CONFIDENTIAL
before 1 July 1997 are we not:
(a) inviting everyone to retire before then because, in the absence of Chinese acceptance of the arrangement, they do not believe the SARG will take the same view of Caps 89
and 99?
(b) in effect forcing ourselves to guarantee the
pensions of these HMOCS if the Chinese opt to call 'foul'
and default (justifying themselves on that basis) on JD 73?
4.
If para 3 above is the possible consequence of going
down this path, would we be worse off by discussing the
issues with the Chinese first. If they are negative we are
still at para 3.
5. Do we really expect HMOCS to put any faith in best
endeavours "in future discussions with the Chinese and
the SARG", particularly if we try, no doubt ineffectively,
to get HMOCs to maintain confidentiality? If not, a) what
is to stop them going public on our delaying matters and b)
how are we going to respond publicly to their complaints to
that effect?
6.
It would be defensible to go ahead with first part of
para 7(b) of draft tel (and para 6(b) and (c) of the draft
submission) if we are prepared to accept Para 3 above but
not if we tell the tale in para 6(b) apart from first line
and (d) of draft tel or latter part of 6(a) of draft
submission.
M
др
P Fifoot
NC1ACX/2
CONFIDENTIAL