CONFIDENTIAL
He didn't.
He just left a longish panc before saying the
'mixed". impression
vary!
I was
minor amendments. In does not affect the point of his reply to the question. The second point ( on China's record) is a matter of judgement as much as of fact, Mr Chamberlain tells me that he does not recollect using the word 'very'. The third point is more difficult. Mr Chamberlain has informed me that his intended to refer to the two international covenants at this point.
6.
to
I conclude that we should leave the comment about China's record of implementing treaties as being mixed unchanged: alter it would draw more attention to the point. For the rest, I think we can handle them as corrections of fact which do not alter what Mr Chamberlain intended to say. I attach a list of how these might be corrected. If the clerk to the FAC jibs at these amendments, then we will need to submit to Mr Goodlad on whether we would need to put in a supplementary memorandum.
RAJ But
RAJ Bunten
CONFIDENTIAL