CONFIDENTIAL
31
MDHIAN 178
PREDETERMINED RETREAT.
5. I ALSO HAVE THE FOLLOWING POINTS OF DETAIL:
(A) PARA 5(C) REFERS TO AN OBLIGATION THAT ALL HMOCS SHOULD BE ABLE TO RETIRE WITH IMMEDIATE PAYMENT OF PENSION AT THE TIME OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE. THIS IS LIKELY TO BE HIGHLY OBJECTIONABLE TO THE CHINESE, BUT THE REST OF THE PAPER DOES NOT EXPLAIN HOW IT IS TO BE IMPLEMENTED. IN FACT, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, IT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE IMPLEMENTED HERE. IF SO, WHY RAISE IT?
(B) PARA 5(A)-(D) DO NOT MENTION THE PRINCIPLE THAT OFFICERS SERVING ON OR AFTER THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE REGARDED BY HMG AS MEMBERS OF HMOCS. INDEED IT WOULD SEEM TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH 5(A). HOWEVER, PARA 6 GOES ON TO REFER TO SUCH AN OBLIGATION ONLY TO SUGGEST THAT IT COULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. THIS IS VERY CONFUSING.
(C) PARA 6(C). TO SAY THAT THESE MATTERS HAVE BEEN UNDER DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE UK GOVERNMENT AND HKG FOR SOME TIME IS OBVIOUSLY UNDERMINING ANY CONTENTION THAT THIS IS A MATTER SOLELY FOR HMG.
(D) PARA 7. IT SEEMS UNNECESSARY TO REVEAL THAT WE ARE CONTEMPLATING SMALLER PAYMENTS THAN ANY OTHER DEPENDENT
TERRITORIES. THIS WILL FUEL CHINESE SUSPICIONS THAT HMG ARE UP TO
SOME SPECIAL TRICKERY IN HONG KONG.
(E) PARA 9. THIS IS THE NUB OF THE STRATEGY PROBLEM
MENTIONED ABOVE. IT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE APPROACH ORIGINALLY
SUGGESTED.
(F) PARA 11. HIGHLY UNDESIRABLE IF WE WISH TO MAINTAIN THAT
THIS IS A MATTER FOR HMG ALONE.
(G) PARA 12. THIS SHOULD BE KEPT FOR DEFENSIVE USE. IF WE VOLUNTEER IT, IT WILL REMIND THE CHINESE OF THE MAN WHO ERECTED A SIGN OVER HIS BURIED HOARD TO THE EFFECT THAT 200 TAELS OF SILVER
WERE NOT BURIED IN THIS PLACE.
GALSWORTHY
YYYY