CONFIDENTIAL
176124 MDLOAN 6663
5. IT IS OF COURSE LIKELY THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES OF VIEW IN PEKING ABOUT THE BILL AND ABOUT HOW CHINA SHOULD APPROACH IT. IT MAY BE DIFFICULT FOR ANY PROPONENTS IN PEKING OF A CONSTRUCTIVE APPROACH TO CONVINCE THE LEADERSHIP THAT THE BILL SHOULD NOT BE OPPOSED ON PRINCIPLE. IF THAT IS THE CASE, WE WONDER WHETHER THERE MIGHT BE ADVANTAGE IN THE EMBASSY MAKING AN EARLY APPROACH AT SUITABLY HIGH LEVEL IN THE MFA, WITH THE AIM OF GETTING ACROSS THE FOLLOWING POINTS:
WE MADE CLEAR AT JLG XV OUR READINESS TO DISCUSS CHINA'S CONCERNS OVER THE BILL. THIS REMAINS THE CASE. WE ARE SURPRISED THAT THE CHINESE SIDE HAVE STILL NOT COME FORWARD WITH ANY DETAILED POINTS. AND WE ARE EVEN MORE SURPRISED TO READ COMMENTS, ATTRIBUTED TO CHINESE SOURCES, COMPLAINING ABOUT OUR UNWILLINGNESS TO HOLD DISCUSSIONS.
K
WE EXPLAINED AT JLG XV THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THE JOINT DECLARATION AND THE BASIC LAW AND IN NO WAY UNDERMINES THE AUTHORITY OF THE BASIC LAW (FURTHER MATERIAL SHOULD BE DEPLOYED IN SUPPORT OF THIS POINT).
-
WE NOTE FROM PRESS REPORTS THAT CHINESE SOURCES BELIEVE THAT THE BILL WOULD INFRINGE MORE THAN FIVE PROVISIONS OF THE BASIC LAW. IF SUCH MISUNDERSTANDINGS REMAIN ON THE CHINESE SIDE ABOUT THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE BILL, IT IS ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT THAT THE TWO SIDES SHOULD MEET IN ORDER TO CLEAR UP
THESE MISUNDERSTANDINGS.
5. WE ALSO NEED TO CONSIDER HOW WE SHOULD SUBSEQUENTLY BRIEF THE CHINESE ABOUT ANY AMENDMENTS WE INTEND TO MAKE TO THE BILL BEFORE SUBMISSION TO LEGCO (PARA 12 OF MY TELNO 1045 REFERS).
6.
HURD
GRATEFUL FOR YOUR VIEWS AND THOSE OF OTHER ADDRESSEES.
YYYY
PAGE
2
CONFIDENTIAL
131