Department of Trade and Industry Commercial Relations and Exports
1 Victoria Street London SW1H OET
Telex 27366 Answer Back DTIHQ London Telegrams Advantage London SW1
Telephone 01-222 7877 ext
RECEIVED IN
R°C°
N51
- 5 JUL 1972
HXK6/8
A Lambert Esq Hong Kong Department
FCO
SWA
LAST
Your reference
Our reference
REF.
(45)
Date
4 July 1972
५५
Dani Jambert,
I was glad to have the opportunity to comment on Mark Goodfellow's draft letter on this subject on which I have three main points.
First, I think this letter should be addressed to Brussels and copied to Geneva rather than vice versa because I think the more important issue is the likely reactions of the Commission and the Nine than the scene from Geneva. In Brussels, I think the letter should be addressed to W Nicoll, the Trade Counsellor, who may well wish to consult R Goldsmith who is involved in this issue as the Under Secretary in charge of CRF 1 when it was originally raised.
Second, I think we need to be clear what it is reasonable to ask of the Post and what it is not. The implicit assumption (first senteme,paragraph 3) appears to be that we accept what the Hong Kong officials are after (and for all I know have been after for years): that is greater autonomy in the conduct of their trade relations together with the continued advantages of a non-GATT relationship with the UK. This is a matter on which Whitehall has to make up its mind and in my view all it is reasonable to ask Posts is for (in the case of Brussels) the likely EEC attitude to the question of Hong Kong representation after accession and(UK Mission Geneva) on the essentially "physical" question of where Hong Kong sits and how she is referred to etc.
Third, I think it is important that, if we are to get the best advice from Brussels and Geneva, that the letter and subsequent correspondence should be addressed in such a way that the file is not available to the Hong Kong officials in the two delegations. I would not be at all surprised if Brussels has some pretty tough advice to give on this issue which we would wish to consider carefully in London unharassed by French telegrams from Hong Kong. In view of the rather different emphasis implicit in these comments I have tried my hand at a redraft of the letter from the end of paragraph 2 orwards. I have a lingering doubt as to if it would not be appropriate in fact to send this request at Head of Delegation level but am content conforming with other people's view of the proprieties.
Yours sincerely,
John Hagestolt
JV Hagestadt
co K Burns Esq TPD
Letter
My horn of THE!!
K Hazle Esq Commodities Department
M Laidler EID 1
Miss JE Elliott CRE 1 Miss C H Welch CRE 2