CONFIDENTIAL
2 -
He is wheed And
us in At F C
GUE 7/9
by Hong Kong seamen and owned by World-Wide (Shipping) Ltd. We estimate that some twenty-seven ships which are Hong Kong owned and crewed could be affected if the Australian ban were to be fully enforced.
-
We do not know whether other maritime unions will follow the Australian example as yet, there is no indication that the European unions will impose similar bans and it may be that Australia is being used as a test case to see how the proposed action works. However, in view of the serious threats posed by the ITF, some Hong Kong shipowners are in favour of inviting ITF representatives to Hong Kong for
'exploratory discussions'. Our feeling is that such a move might not be in Hong Kong's interests, but at the same time we are being pressed to give advice and reassurances to the shipowners who are calling on the Director of Marine and the Commissioner of Labour almost daily.
5.
Of course the problem is basically an international one and there is not a great deal we can do about it as a Government from here. One thing we can do is to speed up legislation to establish a separate Hong Kong Register, but with the best will in the world this is bound to take some time and, indeed, more time than the ITF is likely to allow us. The greater difficulty, however, is the fact that the majority of Hong Kong seamen are affiliated to the communist union, which is anathema to the ITF, and only the minority belong to the non-communist union, which would be acceptable to them as regards affiliation. This is, unfortunately, a fact of life which we have to accept and no amount of fulmination by the ITF from London or elsewhere is going to change it. Even, therefore, if we had a Hong Kong Registry for Hong Kong owned ships we would still have this problem of union affiliation.
6.
You will appreciate from all this that we are in somewhat of a quandary over this matter and that, in view of the immediate threat to our shipping and the agitation of some of our shipowners, we should welcome urgent guidance. One possibility which occurs to me might be an approach to Mr. Blyth in London. As Mr. Salmon's note indicates he was in Hong Kong for some time but our information is that he is not "anti Hong Kong" as Mr. Salmon thinks but rather anti the communist seamen's union (which, typically, is more interested in propagating Mao's thoughts than in furthering the material interests of its members). Indeed, our information is that Blyth is a reasonable and responsible sort of chap. It would seem to us that Hong Kong shipowners employing Hong Kong crews at wage rates and conditions which are reasonable by Hong Kong standards (which are after all the second best in Asia after Japan) can hardly come under any sensible definition of flags cum crews of convenience. It might therefore be possible for the ITF to accept, say, a certificate from the Director
CONFIDENTIAL