!
I
so-called hypothetical restraint levels when she had been told not to negotiate. The fact that she was able to get away with it on that occasion was because we could not XKX persuade our colleagues to take a fira line with the Governor on what Hong Kong could and could not do. This EANEXKA issue was not resolved until the meeting on June 13th, when Sir Arthur Snelling backed us completely. However, it was then possible for Hong Kong to argue that it was "too late" to stop her from taking action, although this Division regarded the proposed action as detrimental to the essential interests of the U.K. However, it was made clear in June that on another occasion the U.K. would have to take the effective decision, not Hong Kong.
3.
Incidentally, this is the first occasion, so far as I know, that Hong Kong has xed fixed up a meeting to discuss a commercial policy matter outside the cotton field without the authority of H.M.G. And it would also have been the first time that a substantive discussion on a non-cotton item would have taken place without a U.K. representative being present. As Mr. Carey said in his minute of 6th August, we would certainly want to be represented at any substantive talks with the Canadians. We would want to know whether the conditions of Article XIX had been fulfilled and, if so, how the problem : should best be dealt with. Incidentally, the meeting must have been arranged through the Canadian representative in Hong Kong and not through the High Cormission, which might be thought improper in the circumstances.
!
ER. HUGHES (SEC)
c.c. Mr. Feck (Sec.),
Mr. Dunnett (CRE1), Mr. Kemis
Mr. Toms
Mr. Jupp Miss Lelch
(I.1),
"
S. STEWART, Ind. 1 Div.,
13th August 1969.
Page 30Page 31