RESTRICTED
FM WASHINGTON
TO TELELETTER FCO
TELELETTER NFR
OF 01234OZ OCTOBER 91
RESTRICTED
HKD 021
AND TO TELELETTER HONG KONG, PEKING
6
Hume with
000014
MDTTAN 3537
zeen Ix?
(ie Letter from Luttison)
1-15
기초
FROM:
FOLLOWING FOR:
COPIED TO:
SD PATTISON, WASHINGTON
MR J HAIGUE, HONG KONG DEPT, FCO CHANCERY, HONG KONG, PEKING
MY LETTER OF 27 SEPTEMBER, AND HONG KONG TELNO 3046: THE US/HK POLICY ACT 1991 (THE MCCONNELL BILL)
1.
AS I EXPLAINED BY PHONE, MY LETTER OF 27 SEPTEMBER CROSSED WITH HONG KONG'S TELEGRAM. THE LETTER, I HOPE, ADDRESSES HONG KONG'S
CONCERNS.
2. THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE NOT ASKED US FOR OUR VIEWS ON THE MCCONNELL BILL, BUT PATRICK FREEMAN CHONG KONG DESK OFFICER AT STATE) TOLD ME ON 30 SEPTEMBER THAT THEY HAD APPROACHED THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT.
3. I ASKED FREEMAN WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION THOUGHT OF THE BILL. HE SAID MUCH OF IT WAS UNOBJECTIONABLE: MCCONNELL HAD STUCK CLOSELY TO THE JOINT DECLARATION, WHICH THE ADMINISTRATION COULD HARDLY OPPOSE. NOR, INDEED, COULD THE CHINESE. MOREOVER, MOST OF THE BILL USED QUOTE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS UNQUOTE LANGUAGE AND WAS NOT THEREFORE BINDING ON THE ADMINISTRATION.
4.
THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD, HOWEVER, RESIST THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE REGULAR REPORTS TO CONGRESS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JOINT DECLARATION CERTAINLY BEFORE 1997.' THEY HAD ALWAYS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THIS WAS A MATTER BETWEEN US AND THE CHINESE: THEY DID NOT WANT TO TAKE SIDES. IT WOULD BE PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO COMMENT BETWEEN NOW AND 1997, WHEN WE AND THE CHINESE WOULD STILL BE WORKING OUT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JOINT DECLARATION.
5. MORE GENERALLY, FREEMAN SAID IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT LEGISLATION WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ENABLE THE US TO DEAL WITH HONG KONG AS A SEPARATE ENTITY AFTER 1997. THE MCCONNELL BILL, OR SOMETHING LIKE IT, COULD PROVIDE A USEFUL VEHICLE. STATE DEPARTMENT LAWYERS WERE CURRENTLY LOOKING INTO THIS.
PAGE
RESTRICTED
1