CONFIDENTIAL
FM HONG KONG
TO IMMEDIATE FCO
TELNO 821
OF 05120OZ MARCH 90
INFO IMMEDIATE PEKING
CONFIDENTIAL
INFO PRIORITY UKREP JLG HONG KONG
TOP COPY
Q DIST
HK CO12/3
RECEIVED
12 MAR 1990
DESK OF...
INDEX
Y
'TRY
ion Taken
60
041776
MDHIAN 0299
FOR PAUL, HKD FROM GOVERNOR
153 43
Sit
MY TELNOS 795 AND 79% AND YOUR TELNO 487: BASIC LAW: ARTICLE 106.
1. I AM GRATEFUL FOR THESE FURTHER THOUGHTS ON ARTICLE 106. WE HAVE WEIGHED CAREFULLY THE ADVANTAGE OF PURSUING ONLY OUR PREFERRED REDRAFT AGAINST A WIDER APPROACH INCLUDING THE PROSPECT AS A FALLBACK OF SECURING LIMITED BUT HELPFUL CHANGES TO THE ENGLISH TEXT ONLY. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN PARAS. 3 AND 4 OF MY FIRST TUR, I BELIEVE THAT THE FORMER WOULD IN PRACTICE MEAN LITTLE MORE THAN OUR GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS ONCE AGAIN. IN VIEW OF TH VERY TIGHT TIMING UNDER WHICH WE ARE NOW OPERATING AND THE ABSENCE OF ANY REAL PRESSURE ON THE CHINESE TO REACH AGREEMENT WITH US ON THE WORDING OF THE CLAUSE, I DOUBT WHETHER WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR TWO BITES AT THIS PARTICULAR CHERRY. I CONCLUDE THAT THE ONLY REALISTIC WAY FORWARD IS TO FOLLOW UP LU PING'S REMARKS TO ME IN PEKING, I.E. TO PRESS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ENGLISH TEXT, AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE REVERT TO THE CHINESE ON IMPROVING THE TEXT OF ARTICLE 106 AS A WHOLE.
2. I DO NOT THINK THAT BY PURSUING THE TRANSLATION POINT (IN ADDITION TO OUR PREFERRED REDRAFT), WE ARE NECESSARILY GIVING GROUND ON THE NEED TO IMPROVE ARTICLE 106 ITSELF. THE LAST SENTENCE OF PARA. 3 OF OUR DRAFT SPEAKING NOTE IN MY SECOND TUR REFERS TO ''A FINAL VIEW'', WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT WE CONTINUE TO HOPE THE CHINESE WILL RECONSIDER THE WHOLE QUESTION OF ARTICLE 106. OUR PUBLIC LINE WHEN THE BASIC LAW IS PROMULGATED COULD THEN BE AS FOLLOWS:
(A) (IF THE CHINESE TEXT REMAINS UNCHANGED BUT THE ENGLISH TEXT IS IMPROVED ALONG THE LINES PROPOSED IN OUR SPEAKING NOTE) ''WE DO NOT FEEL THE TEXT OF ARTICLE 106 IS ENTIRELY SATISFACTORY, BUT READ AS A WHOLE, IT IMPLIES THAT THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IS A GUIDELINE RATHER THAN A REQUIREMENT, AND AS SUCH DOES NOT CONFLICT DIRECTLY WITH THE JOINT DECLARATION''
1
PAGE CONFIDENTIAL