RESTRICTED
5.
I confirmed firstly that this was to be a parliamentary, non-governmental group. I said that if that were the case the position would be rather different to APEC. Hong Kong had been disappointed in the case of APEC to be caught up in what we saw as a PRC/Taiwan problem which should not have affected Hong Kong's ability to participate. In the case of the APPF, however, the HKG itself would not be involved so I expected we
would be more detached.
I saw no reason why we would object to the participation of politicians from Hong Kong, indeed I thought it would be welcomed.
り
6.
However I agreed that he was right to think carefully about the likely Chinese response. They would probably not be too keen on an international gathering of parliamentarians, many
Three of whom might wish to discuss subjects like human rights. of Mr Wenman's colleagues had only recently demonstrated (from the Chinese point of view) that parliamentarians could not be relied upon to shut up and behave. Secondly, the Chinese would have concerns about the status of any representatives from the legislatures of Taiwan and Hong Kong. They would object if they were accorded the status of representatives of national or sovereign Parliaments.
I stressed however that it was not my business to be advising Mr Wenman on the proposed organisation and these were merely my personal views. None of this should stop the
organisers from proceeding as they thought fit. In any case, I
suggested that the provision about people attending in their
personal capacities seemed to offer quite a large loophole to
deal with Chinese objections of the sort I had described.
8.
the Mr Wenman also told me about another talking shop: 1992 Global Parliamentarians Conference on Human Settlements and Development at which the UK will be represented, and HK in the form of Peggy Lam and Fung Chi-wood. There would also be PRC and Taiwanese representatives (again, see papers attached below).
RESTRICTED