DWF
TL. 43/08
PEKING TL 954
TO FCO
HONG KONG
GRS-440
CONFIDENTIAL
TELELITTER
FROM:- RN PEIRCE ESQ, PEKING
REF NR. DATED & DECEMBER 1982
Cald pl. have a
you
look at this moth
Tak
absence and the spech?
Квари
FOLLOWING FOR:- T W SMITH
ESS D
HKGD, FCO
HRG 201/1
COPIED:
EFS, FCO FEE FOO
APPU AND HONG KONG
1.
2.P MARGOLIS OPA HONG KONG
for 7734/1
A to the
THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTER OF 19 NOVEMBER. THIS PROVIDED
A FEW MORE PIECES OF THE JIGSAW, BUT THERE ARE
STILL SOME IMPORTANT HOLES. I DO NOT KNOW THE
сп
hgl.
I wish
AUTR
CONSTITUTION OF THE APPU NOR THE MEMBERSHIP CRITERIA. NUR AM I
FAMILIAR WITH THE FORMULAE USED TO SECURE
MEMBERSHIP OR ATTENDANCE FOR HONG KONG OF OTHER
SEE (34
MULTINATIONAL BODIES, AND TO WHICH CHINA HAS NOT RAISED OBJECTION.
I AM THUS HAMPERED IN TRYING TO SUGGEST A FORMULA
WHICH MIGHT BE ACCEPTABLE IN THIS CASE.
2.
'30)
FURTHER MORE, AS WE POINTED OUT IN OUR TEL NO 760,
WE HAVE ONLY HEARD OF THE CHINESE OBJECTION FROM WELLINGTON
→TEL NO 263. IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THIS OR THE OTHER
TELEGRAMS LISTED IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF YOUR TEL NO 348 WHAT DEGREE
OF CONSULTATION THERE HAS BEEN WITH THE CHINESE
ON THIS QUESTION, MY COMMENTS MUST THEREFORE BE SOMEWHAT GENERAL.
THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS:-
(A) I WOULD NOT EXPECT THE CHINESE TO OBJECT TO THE
BASIC IDEA THAT AN IMPORTANT TELECOMMUNICATIONS USER LIKE
HONG KONG SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN THE APPU. INDEED THE
LINE IN WELLINGTON TEL NO 263 SUGGESTS THAT THEY DO NOT.
IF THEY HAVE OBJECTIONS THEREFORE, THESE WOULD BE PRO-
CEDURAL RATHER THAN SUBSTANTIVE. THOUGHT
THEY PRESUMABLY ARISE FROM CONSIDERATIONS OF
PRINCIPLE.
(B) THE SECOND SENTENCE OF HONG KONG TEL NO 870 OF
12 AUGUST IS ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE CHINESE ATTITUDE IN GENERAL TO SUCH GATHERINGS.
3. 1 DO NOT SEE HOW WE CAN ASSESS WHAT FLEXIBILITY THERE
MAY BE ON THE CHINESE SIDE WITHOUT ASKING THEM, AND THAT IS
WHAT I THINK SHOULD BE DONE. BUT FEEL IT WOULD BE BETTER NOT TO
DO IT ON THE DIPLOMATIC CHANNEL HERE, LEST WE SHOULD STIR UP
A QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE WHICH MIGHT AFFECT HONG KONG'S
PARTICIPATION IN OTHER BODIES. ONE WAY TO PROCEED WOULD BE TO PROBE FURTHER ON THE APPU NET, BUT WE COULD NOT BE SURE THAT APPU WOULD CORRECTLY ASSESS AND REPORT THE CHINESE POSITION,
A BETTER WAY MIGHT BE TO TRY AN INFORMAL ENQUIRY ABOUT THE
CHINESE POSITION THROUGH HONG KONG-CHINA COMMUNICATIONS LINKS
OR EVEN NONA, HONG KONG WILL HAVE VIEWS ON THIS.
4. LOOKING AT THE MATTER FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE.
IS IT NOT POSSIBLE IN VIEW OF THE CONSENSUS FEELING REPORTED
IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF WELLINGTON TEL NO 351 THAT THE APPU
COULD FIND A WAY AROUND THE RULES MENTIONED IN THE THIRD SENTENCE
OF WELLINGTON TEL NO 263 AND ACCEPT HONG KONG AS AN OBSERVER IN ITS OWN RIGHT?
SINGED....、、、、、、、、、、、....A N PEIRCE
NNN