CONFIDENTIAL
130564 MDTTAN 3864
NOT HAVE THE BASIS TO IMPOUND).
4.
THE UNDERLYING POINT IS THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH MEASURES HERE IS NOT SIMPLY A MATTER OF PRESSING A BUTTON. OF COURSE HONG KONG WILL ALWAYS PULL ITS WEIGHT. INDEED HONG KONG'S INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION RESTS PARTLY ON ITS DOING SO. BUT THE PRINCIPLE OF MINIMUM INTERFERENCE WITH TRADE IS ALSO IMPORTANT HERE. SO WHEN WE DO INTERFERE, WE NEED TO BE CONSISTENT FROM THE START, AND AS SURE AS POSSIBLE THAT WE ARE WITHIN THE LAW: HONG KONG IS A LITIGIOUS PLACE, AND IT WOULD BE DAMAGING TO BE TAKEN SUCCESSFULLY TO COURT BY AGGRIEVED OWNERS. IN THIS CASE, THE ORDER-IN-COUNCIL DID NOT PROVIDE SUCH CERTAINTY, AND WE ARE INDEED STILL TRYING TO CLEAR UP IMPORTANT AMBIGUITIES (SEE OUR TELNO 885.) EVEN WITHOUT THE LEGAL UNCERTAINTIES, IT ALSO TAKES A LITTLE TIME TO GET THE MACHINERY OF SANCTIONS UP AN RUNNING.
5.
WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE TO MAKE MATTERS EASIER? WE REALISE THAT THOSE CONCERNED IN LONDON, SUCH AS THE DRAFTERS OF THE ORDER-IN-COUNCIL, MUST THEMSELVES HAVE BEEN WORKING UNDER PRESSURE, AND THAT HONG KONG IS ONLY PART OF A MUCH WIDER SANCTIONS NET. BUT WE MIGHT JUST HAVE STOPPED THE TWO THAT GOT AWAY HAD WE HAD AN EARLIER CHANCE TO COMMENT ON THE REQUIREMENTS WHICH WERE BEING PUT UPON US THROUGH THE DEPENDENT TERRITORIES ORDER-IN-COUNCIL. WE WOULD HAVE BEEN WILLING TO DO SO AT VERY SHORT NOTICE: AND THIS WOULD HAVE ENABLED US TO RAISE AT AN EARLIER STAGE OUR PROBLEM OVER ARTICLE 3 POWERS. WITH THOSE, WE COULD AT LEAST HAVE STOPPED AND SEARCHED THE SUSPECT SHIPS, GIVING US TIME TO SEEK GUIDANCE ON IMPOUNDING. CLEARER AND MORE RAPID GUIDANCE FROM LONDON THEREAFTER WOULD, DARE I SAY IT, ALSO HAVE HELPED TO REDUCE THE UNCERTAINTY HERE.
6.
MOST OF THIS IS WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE NOW. BUT IT WOULD HELP US TO CONTRIBUTE MORE EFFECTIVELY TO EXERCISES SUCH AS THIS IF, IN FUTURE CASES, AS MUCH SPACE AS IS POSSIBLE WITHIN THE WIDER PICTURE CAN BE GIVEN TO OUR CONCERNS.
SIGNED.
.
*
JOHN ASHTON
YYYY
PAGE
2
CONFIDENTIAL