SECRET
(3) PARAS 2, 3 AND 4. (A) YOUR DRAFT OMITTED REFERENCE TO THE CONTAINER TERMINAL. WE HAVE DRAFTED THESE PARAGRAPHS TO EMPHASISE THAT THE 13 PORTS OF HONG KONG (WHERE BASIC FACILITIES ARE
PROVIDED BY THE HKG AND SERVICES AND OTHER FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED
BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR) AND THE PRIVATELY OWNED CONTAINER TERMINALS
WOULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS AT PRESENT. (8) PARA. 3 AND THE LAST
SENTENCE OF PARA 4 HAVE BEEN INCLUDED TO SECURE THE CONTINUING RIGHT
OF ACCESS OF VESSELS INCLUDING THOSE FROM SOUTH AFRICA, SOUTH KOREA,
TAIWAN AND ISRAEL TO THE PORT AND THE CONTAINER TERMINAL. (C) THE
OPERATION OF SOVIET AND SOVIET BLOC SHIPS IS A MATTER WHICH MAY NEED FURTHER CONSIDERATION. IN THE PAST WE HAVE ALLOWED FREE ACCESS TO BONA FIDE CARGO AND PASSENGER VESSELS TO LOAD AND DISCHARGE CARGO AND PASSENGERS BUT HAVE USED OUR POWERS UNDER HONG KONG LAW TO DENY ENTRY TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF SOVIET VESSELS (E.G. SOVIET ELINT VESSELS). WE HAVE IN THE PAST ALSO PERMITTED SOME SOVIET AND SOVIET
BLOC MERCHANT VESSELS TO ENTER UNDER STRICT SUPERVISION AND CON-
DITIONS FOR REPAIRS ETC. WE WOULD WISH PRIMA FACIE TO MAINTAIN THESE
ARRANGEMENTS BUT WOULD WELCOME PEKING'S COMMENTS. WE HAVE AS YOU
KNOW BEEN CONSIDERING CONTROL OVER SOVIET LINES RATE-CUTTING
PRACTICES.
(4) PARAGRAPH 5. THE THIRD SENTENCE HAS BEEN INCLUDED TO FOCUS CHINESE MINDS ON THE NEED TO SECURE THE CONTINUED APPLICATION OF
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS TO HONG KONG. WE HAVE SPELT OUT A
SELECTION OF THE MORE IMPORTANT ONES TO WHICH SO FAR AS WE KNOW
CHINA IS NOT A PARTY. WE HAVE NOT SPELLED OUT WHO WOULD TAKE ACTION TO SECURE CONTINUED APPLICATION. YOUR OR PEKING MAY FEEL
WE SHOULD DO SO IN TERMS SIMILAR TO THE SECOND-SENTENCE IN PARA 7
OF YOUR SECOND TUR.
(5) PARA 6. (A). WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT TIMETABLE YOU HAVE IN MIND
TO SUGGEST OVER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HONG KONG REGISTER AND
WHAT YOUR PROPOSALS ARE. WE SHALL CERTAINLY BE ASKED ABOUT THIS
BY EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AND WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL TO HAVE THIS
INFORMATION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. (B). IN OUR TELEGRAM 251 WE HAVE
SUPPORTED PEKING'S PROPOSAL IN THEIR TELEGRAM 161 THAT THE ANNEX
ON FLAGS SHOULD BE DROPPED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE PROPOSE THE
DELETION OF THE WORDS IN THE SECOND SET OF BRACKETS IN PARA 6 OF
MIFT.
(6) PARAGRAPH 7. THIS SUBSUMES THE POINTS IN PARAS 2, 3 AND 4 OF
THE DRAFT IN YOUR SECOND TUR. IT OMITS REFERENCE TO TRAINING
(PARA 2(B) ABOVE), TO COLLECTION OF FEES (YOUR PARA 5) AND TO DEVELOPING THE LAW (PART OF YOUR PARA 3). AS NOW DRAFTED IT FOLLOWS YOUR ORIGINAL DRAFT BUT IT INTRODUCES MORE DETAIL THAN HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN OTHER WORKING PAPERS E.G. CIVIL AVIATION. YOU MAY CONSIDER THAT SHIPPING JUSTIFIES THIS TREATMENT, BUT IT MAY GIVE RISE TO CHINESE CRITICISM OF TOO MUCH DETAIL. THIS IS A POINT WHICH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. - 2
SECRET
16.