lose no opportunity to spread his allegations about Hong Kong and his statements of UK policy and intentions, so it seemed to me desirable that our counterblast should be fairly widely disseminated too, but if someone in London would take over and shut Stewart up, we would be delighted to drop the subjects he raises.
2.
You will recall that, at our meeting in your office on 28 August he threatened that if Hong Kong continued to agree voluntary restraints, 'we' would have to reconsider 'our' attitude to Hong Kong in the UNCTAD: 'we' would no longer support Hong Kong's claim to developing status. I do not know what authority he had to utter this and I doubt if he had any but the fact is that he did utter it and when challenged did not withdraw it.
3.
At the same meeting he also hinted at the imposition of UK import restrictions on Hong Kong goods, if Hong Kong continued to make voluntary restraint agreements. He was more specific about this at the very large meeting in the BOT that afternoon. He said that if Hong Kong continued its present policy, 'we' would have to advise Ministers to impose quotas unilaterally on Hong Kong straight away to avoid diversion of trade (he has never so far as I know produced a shred of evidence that any of our restraints has actually caused such diversion). Again I do not know what authority he had to speak so (who are 'we' for whom he so often speaks?) but when I challenged him on this remark, he reiterated it, claiming that it was perfectly justified, since Hong Kong's negotiations with other
19 kec 1964 countries were eyewash, and equivalent to unilateral import restrictions.
HKILL/21
4.
As I said to Herbert Stewart when I was in London recently, I think that the Governor would have been justified in taking up these remarks formally. I did mention them to Bob Goldsmith and he in effect said that one shouldn't take Shaun Stewart seriously. But there is a risk in this. Stewart takes himself seriously and one of his techniques is to make vague threatening noises and later to claim that they were clear indications of official attitudes. He did this over the wide-sheeting argument (even going so far as to claim that Ord-Johnstone's D.0. letter to Sedgwick was the equivalent of a CTA Article 3 request for formal consultations) and over our use of anticipation in 1968 (Bunny Carter will remember the row about this when Stewart came to Hong Kong). So I shouldn't be much surprised if
Олив
LAST PAPER
/Mintech..