HKK040/5
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY/
8 SEP 1983
DESK OFFICER
Mr CDEX HKD
CONFIDENTIAL
REGISTRY
PA
Action Taken
040/5
Lo
RAR Note on 12/9.
Fixed for 3pm on Wed. 14"
би
294
me
1.
Mr Robertson of the Australian High Commission called on 5 September, on instructions, to ask some questions about Hong Kong. At the time, because we were so heavily engaged, I dealt as best I could with these questions. But I told Mr Robertson that I would ask him to call again for some further discussion. I should like to invite him to call tomorrow, Friday 9 September and I should be grateful if you could spare a little time to help me prepare for this. It will of course be preferable if we have a response from No 10 to our letter about briefing the Australians before I see him. But I would not in any case propose to go much further than you have recommended in your brief for Mr Luce for the call by Miss Clare Hollingworth. Mr Robertson's questions were:
(a) How did we interpret what Mr Wu had said to the Australians? He thought we had tended to dismiss this as propaganda but did it not contain the essence of the Chinese position?
I said that if you were engaged in confidential negotiation and you went round promoting your maximum requirements with all and sundry it might be a question whether you were engaged in propaganda or in giving the essence of your position. The point was that we did not think that the Chinese proposals would work, etc.
(b) What did we make of an article in Ta Kung Pao which had talked about the transition period and the Chinese blueprint for Hong Kong? He had received a telegram about this article on 18 August, but could not identify it further. I said that we were seeing reports of similar articles every day. Our reaction to them was much the same as our reaction to Mr Wu's remarks.
(c) Mr Robertson asked about an article by Margaret Mg which had appeared in the South China Morning Post on 25 August, Apparently it spoke of the cultural pride of Hong Kong Chinese people, but said that although this was a pride in Chinese culture it was not a pride which could be expressed under a Communist regime. I undertook to give him some background on the author, if possible.
2.
I interpret this as largely an attempt by the Australians to express their interest without probing too hard. As suggested, think that we should do our best to meet it, and I see no great difficulties in this. But please discuss.
See (314)
I
8 September 1983
Celikana
CSR Giffard
CONFIDENTIAL