CONFIDENTIAL
布政司署
香港下亞畢道
* Our Ref.: SCR 2/2071/63 II
* YOUR REF.:
BY BAG
A C Stuart Esq
Hong Kong & Indian Ocean Department
F CO
о
COLONIAL SECRETARIAT
LOWER ALBERT ROAD
HONG KONG
RECUVED IN
REGISTRY N•.51
18 JJ...
13 June 1974
1-XX22
22/2
LAST
REF.
R & R
Resisting Fire Stag
FLAG A
Dear Andrew,
HONG KONG VISAS FOR EAST EUROPEANS
XEF.
Thank you for your letter of 30 May. Having lived through the Gierek episode I was at first slightly puzzled at getting it; but I realise that the course of events may have looked a little odd from your end.
2.
The fact is that there was a bit of a muddle about this visa application; but when we had sorted it out we felt that the issue of the visas fell within existing policy. When the application first came in, it was not clear who was involved, and visas were refused - particularly as the request was submitted to us at very short notice. We were then caught between the Scylla of Warsaw telegram No. 193 and the Charybdis of the Hong Kong Trade Development Council, headed by Sir Y.K. KAN, to whom Gierek was in fact well known (and who should have declared his interest from the beginning). Gierek had on a previous occasion been most helpful in getting visas for a party of Hong Kong businessmen who arrived in Prague without them.
3.
?
The policy on visas for Hong Kong is conveniently set out in F C O Circular '0' 14/74. Given the previous acquaintance of Sir Y. K. KAN with Gierek and the latter's helpfulness, we felt that visas for the party were covered by (a) of paragraph 5. Gierek merited the exceptional treatment not because of a direct economic interest, but because of the damage he might do if he felt slighted and of the personal interest of Sir Y K Kan.
4.
It is at this point that I part company with you on your interpretation of the basic policy as laid down in this circular. The circular made clear that it is the Hong Kong interest (both economic and in the negative sense of keeping out Eastern Europeans when possible) that is paramount. Obviously this means keeping a balance between the conflicting considerations, and we have guidelines to help us. But I do not think that we have ever agreed that we should not admit someone who was in a position to harm us later, and likely to use his power. In Gierek's case we felt that our interests were served by admitting him.
5.
I do not think that quite the same considerations apply in the case of Eastern Europeans who are of no interest to Hong Kong. We do from time to time have to admit such people, and they are covered by paragraph 5 (b) and 5 (d) of the circular.
Obviously
/British......
C.S. 41A