Mr Ricketts H&D
From Pery Cradeck I presume!
cc PS/PNS
Si J Coles d
сук
Mr Hum olk
Enter a return mott
A
421
Paper pre find fir I foles' minute
of mid August)
303 Richmond Road
Twickenham
Middlesex TW1 2NP
1 September
1993
?
Jocaw Booker
Appus
219193.
If I may, a footnote to our telephone conversation yesterday
about my book.
First, you asked whether Hong Kong had been consulted. I said I
assumed that the Foreign Office had taken their views into account.
There has been plenty of time; and I cannot see the point of the
detailed textual discussion of 6 August if the result could all be
reopened by Hong Kong. Certainly I was led to believe that you were
the only remaining stage. You will be pursuing this. I must say,
however, that I am worried that reference of the whole issue now to
the Governor will add a third tier to what has already been a two-tier
investigation (Foreign Office, then Cabinet Office), will greatly
prolong the process, and will elevate Hong Kong into a kind of superior court with powers of final adjudication. The decision must
rest with London not Hong Kong.
Second, I think we agreed that the criterion was, not whether
the Government, or the Governor, likes the book; or whether the book
is critical of Government policy; but whether, taken as a whole, the
book will be damaging to the Government's chances in the current
constitutional negotiations. Some of your comments yesterday
suggested other criteria-as when you said that comments in the book might make the Governor feel his stature was diminished and therefore his capacity to conduct successful negotiations reduced. This line of argument would make almost any criticism unacceptable and would in
practice amount to a requirement for total conformity. I have tried
to show in earlier correspondence that, while some of my comments are
critical, they cannot be said to have an overall damaging effect on
British interests.
Third, as I tried to bring out yesterday, my criticism relates
mainly to the period October 1992 to April 1993. Since then the two
sides have followed the course of confidential negotiation I
advocated at the outset. I support the current tactic, though I am
perhaps less sanguine about the outcome than the Department. So that