RESTRICTED AND PERSO NAL
This
Ime
Нето ок
in an attempt to push through a quick package? Or possibly is it
even unwise to raise the matter as an issue in advance of 1973
on the grounds that we are unlikely to make any useful progress until
the EEC are confronted, as it were, with the presence of a Hong Kong
delegate who has to be sat somewhere?
Paragraph 4: In addition it would be helpful to have David Hartridge's
views on the following two questions:-
1.
Ka lovel
Is the present GATT tolerancë of Hong Kong's independent
representation in the CTC likely to survive accession?
2. Is there likely to be a GATT angle on the question of where
Hong Kong sits and how she is referred to in Geneva?
Paragraph 5: The question of representing Hong Kong's interests has been
considered before and for convenience I attach a copy of Sir E Melville's
letter to Laird of 9 September 1970 (together with UKMIS Geneva telegram
No 616 and FCO telegram No 384 referred to therein). UKMIS may wish to
comment on the views expressed in Melville's letter now that the reality
is about to descend upon us.
Paragraph 6: We appreciate that the answers to some of these questions will
necessarily be speculative and preliminary, but we would nevertheless be
grateful for a first reaction during the course of this month. The
questions we put were more illustrative than anything else,, If you want to
tackle the issue in a different way in answering this letter, this will
of course be fine. It may well be that some of the matters we have raised
aky
you regard as faux problems and that we have failed to take any account of
other realities.
Paragraph 7: Finally, I have marked this letter Personal because we would
like this letter, and more important, the subsequent correspondence to be
kept from the Hong Kong officials in the two delegations at this stage
RESTRICTED AND PERSONAL
2