^^
CONFIDENTAL
335
GRS 1979
CONFIDENTIAL
A PEKING 260107Z JUL 79
DESKBY FCO 26090AZ HONG KONG 268409Z
TO IMMEDIATE FCO
икки
84/2
27 JUL 1979
ESK C
TELEGRAM NUMBER 679 OF 25 JULY
AND TO IMMEDIATE HONG KONG.
See 226
FOLLOWING FROM DELEGATION.
224
YOUR TELNO.424:
UK/PRC AIR SERVICES NEGOTIATIONS.
1. AT A TETE A TETE ON 25 JULY ROGERS TOLD LU OF THE DECISION
IN PARA 1 OF YOUR TUR. HE EXPLAINED THAT IN OUR VIEW THE LAST OFFER HE HAD MADE ON THIS POINT (IE AN AMALGAM OF A AND B IN PARA 1 OF YOUR TELNO.399) WAS A VERY REASONABLE ONE. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION BOTH IN LONDON AND HONG KONG YOUR FIRM
CONCLUSION WAS THAT WE COULD NOT GO BEYOND THAT OFFER. HE HOPED THAT THE CHINESE WOULD RECONSIDER THEIR POSITION IN THE LIGHT OF THIS AND WOULD RECOGNISE THAT OUR OFFER MET BOTH THEIR POLICY AND
PRACTICAL NEEDS.
2. LU SEEMED GENUINELY SORRY AT THIS NEWS, SINCE THE PREPAR-
ATORY WORK ON THE DRAFTING AND TRANSLATING HAS BEEN PUSHED WELL
NHEAD AND HE HAD CLEARLY BEEN BANKING ON SIGNING UP ON 26 JULY. HIS FIRST INCLINATION WAS TO SAY THE CHINESE POSITION, ALSO,
WAS IMMOVABLE: BUT AFTER SOME PERSUASION BY ROGERS HE AGREED
TO REVIEW CAREFULLY WITH HIS COLEAGUES THE POSSIBILITY OF THEIR
ACCEDING TO OUR VIEW. HE ADDED THAT THIS WAS LIKELY TO TAKE SOME
DAYS.
3. AS REGARDS THE HEATHROW/GATWICK QUESTION, WE FOUND YOUR
INSTRUCTIONS UNCLEAR, SINCE ALTHOUGH PARA 2 OF YOUR TUR SAID THAT. YOU WERE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE FORMULA IN PARA 2 OF OUR TELNO.659, YOU DID NOT SAY WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE
ALTERNATIVE FORMULA IN PARA 6 OF OUR TELNO.654 AND, IF NOT, WHY
NOT HOWEVER FOR THE REASONS EXPLAINED IN PARAS BELOW WE COULD
NOT AFFORD TO WAIT EVEN A DAY FOR A FURTHER EXCHANGE OF TELEGRAMS
ION THIS
CONFIDENTAL