141
GR 370
CONFIDENTIAL
CO CC:
FM PEKING 180803Z MAR 81
Hier 340/1
ག? 3,5ཎྜཱ
1 9 MAR 1981
RECETVLO
TO IMMEDIATE FCO
DESK OFFICER
TELEGRAM NUMBER 187 OF 18/3
INDEX
PA
REGISTRY
Action Taken
INFO PRIORITY HONG KONG
153
Pas 19/3
YOUR TELNO 236 TO HONG KONG AND HONG KONG TELNO 296 TO YOU:
NATIONALITY BILL
(142
1. WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY ADVISED AGAINST ANY CHANGE OVER
NATIONALITY WHICH COULD LOOK TO THE CHINESE LIKE THE CREATION
OF A SEPARATE STATUS FOR THE INHABITANTS OF HONG KONG. THERE
IS THE RISK OF THEIR DRAWING THE ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION THAT THIS REPRESENTED, IF ONLY POTENTIALLY, A MOVE TOWARDS AUTONOMY
OR A CHALLENGE TO CHINESE CLAIMS ON THE TERRITORY.
2.
THE INTRODUCTION INTO THE NATIONALITY BILL OF THE ENABLING
CLAUSE YOU PROPOSE IS THUS A SENSITIVE MATTER, OVER WHICH
WE SHOULD SEEK TO REASSURE THE CHINESE IN ADVANCE. THE BEST FORM OF REASSURANCE WOULD OF COURSE BE A CONFIDENTIAL INDICATION
THAT THIS WAS A RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS FROM OTHER
DEPENDENCIES AND THAT THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT HAD NO INTENTION OF OPTING FOR A SEPARATE CITIZENSHIP. IF, HOWEVER,
THERE IS ANY QUESTION OF PRESSURE WITHIN HONG KONG FOR A SEPARATE CITIZENSHIP (AS THE HONG KONG TUR IMPLIES) IT WOULD OF COURSE BE DISTINCTLY MORE DIFFICULT TO QUELL CHINESE SUSPICIONS. FROM HERE THIS SEEMS A STRONG ARGUMENT AGAINST OPENING UP AN AREA OF POTENTIAL MISUNDERSTANDING.
3. IF IT IS NONETHELESS CONSIDERED NECESSARY FOR WIDER REASONS TO HAVE AN ENABLING CLAUSE WE AGREE THAT THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN SUB-PARAGRAPHS 4 (1) AND (11) OF THE HONG KONG
TUR SHOULD BE APPLIED. WE SHOULD ALSO GIVE OURSELVES TIME TO EXPLAIN THE MATTER CAREFULLY TO THE CHINESE IN ADVANCE.
WHILE AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE WE SHOULD NOT WISH TO GIVE
THEM AN EXPLICIT VETO, WE SHOULD BE READY TO GIVE A SUPPLEMENTARY UNDERTAKING, IF THE CHINESE REACTION WAS STRONGLY ADVERSE, THAT THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT IN PRACTICE BE SEEKING A SEPARATE CITIZENSHIP.
CRADOCK
LIMITED
See (378
311
Potre acce ps/Dees Sie EYOUDE
TRAPATS ARJONAS)
CONFIDENTIAL