CONFIDENTIAL AND PERSONAL
-2-
4. There remains the question of public relations. This was a point which particularly struck Michael Burton, Head of MAED, during his recent visit to Hong Kong. The problems are familiar. Of course, we understand that the Hong Kong Government, having publicly supported CPA before and during the appeal, will be expected to comment on and presumably to regret the decision. From the British point of view, however, the position will be rather different from that when the initial CAA decision was announced. Then HMG were inhibited from commenting because of the CAA's independent position and because of the impending appeal. But if Mr Nott decides against CPA, there will be points which should be made, either on the record or as background, to explain his decision.
5. The main purpose of this letter is therefore to discuss with you how HMG's point of view can best be put forward. Obviously this could be tricky. We do not want a slanging match between London and Hong Kong. It would not be proper, or commercially sensible, for the British Trade Commission to put the 'British case'. We considered whether it would be appropriate for Graeme Wilson to put over to his contacts the background and rationale of Mr Nott's decision. We have discussed this. with the Department of Trade and have come to the reluctant conclusion that he probably would not be best suited to the task. More important, however, is the point that we should not cut across your own position as the correct constitutional channel for representing HMG's point of view on such a major matter. This could mean that, if the decision were unfavourable we might have to ask you to wear two hats and to ensure that the views of both HMG and the Government of Hong Kong were fairly expressed in the Territory. This would, I realise, be awkward but we can see no satisfactory alternative
to minimise the long-term harm to Hong Kong/UK relations. What it would probably amount to would be for you to arrange for a fair wind to be given to any statements made in London. I would hope that these would, inter alia, reassert HMG's support for CPA in air services negotiations around the world; it would clearly be helpful if some sort of expression of the Hong Kong Government's confidence in that position could be made. There might also be a need for both London and Hong Kong to emphasise that the general relationship between them remained on a sound footing.
6. We all hope that things will not come to this. It is, however, prudent to look ahead. It would be very helpful to have your thoughts on the problem and how we can best tackle it, although we shall obviously have to leave the fine tuning until we know the details of Mr Nott's decision.
bcc
C W Roberts Esq CAIR/DOT Mr Burton MAED Mr Dougal OID
R D Clift
Hong Kong and General Department
CONFIDENTIAL AND PERSONAL
*
E