SECRET
in paragraph 3 of their telegram.
It would be unwise to draw
attention to this one example of a Warsaw Pact country having any
form of consular jurisdiction in Hong Kong.
4. HM Embassy Peking have suggested the following answer to Flag Mr Parry's first Question (Peking telegram no. 77): "The interests
of the countries concerned in Hong Kong are not sufficient to justify the establishment of consular representation". Hong Kong have pointed out, however, that there is close connection between Mr Parry's three Questions and that is important to avoid any suggestion in answer to the first one either that formal requests from Warsaw Pact countries for consular representation have been blocked or that if such requests were now made they would be
granted.
I think that this is right since it could be argued by the Soviet Union that the increasing volume of Soviet shipping using Hong Kong is sufficient to justify a Soviet Consulate (see paragraph 1(b) of Hong Kong's telegram). Within the Office EESD have advised that the answer to Mr Parry's first Question should, if possible, avoid being open to the interpretation that the Warsaw Pact countries are being discriminated against. I have tried to take account of these different considerations by using wording that is, I hope, neither too vague nor too explicit.
5. The information provided by Hong Kong for answering Mr Parry's second and third Questions is straightforward. Detailed background on the present policy on visas for Hong Kong is set Flag out in Office Circular '0' 14/74 of 22 January 1974.
4/€
6. I submit draft replies.
cc:
8 February 1977
PS/Lord Goronwy-Roberts
Mr Cortazzi
Mr Lipsey
Mr Orr, FED
Miss Houston, PCD
2
Mr Figgis EESD
FED, EESD and PCD concur as appropriate.
D.F. Milton
D F Milton
Hong Kong Department
л
t? 20/2.
Mr Free-Gore, MTD
Mr Jasper, GGD Mr Mallett, MVD
SECRET