CONFIDENTIAL
and could be counter-productive.
The only effective way of
achieving a more favourable image of the United Kingdom in Hong
Kong is the way we have been pursuing, to encourage Hong Kong
officials to accept that they themselves have a responsibility
for presenting the British case. They have not hitherto always
regarded this as their business. There have, however, been some
recent signs of a change. For example Mr Jordan, the Director of
Commerce and Industry, has put over our line on the Community's
GSP with some conviction. If we were to begin an independent
campaign from the Trade Commission, the Hong Kong Government would
at worst react against it; and at best sink back into the belief
that it is none of their business to defend Britain. We therefore
concluded that the best next step would be to remind the Governor
that we look to his officials to put the British case. I submit
a draft letter from Sir D Watson accordingly.
4.
The second question to which Sir P Reilly returns in his
letter of 4 December, concerns the length of Diplomatic Service
tour in Hong Kong. The PUS has already explained the position and
there does not seem any point in restating it.
5. All the other points except three in Sir P Reilly's original letter (sidelined in Flag B) have already been answered either by
the DTI or by us. The exceptions are the implied criticism of the
staff at Osaka, which is perhaps best left unanswered; the plea for
greater selectivity in the choice of Missions, which is for the
DTI;
and the need for new offices for the British Trade Commission
in Hong Kong. On the last point the PSA have decided that there are
insufficient grounds for changing offices in view of the cost
involved. Similarly they cannot agree that there should be a
/display centre.
CONFIDENTIAL