CONFIDENTIAL
-
Nor do we accept your view that a repetition of your well known views can do no further damage. We consider for example, that repetition of your contention for example that since 13 April the gap between your position and HMG's has narrowed may
confirm the Chinese in their perception of your role and
influence. The fact is that there has not been a change of
policy on our part since 13 April. Before and after that date we have been working patiently to get talks with China under
way. This has been part of our approach since the Governor's
speech last October. In short we see considerable scope for your book to mislead the Chinese side about our policies and
motives in ways which can only be unhelpful.
You argue that publication would not affect our current
negotiations with the Chinese. Our view is different. The
negotiations are difficult and delicate. If they are not
concluded before your book is published then there must be a
risk that publication by someone of your position, with all
the publicity it will engender, will be damaging. We
cannot prove that; but you cannot prove the contrary.
prefer to take no risks with the negotiations.
We
- We do not believe that it is possible to draw a clear
distinction as you do between public debate and disclosure from
the archives. Your book offers an authoritative insider's
account of negotiations with China up to a very recent period.
Do not believe that as a recently retired public servant it is
cradock.JM.JRB
CONFIDENTIAL