RESTRICTED ·
116412
MDLIAN 7281
3.
I SUBSEQUENTLY SPOKE TO FORGET AND HE CONFIRMED THAT, FROM A LEGAL STAND POINT, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF WAYS IN WHICH AN ACCEPTABLE INVITATION COULD BE ISSUED:
CHINA ISSUE INVITATION SECONDED BY UK
(A)
UK ISSUE INVITATION, SECONDED BY CHINA
(B)
(C)
A JOINT INVITATION FROM UK AND CHINA
(D)
4.
A THREE-WAY INVITATION FROM UK, CHINA, AND THE HONG KONG AUTHORITIES.
AN INVITATION FROM THE HONG KONG AUTHORITIES ALONE WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE SINCE THEY HAVE NO DIRECT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BANK AND FUND. BUT OPTION (D) WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE AND SIMILAR TO THE APPROACH USED FOR BERLIN, WHEN THE INVITATIONS WERE ISSUED JOINTLY BY THE WEST GERMAN GOVERNMENT AND THE BERLIN SENATE.
5.
I SEE A NUMBER OF PRESENTATIONAL ADVANTAGES TO OPTION (D). AND IT WOULD IN ANY CASE REFLECT THE FIVE-WAY AGREEMENT (CHINA/UK/HONG KONG) THAT WILL BE NEEDED LATER ON BINDING ALL PARTIES TO CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE FUND AND BANK NEARER THE TLME OF THE MEETINGS.
6.
THE WORDING COULD, IF DESIRED, MAKE CLEAR THE CAPACITIES IN WHICH THE VARIOUS PARTIES WERE ACTING: UK AS PRESENT POWER, CHINA AS THE RESPONSIBLE POWER IN 1997, AND HONG KONG AS THE HOST (THIS WOULD ALL CLEARLY NEED CAREFUL DRAFTING).
7.
CHE?
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO TRY THIS OPTION ON WANG AND
PERETZ
YYYY
ΜΑΙΝ
MONETARY
ERD [-]
~~~~
136
DISTRIBUTION
136
2
PAGE
RESTRICTED