8.
3
By the time the Committee of 24's report was discussed in
Plenary, the then Government had decided that, if the General
Assembly adopted the Committee's recommendation, the United
Kingdom would cease to transmit information on Hong Kong under
Article 73(e). The reasoning was as follows. If the United
Kingdom were to continue to transmit information, the United
Nations Secretariat would so report. This would almost certainly
have led to an annual confrontation over Hong Kong in the
Committee of 24 and perhaps also in the General Assembly.
Against the background of the agreement to raise the status of
the missions in Peking and London to Embassies, the United Kingdom
was anxious to avoid public dispute with the Chinese over Hong
Kong (hence the decision to refrain from participating in the
discussion in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly).
The Government also took the view that to invite this kind of
confrontation each year at the United Nations would have damaging
consequences in the long term.
9.
Nevertheless, it was the view of our Legal Advisers that, if
the General Assembly approved the Committee of 24's report, it
could be assumed that the General Assembly also considered that
Article 73(e) of the Charter was no longer applicable to Hong Kong.
In these circumstances, and particularly if the Government were
to decide to cease transmitting information on Hong Kong under
that Article, it would be necessary to safeguard our legal position.
A letter, dated 14 December 1972, was therefore sent from the
Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the United
Nations Secretary-General putting on record that the United Kingdom
/had