disagree with Mr Shambaugh when he said the other day, and this is relevant to Hong Kong, that the way to deal with China was to practice public diplomacy and not private diplomacy. I am absolutely certain that this is not only wrong but wholly wrong. I could, if there were time, tell you something about how we practised private diplomacy from 1982 to 1984, and what we got
from practising that private diplomacy. I am absolutely
convinced we could not have got what we did get unless we practised private diplomacy, and that is the experience of other countries in dealing with China, and of this country in dealing with China on issues other than Hong Kong for example ship visits. Private diplomacy is absolutely essential; you will get nothing unless you practice it. That is all I wish to say.
Sir Alan Donald: I would make one general comment; I agree with Sir Percy in the thrust of his comment that if you are going to handle this problem, constructive co-operation is far better than public confrontation. I agree with Sir Richard that private diplomacy is the best way forward. It is a society that deals in consensus, and it is very difficult for any country east of Burma to engage in public diplomacy, because decisions are reached in those countries by consensus
by consensus and long discussion beforehand.
Sir John Stanley: Could you just address the precise question which I put to you? Sir Richard has said he does not want to answer it. Sir Alan, you said what is the best course, which we understand is also a truism, but given where we are would you be in favour of reversing policy and adopting Sir Percy's policy, or continuing with the Government's policy?
Sir Alan Donald: I would be in favour of trying to hold things still for the moment freeze the frame if we could, and engage in private discussion with the Chinese Government.
Mr Edward Rowlands: You are both remarkably coy, but I do think we should press a little bit further. Do you both accept the analysis of Sir Percy that October 1992 represented
45