CONFIDENTIAL
FM FCO
TO IMMEDIATE HONG KONG
TELNO 679
OF 081715Z APRIL 91
CONFIDENTIAL
HKC241/5
AND TO IMMEDIATE UKREP JLG HONG KONG
INFO IMMEDIATE PEKING
- (18)
PM 9/4.
200
061752
MDHOAN 1285
TOP COPY
? DIST?
Redacted Under FOI Exemption Sec 27(1)
YOUR TELNO 933 AND UKREP JLG TELNO 60% BILL OF RIGHTS
1. WE WERE GRATEFUL FOR THESE PRELIMINARY VIEWS. IT SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT WE SHALL GET A CLEARER STEER ON THE CHINESE ATTITUDE TO THE AMENDMENTS.
SUBJECT TO ANY DISCUSSION YOU MAY HAVE HAD WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, OUR COMMENTS ON PARA 2 OF FIRST TUR ARE:
2.
(A) WE NEED TO BALANCE THE RISK OF CRITICISM FOR WATERING DOWN THE BILL (COUPLED WITH THE RISK OF ADVERSE OR AMBIGUOUS CHINESE COMMENT) AGAINST THE RISK OF STRONG CHINESE CRITICISM IF WE EXCLUDE THE AMENDMENT. THAT BALANCE MAY WELL BE AFFECTED BY THE OUTCOME ON PADS. THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE'S COMMENTS THAT WE SHOULD PUT IN PLACE IRREVERSIBLE HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS BEFORE 1997 IS LIKELY TO STRENGTHEN CRITICISM FOR MAKING THE BILL SUBJECT TO THE LETTERS PATENT/BASIC LAW. IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW IN MORE DETAIL HOW YOU WOULD SEE THIS PLAYING IN PUBLIC OPINION IF THE AMENDMENT IS PUT FORWARD. WE SHOULD ALSO GIVE THOUGHT TO PUBLIC PRESENTATION WHETHER OR NOT THE AMENDMENT IS TABLED. WE ARE ATTRACTED TO YOUR FORMULA FOR USE WITH THE CHINESE IF WE WITHDRAW IT (PARA ZA OF FIRST TUR). WOULD WE ENVISAGE MAKING THIS POINT PUBLIC IF THE CHINESE PUBLICLY CRITICISED THE BILL ON THE GROUNDS OF INCOMPATIBILITY WITH THE BASIC LAW?
(B) WE AGREE. AS YOU KNOW, OUR LEGAL ADVISERS CONSIDER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AN IMPROVEMENT ON THE EXISTING DRAFT.
(C) OUR LEGAL ADVISERS CONSIDER THAT, IF INTER-CITIZEN RIGHTS ARE NOT TO BE COVERED BY THE BILL, IT WOULD NO LONGER BE
PAGE
1
CONFIDENTIAL