CONFIDENTIAL
066155
1
MDLIAN
AGREEMENT THAT PLACES OBLIGATIONS UPON US EXTENDING BEYOND 1997 WOULD REQUIRE CLEARANCE WITH THE CHINESE. HENCE BOTH THE NON- BINDING NATURE OF THE ARRANGEMENT AND OUR SUGGESTION OF A REVIEW IN 1994: THE IDEA BEING TO DISCUSS IT WITH THE CHINESE AT THAT POINT IF NECESSARY. OUR OWN PROPOSED EXCHANGE OF NOTES CONTAINS A TERMINATION AT NOTICE CLAUSE WHICH CAN BE INVOKED BY EITHER SIDE. OUR OBJECTION IS THAT NAMING AN ACTUAL TERMINATION DATE IS IN THE TEXT UNNECESSARY, AND THROWS TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON 1997.
5. AS TO THE DEFINITION OF BUSINESS VISITOR, THE ADJUSTED QUALIFICATIONS THAT WE PROPOSED WERE BASED UPON PRACTICAL CALCULATION AS TO HOW MANY BUSINESSMEN IN HONG KONG WOULD BENEFIT. THE JAPANESE PROPOSALS SEEM NOT TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF HONG KONG'S COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT, WHERE LENGTH OF SERVICE IN ONE COMPANY AND THE SIZE OF ENTERPRISES ARE GENERALLY LESS THAN IS THE CASE IN JAPAN.
6. ALTOGETHER THE JAPANESE SEEM NOT TO HAVE GIVEN MUCH THOUGHT TO THE PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THEIR PROPOSALS. FOR INSTANCE, THE WAY THE THREE YEARS' SERVICE QUALIFICATION CLAUSE IS WORDED, A BUSINESSMAN WHO WORKED TEN YEARS FOR SWIRES BEFORE JOINING JARDINES LAST YEAR WOULD BE EXCLUDED IF HE APPLIED FOR A VISA TODAY. THE COMMENT ON OMITTING REFERENCE TO MEMBERSHIP OF WELL-ESTABLISHED TRADING ORGANISATIONS IS PARTICULARLY STRANGE: SURELY THE CONSULATE-GENERAL HERE CAN MAKE THIS JUDGEMENT? IF NECESSARY, WE COULD CERTAINLY ASSIST WITH INFORMATION.
+
7. WE ARE ALSO CURIOUS ABOUT THEIR PROPOSAL TO DELETE HONG KONG (AS WELL AS 'SINGAPORE AND FEDERATION OF MALAYA' WHY ON EARTH SHOULD THESE BE DELETED SUBSEQUENT TO A NEW ARRANGEMENT WITH HONG KONG?. THE U K/JAPAN AGREEMENT OF 1957 IS BINDING UPON THE TWO GOVERNMENTS AND ITS TERMS COVER BN (0)S EVEN AFTER 1997. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT BN (0)S WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE DELETION OF HONG KONG' FROM THAT AGREEMENT BECAUSE THEIR COVERAGE STEMS FROM THEIR HOLDING PASSPORTS WHICH BEAR ON THE OUTSIDE COVER 'UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND'. HOWEVER WE SUSPECT THE JAPANESE DO THINK THEY WILL BE AFFECTED, INDEED WE SUPPOSE THEIR OBJECTIVE IS PRECISELY TO REMOVE FROM BN (0)S THE RIGHTS THEY CURRENTLY ENJOY UNDER THE 1957 AGREEMENT. THERE MAY BE A MISUNDERSTANDING HERE WHICH NEEDS CLEARING UP. CERTAINLY THE 1957 AGREEMENT AS IT RELATES TO BN (0)S SHOULD NOT BE SUPERSEDED BY A NON-BINDING ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENT OF THE KIND WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING, EVEN LESS BY A UNILATERAL DECLARATION BY BOTH SIDES.
2
PAGE
CONFIDENTIAL