CONFIDENTIAL
37823
1
WE MUST ENSURE
THAT OUR IDEAS ARE DEMONSTRABLY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE SAID
BEFORE AND DO NOT TRIGGER CHINESE SENSITIVITIES ON SOVEREIGNTY
ISSUES. BUT WE CAN ONLY GET A CLEAR IDEA OF WHAT CHINESE
CONCERNS ARE BY TALKING TO THEM FURTHER.
4.
-
SECOND, WE NEED TO CONSIDER THE VIEW WHICH WILL BE TAKEN
BY OTHER GATT CONTRACTING PARTIES. ON THE WHOLE, THEY HAVE
ACCEPTED THE NEW SITUATION READILY ENOUGH - AN ARGUMENT FOR
LEAVING THINGE AS THEY ARE, WHICH MAY BE DEPLOYED BY THE CHINESE.
BUT SOME DOUBTE HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE INDIANS IN
PARTICULAR, BUT ALEO BY THE BRAZILIANS AND AND INITIALLY BY THE
AMERICANE. THESE WILL PROBABLY NOT INTERFERE WITH THE WORKING OF
THE NEW RELATIONSHIP BEFORE 1997: BUT THE POSSIBILITY REMAINS
THAT SOME OF THE DOUBTERS MIGHT RESURRECT THEIR DOUBTS THEN. IT
IS NOT, OF COURSE, CERTA IN THAT A CHANGE IN THE STATUS OF YOUR
GENEVA OFFICE WOULD HEAD OFF THIE POESIBILITY. BUT WE SEE THE
FORCE OF THE ARGUMENT THAT THE MORE INDEPENDENTLY THE OFFICE IS
BEEN TO BE OPERATING NOW THE HARDER IT WILL BE TO RAISE
OBJECTIONE IN 1997. (AGAIN THE EXACT TITLE OF THE OFFICE 18 A SECONDARY MATTER.)
5.
THIRD, WE NEED TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE SCOPE OF THE
OFFICE'E ACTIVITIES. IT MUST BE DEMONSTRABLY THE CASE THAT EVERY
AUTONOMOUE ACTIVITY OF THE OFFICE OR ITE PERSONNEL FALLE WITHIN
THE AREA OF HONG KONG 'E AUTONOMY AS DEFINED BY THE JOINT
DECLARATION. CONVERSELY FOR ANY ACTIVITY NOT FALLING WITHIN THAT
SCOPE THE CONNECTION WITH UKMIS (AND AFTER 1997 WITH THE CHINESE
MIEGION) WILL BE RETAINED. IF YOU ARE SATISFIED THAT SUCH
ACTIVITIES ARE REALLY SO INFREQUENT AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE DO,
THEN TEMPORARY ACCREDITATION MAY BE AN ANSWER. (ONE AREA WHICH
YOU DO NOT MENTION IE CONTACTS WITH UNHCR: ARE THESE SIGNIFICANT
OR REGULAR?)
6.
FOURTH WE HAVE THE PROBLEM OF PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.
AS UKMIE TUR NOTES, WE SHALL NOT KNOW WHERE WE STAND UNTIL WE
HAVE SPOKEN TO THE EWIEE. A GOOD DEAL MAY BE OBTAINABLE: BUT WE
EHALL HAVE TO START THE PROCESS RECOGNISING THAT SEPARATION MAY
ENTAIL A COET IN TERMS OF LOST PRIVILEGEƐ.
2
CONFIDENTIAL
Redacted under FOI exemption 27(1)