CONTIDENTIAL
L
present legal adviser is, on the other hand, of the view that HMG does possess the attributes of sovereignty with regard to Hong Kong.
A paray fivir
5. The second explanation for our having avoided public assertions of sovereignty over Hong Kong has evidently been concern for possible Chinese reactions. Certainly, in recent years, with the admission of the People's Republic of China to the UN and the improved climate of Anglo- Chinese relations, we have taken the view that we should, by asserting our rights over Hong Kong. Thus Sir Colin Crowe's reply to the Chinese Permanent Representative's letter in 1972 was deliberately delayed in order to avoid any risk of spoiling the atmosphere for Sir Alec Daglas-Home
fifar
if at all possible, award giving
to lug
Cumiare
visit
Again, the brief for the Chinese Foreign Minister's visit to luna wamber.
to London in June 1973 advised that if Mr Chi P'eng-fei made any remarks prejudicial to our view of the status of Hong Kong, the Secretary of State should in that case (but only in that case) put the record straight. In doing so, Sir Alec Douglas-Home was strongly recommended to confine himself to making the following points:-
(1) If the Chinese continue to assert their
view of the status of Hong Kong, they should be in no doubt that we may be forced to assert our view of Hong Kong's status in reply.
(2): We shall continue to act in Hong Kong and over the affairs of Hong Kong in accordance with our view of Hong Kong's status and our responsibility for its administration."
It will be noted that, once again, only a statement implying sovereignty was envisaged. Come to t any difficulties with the Chinono vaild also appear to explain the absence of any assertion of sovereignty over Hong Kong even at the most difficult moments in the Colony's post-war history has not been possible for example, to trace any public assertion of sovereignty at the time or the civil disturbances in Hong Kong in 1967
arising from the Chinese Cultural Revolution.
TU
Fios D
1972