4. BY A LATE STAGE IN THE AFTERNOON WE HAD REACHED
COMPLETE IMPASSE, AND THE CHINESE SAID THAT IF AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE REACHED TODAY ON THE EXCHANGE OF NOTES
BOTH EXCHANGES TOGETHER WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE CONSULAR AGREE- MENT WOULD HAVE TO BE PUT OFF. ABSURD THOUGH THIS MIGHT SEEM WE THINK THEY WERE SERIOUS ABOUT THIS. SINCE THEREFORE THE CHINESE HAD SAID THAT THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE MISSING SENTENCE WHICH IN FACT CAUSED THEM ANY DIFFICULTY, BUT THAT IT WAS ONLY THAT THEY COULD NOT POSSIBLY PRINT THE CHINESE TEXT AGAIN IN TIME FOR THE SIGNING OF THE CONSULAR AGREEMENT ON 17 APRIL, CALSWORTHY PROPOSED THAT THE OFFENDING SENTENCE
SHOULD BE LEFT OUT OF THE EXCHANGE OF NOTES, BUT INCORPORATED INSTEAD IN AN AGREED MINUTE WHICH HE AND SONG SHOULD SIGN. AFTER SOME RESISTANCE THE CHINESE AGREED THIS. AN AGREED MINUTE
WAS PREPARED IN BOTH LANGUAGES AND SIGNED. THE E
EXCHANGES OF NOTES BOTH ON TRANSIT OF PRC NATIONALS AND THE IMM- UNITIES OF THE VISA OFFICE THEN TOOK PLACE.
5. WE ACCEPTED SOME OF THE NEW TRANSLATION FORMULATIONS PROPOSED BY THE CHINESE SIDE: WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT THEY DID NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE OF SUBSTANCE. THE CHINESE TEXT IN THESE CASES REM- AINED UNCHANGED.
6. THERE WAS ONE ERROR IN THE TEXT IN OUR TELEGRAM NO 717. THE FIRST SENTENCE IN PARAGRAPH 3 SHOULD NOT HAVE CONTAINED THE WORDS OR TRAVEL PERMITS'. IT WAS THE CHINESE REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THIS (OUR TEL NO 59 TO HONG KONG OF 1983) WHICH PRECIPIATED ALL THE SUBSEQUENT ARGUMENT. ERROR REGRETTED.
7. WE HOPE THAT THE RESULTS OF THIS LAST MINUTE SCRAMBLE WILL BE ACCEPTABLE. THERE WAS OF COURSE NO TIME TO SEEK FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS. WE DO NOT THINK IN FACT THAT WE HAVE LOST ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE. WE SHALL SEND FULL TEXTS BY BAG.
EVANS
LIMITED
HKD
FED
NTD
OLD
PROTOCOLD CONS D LEG ADU
MVD
PS
PSIMRLUCE
SIR WHARDING
MR WILSON
LORD N GORDON LENNOX
2
CONFIDENTIAL
THIS TELEGRAM WAS NOT ADVANCED