CONFIDENTIAL
indicates that it would not welcome action by the British people to terminate Britain's aggression against China". This is a lame conclusion to a piece of fiery polemics and is to the best of our knowledge untrue.
Conclusion
10. I do not think we should react hastily or publicly to this booklet. It is very unlikely to become an election issue in the UK. Nor do I consider that we should get involved in trying to provide
a detailed refutation. This would only play into the hands of the "Hong Kong Research Project" who are not open to conviction. Nevertheless I believe we must subject the booklet to more detailed scrutiny than is outlined above. I propose to discuss with the Hong Kong Government how we should set about this.
In the
first instance it will be for the Hong Kong Government to comment
on the detailed figures and their selection.
11.
Meanwhile I recommend that Private Office should send the
publishers an acknowledgment of the receipt of this booklet, but
no more.
the
J
with
aque love proposed.
We sho
but we
the pamph
ummoirately shed analyse in detail, biquing ready
сс
IRD FED
OLA
9
H. Kangi spean fac
So
as
points
at the
raue
Contem
September 1974
This
OH, King
•
about
murante) and
we
wee!
policy comprehensive shone it.
shel
discurs
ly.
de
ive
DCSL
A C. Stuart
Goronwy Kong & Indian Ocean Dept.
13/9
Goronwy - Robert
чу
dreadful,
braised stuff.
تل المماا
difficult
tbe heve
Hav
it's authors
can beleve it.
Рами
Taper will the recommendatia
"/
hood Growy- Roberts should see this minute,
wit live at the moment to end the booklet to ff.
a direct detailed
refutation
but we
even
у
I he had I agree we chained
shall have to be us
undy
not attempt
to deal with the representations for various quanthis is which the publication is likiel Juve vise, I must therefore consult day King is that end.
ut the Duvate Office stored send a simple adolecqment is Walth
прее
that
the p
Weiders.
2. Jalso