CONFIDENTIAL
77794 1
DOCUMENTATION. NOR WOULD THE PERSON'S RETURNABILITY TO HONG KONG
BE AFFECTED. AS A BDTC HE WOULD HAVE HAD THE RIGHT OF ABODE IN
HONG KONG, AND WOULD CONTINUE TO DO SO AFTER 1997 UNLESS, IN THE
CASE OF A NON-CHINESE, HE HAD THE RIGHT OF ABODE (AND HENCE WAS
RETURNABLE) ELSEWHERE.
3.
WE FEEL WE SHOULD DISCOURAGE THE FILIPINOS FROM THINKING
IN TERMS OF SETTING A DATE PRIOR TO 1 JULY 1997 AFTER WHICH BDTC
PASSPORTS WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. OUR POSITION IS THAT BDTC
PASSPORTS REMAIN VALID UP TO 30 JUNE 1997 AND WE WOULD NOT WANT
TO SEE MEASURES TAKEN WHICH TENDED TO UNDERMINE THAT POSITION.
4。
AS REGARDS CIS, WE SUSPECT MRS GONZALES IS UNAWARE OF THE
AGREEMENT REACHED WITH THE CHINESE AT JLGIV ON THE CONTINUED
VALIDITY OF CIS BEYOND 1997. ONCE THE MEMORANDA CONFIRMING THIS
AGREEMENT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED WE THINK WE SHOULD PASS HER COPIES
TO ALLAY HER FEARS ON THIS POINT. THERE IS OF COURSE THE
POSSIBILITY THAT A CI COULD EXPIRE WHILE ITS HOLDER IS IN THE
PHILIPPINES. BUT THIS COULD HAPPEN AT ANY TIME, AND NO DOUBT
DOES FROM TIME TO TIME. IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO BE ABLE TO TELL
MRS GONZALES WHAT PROCEDURE IS FOLLOWED IN SUCH CASES NOW. AFTER
1997 A CI HOLDER WOULD BE ENTITLED TO EXCHANGE THE EXPIRED
DOCUMENT FOR AN SAR TRAVEL DOCUMENT OF SOME SORT.
AGAIN, THERE
SHOULD BE NO BURDEN FOR THE PHILIPPINES IN TERMS EITHER OF TRAVEL
DOCUMENTATION OR RETURNABILITY.
5.
WE THINK PARAS 2-4 ABOVE COULD FORM THE BASIS OF A
RESPONSE TO MRS GONZALES. GRATEFUL FOR COMMENTS.
6.
PARAS 3 AND 5 OF TLUR. WE THINK WE SHOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF THE FORTHCOMING JLG TO SAY TO THE CHINESE THAT IT IS POSSIBLE
THAT SOME GOVERNMENTS WILL APPROACH THEM TO SEEK CONFIRMATION OF
THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN US COVERING BN(0) PASSPORTS. THIS SEEMS TO
US AN ITEM THAT COULD CONVENIENTLY BE FITTED INTO ANY OTHER
BUSINESS AND LINKED TO WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY ON MINOR TRAVEL
DOCUMENTS (IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MORE SUITABLE ITEM ON THE AGENDA
2
CONFIDENTIAL
/ PROVIDING