CONFIDENTIAL
-2-
4.
So far as can be seen from the files, the special status of Hong Kong was not brought up when the 1977 document was being discussed by member states in Brussels. It is however clear from
-
-
a working document of the time which specifically mentions Hong Kong as being the only place where Presidency responsibilities fall upon Consulates that Hong Kong did not just slip into the list by accident, so it was clearly included with UK agreement. The fact is that, as explained in my teleletter of 9 November 1981, Hong Kong does appear to be unique in Community terms, being, so far as we can discover, the only inhabited Dependent Territory of a member state which does not have a special relationship with the Community defined in one of the treaties or associated documents. Given that Hong Kong also unlike other Dependent Territories - has a major economy and pursues an active and independent economic and commercial policy, it is clearly reasonable in Community terms for it to be treated as if it were a third country, and for the Commission to expect a 'Commercial Counsellors' Report' on its economy.
5. For all these reasons, we do not think we can now argue Hong Kong's special státus vis-à-vis the UK to oppose Community activities such as the drafting of economic reports by members states' consulates, any more than we apparently did when the relevant Community documents were being drawn up. But your own constitutional status vis-à-vis the Governor is clearly a bar on your playing the full role of a 'Commercial Counsellor' as envisaged by the various Council decisions, and it seems to us that this is what you should emphasise to your Belgian colleague. We shall be taking up in Brussels the question of the inclusion of the British Trade Commission in the list annexed to the Council Document 10760/81, and will suggest that future editions should include a footnote indicating the restrictions on your capacity to participate in joint activities. Moreover we shall also see whether we can get the format of such lists altered in future to make it clear that Hong Kong is not an independent state. At present there is such an implication and we think it should be put right, not least because its continuation might eventually provoke a gratuitous protest from Peking. We shall keep you in the picture.
6. I have just received your letter of 10 February about Information material. As the UK no longer holds the Presidency you should have no qualms about passing this package on to your Belgian colleague. Certainly it would not be appropriate for you to distribute the material. As for your paragraph 4, and the points made by Mark Chapman in his letter of 11 February, please see the above.
Jaus
Henghulua
P.P.
R D Clift
Hong Kong and General Department
сс
RJT McLaren Esq CMG, Politial Adviser, HONG KONG
J Healey Esq UKREP BRUSSELS
Miss S Lambert ECD(E), FCO
CONFIDENTIAL