From:
Miss S Brooks
Legal Counsellor
Date: 18 October 1993
CC:
Mr Blythe, TSols (by fax) Mr B Kalen, Treasury (by
fax)
Mr Cunliffe, Treasury (by
fax)
Mr Tebbit, ERD
Mr Chamberlain, Deputy
Legal Adviser
Mr Bunten, HKD
(63
Mr Whitney
HKD
1997 ANNUAL MEETINGS IN HONG KONG
1.
I read the documents faxed from the IMF and IBRD concerning the annual meetings to be held in Hong Kong in 1997 with dismay. There are two serious problems arising from them.
a) The Hong Kong Government has been almost entirely
ignored in the documents. Under the one document which it does sign, together with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, it delegates to the Monetary Authority sole responsibility and authority for the obligations to be performed by the Hong Kong Government. The fact that the Hong Kong Government is extremely wealthy, has autonomy in financial matters and in practice autonomy in all the matters covered by the inter-governmental MOU between HMG and the CPG (entry procedures, visas, privileges and immunities, taxes and customs and communications) is completely ignored. The Hong Kong Government has the capacity to enter into an MOU like the inter-governmental MOU and unless it enters into this one, it is a very bad precedent post 1997 (indeed I would imagine the Hong Kong Government will object to it).
b) The other problem is that it is clear from the
Memorandum of Understanding to be entered into by the UK and PRC Governments that both governments will have responsibilities under the MOU. HMG's responsibilities are for the obligations to be performed before 1997. Paragraph 7 of the MOU sets out services and facilities for the meetings which are to be provided before 1 July 1997 by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority on behalf of the United Kingdom. A contingent liability arises for HMG because if the Hong Kong Monetary Authority were to default, the contingent liability would fall to HMG, not the Hong Kong Government.
1
12.