SECRET
(A) IT IS LONGER AND MORE COMPLICATED THAN THE ONE YOU HAVE SUGGESTED
AND MIGHT THEREFORE BE MORE DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN TO THE CHINESE.
THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE PREAMBLE COULD EASILY BE OMITTED:
(B) WE THINK IT BEST TO CONFINE THE ORDER TO NEW TERRITORIES
LEASES, AS IN THE DRAFT ENCLOSED WITH YOUR LETTER,
(C) RUSHFORD AND HOBLEY FAVOURED THE CONCEPT OF UNDETERMINED LEASES
WITHOUT QUALIFICATION BECAUSE OF THEIR CONCERN TO PROTECT THE
INTERESTS OF TENANTS WHEN THE TERRITORY REVERTS TO CHINA. FOR THE
REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH 9 OF MCLAREN'S LETTER OF 8 SEPTEMBER,
WE ARE NOT TOO WORRIED ABOUT THIS PROBLEM. IN ARTICLE 2 WE SHTULD
PREFER TO SUBSTITUTE QUOTE FOR SO LONG AS THE CROWN MAY OCCUPY THE
NEW TERRITORIES UNQUOTE (OR ANOTHER SIMILAR PHRASE) FOR QUOTE INDEFINITELY UNQUOTE; IF ONLY BECAUSE THIS SEEMS MORE LIKELY TO BE
NEGOTIABLE THAN A PURE UNDERTERMINED FORMULA:
1
(D) WE THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER TO DROP THE SPECIFIC REFERENCES
TO JUNE 1997 IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE PREAMBLE (IF YOU THINK
SOMETHING LIKE IT SHOULD BE RETAINED) AND THE FIRST SAVING PROVISION.
THEY SEEM A LITTLE TOO POINTED: THE MEANING WILL BE CLEAR ENOUGH
WITHOUT THEM. THE REFERENCE IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE PREAMBLE
IS HOWEVER NEEDED.
4. IN PARAGRAPH 5 OF HIS LETTER OF 6 NOVEMBER, HM AMBASSADOR IN
PEKING DRAWS ATTENTION TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE QUOTE UNDETERM-
INED UNQUOTE FORMULA MIGHT BE MISINTERPRETED AS IMPLYING UK
RESIGNATION TO AN EARLIER TERMINATION DATE THAN 1997. THIS POINT
COULD, OF COURSE, BE DEALT WITH BY GOING FOR A FORMULA ON THE LINES OF THE ONE IN PARAGRAPH 5(E) OF MY LETTER OF 3 SEPTEMBER, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE THE DISADVANTAGES MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF YOUR LETTER.
WE ARE INCLINED TO THINK THAT ANY MISCONCEPTIONS COULD BE REMOVED
DURING THE COURSE OF THE CONTACTS WITH THE CHINESE WHICH WE ALL
AGREE WOULD BE NECESSARY BEFORE ANY ACTION COULD BE TAKEN.
OWEN
FILES
HK & GD
FED
MR.CORTAZZI
MR. MURRAY
MR. RUSHFORD (LEGAL ADVISER)
2
SECRET