CODE 18-77
Mr Morris
Mofes
(17)
Reference.
RESTRICTED
021/2
HKD 021/2
US POLICY TO HONG KONG: MCCONNELL BILL
1.
I have looked again at the McConnell Bill and wonder whether we should look more closely at possible Chinese objections to Title II.
2.
I
This is not just "sense of the Congress" views on policy but seeks to determine the status of Hong Kong in US law. think that the Chinese might regard paragraphs (c) (d) and (e) as infringing their sovereignty, implying that Hong Kong could continue to enjoy international rights and obligations irrespective of the views of the CPG. They might also see paragraph(e), regarding property rights, as violating their view of the succession arrangements in 1997 ie their concept of HKG's assets and liabilities being resumed by HMG and then transferred to the CPG which will in turn transfer them to the SARG.
3.
The Chinese may wonder what effect this title would have if a UDHK-dominated LegCo or HKG were on 1 July 1997 to make a unilateral declaration of independence or otherwise try to set up a political entity on different lines from those in the Basic Law.
4.
Subject to your own thoughts could you please ask Miss Brooks for a view on this? I expect that she would wish to see the entire Bill and HKG's detailed comments on it.
Ross.
صمم
N J Cox
27 February 1992
1.
Miss Brooks,
I would be more inclined to read the provisions of Title I as welcome endorsement of JD gracamices of separation, [eg JD 138 on International agreements). But my feelings
easily hurt as we know the "Chinese People's So I would be grateful for your
are not so to be.
the points Aur Cox raises.
I attach cc.
viers on
of the Bill in full and of HKG's
comments. (and [stopPress!] given on radio on 4 feb.)
ce
Д
Thani,
27/2.
a talk by Sex. McConnel.
ASHAIC
RESTRICTED