}
CONFIDENTIAL
(a)
(b)
(c)
VIEW:
We see no difficulty with the publication of the first two parts of his manuscript, dealing with his experiences of China from 1962 to 1984.
We do however consider that his account of dealings with China over the very recent past concerning the new Hong Kong airport and electoral arrangements in Hong Kong could be injurious to our continuing negotiations with the Chinese authorities on these issues. With regard to the airport, the publication of details of exchanges with the Chinese, including the fact of a message from the Prime Minister, would weaken Chinese trust in our willingness to pursue further exchanges on this issue, which is still outstanding, in confidence. As to the electoral arrangements, strong criticism of the Governor's proposals by someone of Sir P Cradock's standing who has held very senior posts, would weaken our position in the negotiations by leading the Chinese to think that there are divided views in the British Government, that HMG's support for the proposals is less than firm and that, if Chinese pressure is maintained, that support will be withdrawn.
We therefore ask him, in the interest of a successful outcome to our continuing negotiations with the Chinese on these issues, not to publish the passage in pages 198-219 of his manuscript until our negotiations with the Chinese are concluded. This would in practice mean either excising these passages from the manuscript and publishing the rest now; or holding back publication of the book as a whole probably until early 1995.
As you will see, we are suggesting that you make the case to Sir P Cradock on the general political ground that publication would be injurious to our continuing negotiations with the Chinese. We think that a better approach than to rely on the Radcliffe prescription that an author should not "make disclosures injurious to this country's relations with other nations". We also think it desirable to avoid being involved in a detailed textual analysis with reference to the Radcliffe rules.
If Sir P Cradock insists on knowing specific examples of where his manuscript breaches the rules, we could let you have some instances. But we think that the broader political case is the most effective one to make.
Yaus
eur
Lains.
David Gillmore
CONFIDENTIAL