CONFIDENTIAL
181
101204
MDHIAN 6788
Мок
... HKD241/1
For 2876
28 JUN 1990
TOP COPY
CONFIDENTIAL
FM HONG KONG
TO IMMEDIATE FCO
TELNO 2007
OF 28060OZ JUNE 90
INFO PRIORITY PEKING, UKREP JLG HONG KONG
131
Q LIST?
Tel.
for 317
YOUR TELNO 1043: BILL OF RIGHTS
1.
WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ON THE POINTS RAISED IN TUR.
(PARA 2 OF TUR)
2.
WE NOTE YOUR AGREEMENT THAT IT WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COVENANT TO SUBSTITUTE THE SECURITY OF HONG KONG FOR NATIONAL SECURITY. WE ALSO NOTE YOUR ADVICE THAT YOU CONSIDER IT PRUDENT TO
RETAIN THE PRESENT DEFINITION OF NATIONAL SECURITY IN CLAUSE 2(1) AT LEAST UNTIL 1997. HOWEVER, WE THINK THAT RETAINING THE PHRASE QUOTE WHICH INCLUDES THE SECURITY OF HONG KONG UNQUOTE COULD GIVE RISE TO THE SAME DIFFICULTY AS MIGHT ARISE IF WE SIMPLY SUBSTITUTED THE SECURITY OF HONG KONG. WE THEREFORE PROPOSE TO DELETE THE REFERENCE TO QUOTE NATIONAL SECURITY UNQUOTE IN CLAUSE 2(1) IN ITS ENTIRETY AS WELL AS ANY REFERENCE TO QUOTE THE SECURITY OF HONG KONG UNQUOTE IN THE BILL. WE HAVE PUT THIS TO OMELCO IN ONE OF OUR
BRIEFINGS TO THEM. THEY ARE CONTENT WITH OUR PROPOSAL AND
UNDERSTAND OUR REASONING.
(PARAS 3-4 OF TUR)
3. WE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN US REGARDING THE PROPOSED DELETION OF CLAUSE 5(3) ON THE GROUNDS OF INCONSISTENCY WITH THE COVENANT AND THE POSSIBILITY OF AN IMPERMISSIBLE ABRIDGEMENT OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE COVENANT. WE AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING IN THE BILL WHICH DEALS WITH EMERGENCIES. WE THEREFORE WISH TO RETAIN THE REST OF CLAUSE 5, AS DOES OMELCO.
4. WE DO NOT AGREE THAT ARTICLE 4 OF THE COVENANT IS NOT IN FORCE UNTIL AN EMERGENCY IS DECLARED. THE CROSS REFERENCING TO THE ICCPR IN THE BODY OF THE BILL IS UNATTRACTIVE IN PRINCIPLE AND IN ANY EVENT SINCE THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED SUBSTITUTION IS THE SAME AS CLAUSE 5 WE PREFER TO RETAIN CLAUSE 5. THIS IS ALSO IN KEEPING WITH OUR AIM TO REPRODUCE SO FAR AS IS PRACTICABLE THE TEXT OF THE ICCPR
1
PAGE
CONFIDENTIAL