CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
AKCOIZ
13
VED IN RES TY
RECEWOR
€ APR 1900
fa
FM FCO
TO DESKBY 13010OZ HONG KON
IN
TELNO 538
OF 121545Z MARCH 90
{
REGISTRY
A
action Taken
AND TO DESKBY 13010OZ PEKING UKREP JLG HONG KONG
FOLLOWING TELEGRAM NOW REPEATED TO YOU AT REQUEST OF DEPT
BEGINS:
CONFIDENTIAL
FM FCO
TO IMMEDIATE HONG KONG
TELNO 502
OF 05170OZ MARCH 90
INFO IMMEDIATE PEKING, UKREP JLG HONG KONG
62
052740
MDHOAN 4803
YOUR TELNO 821: BASIC LAW: ARTICLE 106
1.
WE ACCEPT THAT IN VIEW OF THE TIMING CONSTRAINTS A SINGLE APPROACH WILL HAVE TO SUFFICE. BUT OUR LEGAL ADVISERS REMAIN STRONGLY OF THE OPINION THAT AN AMENDMENT TO THE ENGLISH TEXT WILL NOT SOLVE OUR PROBLEM.
2. EVEN IF THE ENGLISH TEXT WAS AMENDED TO REFLECT THE QUOTE BROADER INTERPRETATION UNQUOTE, WE COULD NOT CLAIM PUBLICLY THAT WE WERE SATISFIED THAT THIS MADE THE ARTICLE A MERE GUIDELINE AND THAT THE COURTS WOULD NOT INTERPRET IT AS A REQUIREMENT. THIS POINT WOULD HAVE TO BE REFLECTED IN THE SUGGESTED PUBLIC LINE IN PARA 2(A) OF TUR BY AMENDING IT TO READ QUOTE BUT READ AS A WHOLE, IT IMPLIES THAT THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IS A GUIDELINE RATHER THAN A REQUIREMENT AND, IF THE COURTS WERE TO INTERPRET IT AS SUCH, WOULD NOT CONFLICT DIRECTLY WITH THE JOINT DECLARATION UNQUOTE. SUCH A LINE WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE VERY MUCH WEAKER.
3. OUR LEGAL ADVISERS CONTINUE, THEREFORE, TO HOLD FIRMLY TO THE VIEW THAT PEKING SHOULD DEPLOY THE SPEAKING NOTE IN YOUR TELNO 796 MINUS THE LAST PARAGRAPH. WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR YOUR VIEWS ON THE CONSIDERATIONS IN PARA 2 ABOVE. LIKE YOU, WE ARE ANXIOUS TO RESOLVE THIS POINT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO THAT PEKING
CAN TAKE ACTION.