CONFIDENTIAL
FM FCO
TO IMMEDIATE HONG KONG
CONFIDENTIAL
}
39
116643
MDHOAN 2608
HKC340
(340)
RE update.
RECEIVED IN REC
12LD 1990
DESK OFFICER
REGISTRY
PA
Action Taken
fm. 8/2
TELNO 315
OF 07110OZ FEBRUARY 90
INDEX
38
YOUR TELNO 432: OMELCO ENQUIRY ON NATIONALITY
1. WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPLY IN TUR.
A)
2.
APPLICATION OF CHINESE NATIONALITY LAW
THE NEW DRAFT IS MORE CIRCUMSPECT. WE AGREE THAT WE SHOULD NOT SPECULATE ABOUT CHINESE INTENTIONS. WE ALSO SEE THE CASE FOR NOT USING THE LINE PROPOSED IN PARA 2 OF MY TELNO 223. WE ARE CONTENT WITH THE REPLY AS DRAFTED.
B) SECTION IV OF THE JOINT DECLARATION
THIS REPLY DOES NOT ADDRESS OMELCO'S QUESTION, WHICH IS WHICH POSTS WE CONSIDER TO BE INCLUDED UNDER THIS SECTION OF THE JD. WE SUGGEST YOU REVERT TO THE FIRST THREE SENTENCES OF YOUR EARLIER DRAFT.
WE WOULD NOT SEE ANY NEED TO COMMENT ON ARTICLE 100 OF THE BASIC LAW OR THE OUTCOME OF THE RECENT CANTON MEETING. IF YOU WISH TO RETAIN THE LAST SENTENCE OF YOUR DRAFT, YOU SHOULD INCORPORATE THE VIEWOF OUR LEGAL ADVISERS AS CONTAINED IN PARA 5 OF MY TELNO 223.
C) RIGHT OF ABODE
4. WE SHOULD PREFER TO RETAIN THE AMENDMENT IN PARA 7 OF MY TELNO 223: IT MAY BE FOR THE CHINESE AUTHORITIES TO MAKE THE NECESSARY CLARIFICATION, EG ON PROMULGATION OF THE BASIC LAW. WE SHOULD ALSO PREFER TO DELETE THE FIRST TWO WORDS OF THE LAST SENTENCE (QUOTE GIVEN THAT UNQUOTE) AND ALL AFTER QUOTE FOREIGN NATIONALITY UNQUOTE. WE SEE NO HARM IN MAKING THIS AS A STATEMENT OF FACT. BUT WITHOUT A CLEARER INDICATION OF HOW THE CHINESE WOULD DEFINE RIGHT OF ABODE, WE WOULD PREFER NOT TO GIVE AN OPINION ON WHETHER THIS PROVISION GOES BEYOND THE TERMS OF THE JOINT DECLARATION.
HURD
YYYY
1
PAGE
CONFIDENTIAL