COMMENT
CONFIDENTIAL.
10. THE POINTS ON IMMUNITIES ARE RELATIVELY MINOR AND SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF QUICK RESOLUTION. SINCE WE DO IN PRACTICE GIVE THE IR COURIERS IMMUNITY FROM SEARCH WE IMAGINE THAT THEIR REQUEST THAT WE SHOULD DO SO FORMALLY IN THE LAW IN THE SAME WAY AS WE DO FOR CONSULATES WILL NOT CAUSE SERIOUS DIFFICULTY, IN PRACTICE THIS WOULD PROBABLY REQUIRE A SHORT ADDITIONAL SUBPARA IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE TEXT. WE HOPE THAT INSTRUCTIONS ON THESE POINTS CAN REACH US QUICKLY.
11. THE POINT ABOUT INFORMING IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT OF REPLACEM- ENT DOCUMENTS ISSUED IS MORE DIFFICULT, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED AT EXCO REQUEST. WE ARE NOT SURE HOW FAR THIS ACTUALLY CONSTITUTES AN IMMIGRATIONDEPARTMENT REQUIREMENT.
12. THE SUGGESTION THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL BOTH AGREEMENTS WERE FORMALLY IN FORCE BEFORE ANY STEPS COULD BE TAKEN
TO PREPARE FOR THE OPENING OF THE CONSULATE IN SHANGHAI IS NOT UNEXPECTED. HAVING MADE OUR POSITION CLEAR ON THIS, WE THINK THE BEST THING IS TO REACH AGREEMENT ON THE TEXTS.
WE WILL THEN SEEK TO GET THIS REVERSED AT A HIGHER LEVEL
THAN LIN.
13. SEE MIFT.
CRADOCK
LIMITED
HKD
NTD
FED
PROTOCOL D
CONS D
THIS TELEGRAM WAS NOT ADVANCED
MVD
PUSD
PS
PS/MRLUCE
PS/ MRWHITNEY
PSIPUS
MRG IFFARD
CHIEFCLERK
MRDONALD
LORD.N.GORDON LENNOX
3. CONFIDENTIAL