CONFIDENTIAL
054730 MDHIAN 5641
EFFORTS, BUT REFERRED TO GOOD WORK DONE BY THE AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ON MRS THATCHER'S LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT HE SIMPLY SAID THAT THE JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER HAD WRITTEN TOO. ON THE GENERAL ATTITUDE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY ZHOU SAID HE UNDERSTOOD ITALY AND PORTUGAL WERE BEING HELPFUL ON THE QUESTION OF THE MADRID MEASURES. EHRMAN POINTED OUT THAT THE UK TOO HAD BEEN TAKING A PROMINENT ROLE IN SEEKING SOME RELAXATION ALTHOUGH THERE WAS OPPOSITION IN OTHER QUARTERS. ZHOU SAID THAT HE KNEW OF WHAT THE UK
HAD BEEN DOING. (COMMENT. NOT VERY GRACIOUS THIS PART. COULD DO
BETTER.)
8. I WENT OVER THE QUESTION OF CONSULTATION. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE CONSULTATION. BUT IF THIS WAS TO WORK WE NEEDED TO KNOW WE WOULD GET A POSITIVE, PRACTICAL RESPONSE WITHOUT LONG DELAY WE- COULD NOT GET INTO A SITUATION OF A CHINESE VETO. WE HAD A. RESPONSIBILITY TO ADMINISTER HONG KONG AND INTEND TO CARRY IT OUT. HONG KONG MOVED FAST. SOME MATTERS, EG. ASAS, HAD WAITED FAR TOO LONG FOR RESOLUTION. ZHOU SAID THAT WE SHOULD INDEED CONSULT MORE CLOSELY ON MAJOR ISSUES WHICH AFFECTED 1997. CHINA WAS NOT SEEKING A CONDOMINIUM. NOR DID THEY WANT A VETO OVER OUR ACTIONS. BUT IT WAS SIMPLY NOT ACCEPTABLE TO PRESENT PEKING WITH NEWS OF A MAJOR INITIATIVE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE AFTERNOON (I.E. THE NATIONALITY PACKAGE) AND SAY THAT IT WOULD BE PUBLISHED IN THE EVENING. QUOTE
THAT INFURIATES US UNQUOTE. HE INTERESTINGLY MADE NO OTHER ALLUSION TO THE NATIONALITY BILL, WHICH I TOLD HIM WOULD NOW CERTAINLY GO THROUGH, QUITE PROBABLY WITH NO FURTHER AMENDMENTS. NOR DID HE MAKE ANY COMMENT WHEN I EMPHASISED THE IMPORTANCE OF CHINA NOT THREATENING THE CIVIL SERVICE AFTER PASSAGE OF THE BILL. THE QUESTION OF CONSULTATION ON PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS DID NOT COME UP.
9. BY CONTRAST ZHOU ADOPTED A STRONG LINE ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS. HE SAID THAT CHINA THOUGHT I UNNECESSARY. IT WOULD RESULT IN MANY LAWS BEING CHANGED. BOTH BRITAIN AND CHINA HAD AGREED IN THE JOINT DECLARATION THAT HONG KONG'S LAWS SHOULD REMAIN BASICALLY UNCHANGED. I SAID THAT THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF OUR ABANDONING OR DELAYING THE BILL. WE HAD BEEN COMMITTED TO IT EVER SINCE SIR GEOFFREY HOWE HAD ANNOUNCED IT IN THE SUMMER OF 1989. IT WAS A NECESSARY MEASURE IF WE WERE TO BRING OUR LAWS INTO LINE WITH ARTICLE 39 OF THE BASIC LAW BY 1997. WITHOUT A BILL OF RIGHTS, AND TIME TO MAKE ANY NECESSARY ADAPTATIONS TO OTHER LAWS TO BRING THEM INTO LINE WITH THE COVENANT (WHICH, DESPITE WHAT SOME PEOPLE ARGUED, WOULD NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR ABILITY TO MAINTAIN LAW AND ORDER), INDIVIDUALS COULD GO TO THE COURTS IN 1997 TO ARGUE THAT THIS OR THAT LAW WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COVENANTS AND THUS
PAGE 3 CONFIDENTIAL