CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
FM HONG KONG
TO PRIORITY FCO
TELNO 835
OF 09123OZ MARCH 89
INFO PRIORITY HOLY SEE, PEKING
A.I.
нн/ехтерева
020641
MDLIAN 3730
HOLY SEE TELNO 21: VATICAN OFFICE IN HONG KONG
1. I AM GRATEFUL TO HMA HOLY SEE FOR PUTTING OUR VIEW SO FIRMLY TO I REALISE THAT THE VATICAN ARE LIKELY TO RETURN ARCHBISHOP SODANO.
TO THE CHARGE AND THAT WE WILL COME UNDER PRESSURE TO AGREE TO AN BUT I DO NOT AGREE THAT OUR INTERESTS ARGUE OFFICE IN HONG KONG. FOR US RELAXING OUR POSITION.
2. THE CENTRAL POINT FOR US IS THE POSSIBLE EFFECT ON HONG KONG'S RELATIONS WITH CHINA IN THE RUN UP TO 1997. THAT HAS TO BE SEEN AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF CHINESE SENSITIVITY NOT ONLY ON THEIR RELATIONS WITH THE VATICAN BUT ON ANYTHING WITH A TAIWAN ANGLE. FROM THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY SODANO IN PARAGRAPH 4 OF TUR IT DOES NOT LOOK AS THOUGH AN EARLY BREAKTHROUGH IS LIKELY IN RELATIONS BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND PEKING. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES A MOVE BY HMG AND HKG TO ALLOW ANY FORM OF SEPARATE VATICAN REPRESENTATION HERE WHILE THEY ARE STILL AT LOGGERHEADS WITH ROME, BOTH WITH THE PAPAL JURISDICTION AND OVER THE RELATIONSHIP WITH TAIWAN, COULD COMPLICATE OUR OWN RELATIONSHIP WITH CHINA WITHOUT ANY CORRESPONDING ADVANTAGE FOR HONG KONG.
3.
I AM AFRAID THAT THE FACT THAT VATICAN DIPLOMACY WOULD BE
THERE WOULD CARRIED OUT WITH DISCRETION WOULD NOT REALLY HELP.
INEVITABLE PUBLIC ASSUMPTION RIGHT AWAY BE A PROBLEM IN THE ALMOST
T THE OFFICE WAS INTENDED BY THE VATICAN AS AN OUTPOST FOR THE
AND THE PROBLEM WOULD BE DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR POLICY TOWARDS CHINA. ESCACERBATED BY THE PRESENCE OF A KNOWN VATICAN DIPLOMAT WITH AN OBVIOUS INDEPENDENT ROLE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE CHINESE WOULD BE UNLIKELY TO TAKE THE REASONABLE VIEW THAT SUCH A CHANNEL OF CONTACT WAS HELPFUL. THEY WOULD BE FORCED BACK ON POSITIONS OF PRINCIPLE AND COULD WELL OBJECT TO OUR ACTION.
4 -
THESE SORT OF PROBLEMS HAVE ALREADY ARISEN TO SOME EXTENT OVER THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ISRAELI CONSULATE-GENERAL IN HONG KONG. THAT COULD NOT BE HELPED BECAUSE THE POST WAS ESTABLISHED WELL BEFORE
BUT I DO NOT THINK THE SIGNING OF THE JOINT DECLARATION IN 1984.
1
PAGE CONFIDENTIAL
}