CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
FROM PEKING 201010Z MAR 84
TO PRIORITY FCO
TELEGRAM NUMBER 527 OF 20/3/84
INFO PRIORITY HONG KONG
(6)
Copied
九
the Whomesty
HKK S49/1.
RECEIVED IN REUBT
2. 1MAR 1984
DESK DEFICŁA 1402X
YOUR TEL NO 204 AND HONG KONG TEL N 0 666: CHINESE VISA OFFICE
IN HONG KONG
MISTRY
CK Tanumi
1. WE SEE NO PARTICULAR PROBLEM WITH THE AMENDMENTS SUGGESTED
IN YOUR TUR.
see (2)
2 QE DO HOWEVER SEE POTENTIAL DIFFICULTIES IN THE APPROACH IN
HONG KONG TELNO 666. WHILE WE AGREE THAT THE PHRASE SUGGESTED
IN PARAGRAPH 2 IS EASIER TO TRANSLATE THAN THE ORIGINAL
PHRASE, IT IS STILL SUBJECT TO THE OBJECTION THAT IT EXPLICITLY EQUATES OFFICERD OF THE VISA OFFICE WITH CONSULAR OFFICERS, AND WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT IT WILL BE UNACCEPTABLE TO THE
CHINESE FOR THIS REASON. HOWEVER IF WE PUT THIS FORWARD IT
WILL ON PAST EXPERIENCE TAKE THEM 6-8 WEEKS TO CONSIDER IT
BEFORE THEY TELL US IT IS UNACCEPTABLE. SINCE THE FORMULATIONS WHICH
SPELL OUT THE IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES IN FULL ARE LIKELY
TO BE ACCEPTABLE WITH APPROPRIATE AMENDMENTS, WE DO NOT
THINK THAT IT IS WORTHWHILE PUTTINT FORWARD THIS SUGGESTION AND
INCURRING THE RISK OF A SUBSTANTIAL DELAY TO NO PROFIT.
IT IS ALSO VERY DIFFICULT TO ARGUE THAT IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO HAVE
REFERENCES TO ARTICLES OF THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR REL-
ATIONS (VCCR) BUT NOT ACCEPTABLE TO SPELL THOSE ARTICLES OUT IN
FULL
,
3. PARAGRAPH 3 OF HONG KONG TUR MENTIONS THE EXCEPTION IN THE
VCCR IN RESPECT OF ''GRAVE CRIMES''. THERE WERE EXCHANGES
ABOUT THIS IN JUNE 1983 (PEKING TEL NO 536 AND HONG KONG TEL
NO 802). HONG KONG AGREED AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS UNREALISTIC
TO ATTEMPT TO PUT A REFERENCE TO ARREST OR DETENTION IN CASES
CF GRAVE CRIME INTO THE AGREEMENT SINCE THE ORIGINAL EXCHANGE
OF 1981 DID NOT INCLUDE ANY SCH EXCEPTIONS. THE FACT IS THAT THIS
POINT WAS GIVEN AWAY IN 1981.
4. WE FEAR THAT WE ARE ALSO HOOKED ON THE LANGUAGE TO WHICH
HONG KONG OBJECT IN PARAGRAPH ↳ OF THEIR TUR. WE ARGUED HARD
TO GET THIS LANGUAGE INTO THE CONSULAR AGREEMENT, AND HAVE
ALREADY IN DISCUSSION LINKED THIS PARAGRAPH WITH THE
EQUIVALENT PARAGRAPH IN THE DRAFT CONSULAR AGREEMENT WE DO
NOT THINK THE CHINESE WILL ACCEPT ANYTHING LESS IN THIS PARA-
GRAPH THAN THEY HAVE GIVE US IN THE DRAFT CONSULAR AGREEMENT.
WE DO HOWEVER THINK THAT THE WORDS ''AND THEIR DEPENDENTS''
SHOULD AND COULD BE DELETED FROM THE FIRST SENTENCE.
CONFIDENTIAL
•
-1- /WE.
20