CONFIDENTIAL
documentation. The Chinese may however now have less incentive to make an issue of references to "territory" as opposed to "area". Although strictly speaking this is a seperate point, it will be relevant that they are already showing themselves to be more relaxed about the Legitimacy of institutions within Hong Kong itself. We wonder too whether it is in our own general political interest either to stickle. Our inclination in the case of the unfinished UNIDO business would be to let sleeping dogs lie and to allow the Chinese-inspired corrigendum referring to "the area of Hong Kong" to stand. If we now returned to the charge this could conceivably be misinterpreted by the Chinese and could ruffle the harmony over Hong Kong which we are now seeking to maintain. This consideration seems to be more important than the fact that by doing nothing we might be creating a theoretically undesirable precedent.
5. Where our general guidance is concerned, we think that we should now adopt the following approach to Hong Kong terminology:
(i) We should ourselves of course seek to ensure that UN documentation makes no reference to Hong Kong as a "country", and we should if possible also avoid any references to "dependent territory".
(ii) Where possible, despite the precedent that we will have created in UNIDO, we should continue to favour "territory" over "area", or seek to qualify "area" by reference to "territory".
(iii) If pushed, however, we would accept "area".
(iv) We would of course retain the option of circulating our standard 1972 statement on Hong Kong to counter any unacceptable claims by the Chinese, but should only do this sparingly and in a non-confrontational way.
(v) In general we should ensure that our dealings with the Chinese or with the UN Secretariat over Hong Kong terminology are low-key and in tune with our general policy of retaining harmonious relations with the Chinese over Hong Kong.
6. I should be grateful to know whether you can agree with this approach. If so we shall take no further action in UNIDO and we shall amend our general instructions on Hong Kong accordingly.
५
CC:
PAB Thomson, Peking
F D Berman, UKMIS New York
CJ Ingham, UKMIS Vienna
DJ Moss Ukmis Geneva
J K Gordon Uke UNESCO
CONFIDENTIAL
C
Hum
Hong Kong Department