GRS 400
SECRET
FUTURE EGRET
TOP COPY
+KK040 46
SECRET
VIVED IN
15 AUG 1984
+
FROM PEKING 141107Z AUG 04
TO IMMEDIATE FCO
TELEGRAM NUSDER 1763 OF 14 AUC
INFO IMMEDIATE HONG KONG
1605?
origen Tremen
YOUR TELNO 1602) TO HONG KONG: FUTURE EGRET: NATIONALITY.
1.
I AM SURE THE ASSUMPTION IN PARAGRAPH 4 IS RIGHT. BUT
WE OUGHT, I THINK, TO WORK FOR AN ARRANGEMENT WHICH ENTAILED
AT LEAST IMPLICIT ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF WHATEVER STATEMENT WE
HAD MADE.
2. MY COMMENTS ON THE DEVICES DISCUSSED IN PARAGRAPH S
ARE AS FOLLOWS:
(A) AN EXCHANGE OF NOTES OR LETTER. THIS WOULD ENTAIL EXPLICIT
CHINESE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF OUR STATEMENT. BUT, ON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT WE WANTED THE EXCHANCE TO BE PUBLISHED, I DO NOT THINK THAT
THE CHINESE WOULD AGREE. THEY WOULD SEE A PUBLISHED EXCHANGE
AS BEING AS PREJUDICIAL TO THEIR POSITION ON DUAL NATIONALITY AS THE INCORPORATION OF PARALLEL STATEMENTS IN AN ANNEX TO THE
JOINT DECLARATION. BUT WE COULD TRY.
(E) PARALLES UNILATERAL STATEMENTS, ACCOMPANIED BY AN INDICATION THAT THEY WERE BEING MADE BY PRIOR APRANGEMENT. THIS WOULD ENTAIL AN EXPLICIT CHINESE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF OUR STATEMENT. THE CHINESE MIGHT PERHAPS AGREE, BUT I DO NOT THINK WE CAN TAKE THEIR AGREEMENT FOR GRANTED.
(C) AN ASYMMETRICAL ARRANGEMENT. THIS WOULD NOT, AS I SEE IT, ENTAIL ANY CHINESE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF OUR STATEMENT, EXPLICIT OP IMPLICIT, AND WOULD THEREFORE TE VERY MUCH A THIRD EEST.
3. ZHOU NAN HAS SAID THAT TO ASK FOR CHINESE AGREEMENT TO THE TRANSMISSIBILITY TO BRITISH NATIONALITY FOR ONE GENERATION IS TO ASK TOO MUCH AND GOES BEYOND THE LIMIT OF CHINESE FLEXIBILITY. I DOUBT WHETHER WE SHALL BE ABLE TO BUDGE THE CHINESE ON THIS. I SHARE YOU DOUETS ABOUT THE WISDOM OF OUR UNILATERALLY GIVING THE RIGHT OF TRANSMISSIBILITY TO FORMER BDTCS IN CONDITIONS WHERE
THEY WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE PREVENTED FROM USING IT.
SECRET
45