NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
W(B)L 51-7406
that, in para 4, Though
we agree
that the
an appropade
on there be deletia
as lacking prices in Therefore likely in Loading to lead to
underwolle argument
4
чуть
forthe phrase shared
be insectend to www te
Ther Hig
сабадаси
жизит mugur feet quartions of
internetend commence
polin
on to require them to
lead
the the thin the negotiating
|(ii)
бра разач
msest
HIIG in the provme the works
14
Boulish
Considerations of Internetoond poking are of
such a hand in to-rep
require motion
such refereretion."
interests as it is to the conduct of bilateral
relations; and I have no doubt that you would wish these principles to apply over this wider field. To this end I suggest that the
statement might be amended to make it clear that paragraphs 3 and 4 relate to bilateral discussions and negotiations; that special
Multilateral discussions and
(but unspecified) arrangements will apply in Linternational organisations where Hong Kong
representatives form part of the UK delegation, thus retaining full flexibility to deal with the various situations as they may arise; and that the general principles in the remainder of the statement apply both in the bilateral
multilateral and international contexts.
بھا
10
ہو
(i)
My proposals for amendment are :
Insert between paragraphs 2 and 3 the sub-heading: "Bilateral Discussions and Negotiations"
(ii)
Insert as follows after paragraph 4: * Multilateral Discussions and
International Organisations
5. Special arrangements will also be made as necessary for the repre- sentation of Hong Kong's interests
multilateral discussions and in/international organisations where Hong Kong representatives attend as members of the UK delegation, e.g.
in GATT.
General Principles
11
i) Renumber existing paragraphs 5-10
as 6-11.
If these amendments are acceptable, it remains only to consider, I think, whether existing paragraph 5 (a) is satisfactory in its
and multilateral application both to bilateral relations, and to the conduct of business in international
organisations. We think that Melville is
undensible right to draw attention to the impossible
situation that would arise if members of the
UK delegation should rise in an international forum and express different views on policy;
and that there should be written into the
statement an express agreement to avoid such a situation. We would expect, of course, that
/ where