CODE 18-77
Pa
PAIME
Reference.
RESTRICTED
HK C031/10
AUG 1993
36
Mr Fry,
FED
Miss Brooks, Legal Counsellor )
separate copies
IMF/IBRD: HONG KONG 1997 ANNUAL MEETINĖS
1.
ERD chaired a meeting yesterday with HKD, the Treasury and the ODA to discuss the latest developments, as reported in UKDel IMF/IBRD telno 273 and Hong Kong telno 1324, on the proposal to hold the 1997 Annual Meetings of the IMF/World Bank Group in Hong Kong. It was agreed that ERD would draft a reply to these two telegrams to be cleared with relevant departments. The reply would give an interim response to the three outstanding issues identified by the IMF/IBRD secretaries (ie timing; agreed contributions; and visas and immunities), whilst stating that these points will need to be put to Ministers in due course. It would also discourage UKDel IMF/IBRD in Washington from taking this matter any further forward until after the 1993 Annual Meetings this September.
2.
-
The draft telegram will also register that we want to make the point with the Chinese IMF and World Bank Directors that the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the IMF/Bank to provide the necessary assurances on agreed contributions must be signed by Hong Kong, not the UK (although it could be transmitted via the UK but see paragraph 3), in order to avoid the contingent liability implications which this might hold for the Treasury. The telegram should also point out that we will wish to stick firmly to the earlier understanding that there should be a total of three letters of invitation; one each from the Chinese and HMG, with a supporting letter of invitation from HKG. We anticipate that the Chinese could be difficult on this point.
3.
[For Miss Brooks], I would be grateful if you could advise us on the matter of providing assurances about issuance of visas and privileges and immunities of the Bank and Fund. It seems to be understood that Hong Kong can provide the necessary assurances with regard to the financial contributions, although the vehicle for doing so has not yet been agreed. However, Paragraph 5 of UKDel IMF/IBRD telno 273 implies that the Chinese believe that visas, privileges and immunities are a matter for them. This is surely an area where Hong Kong has autonomy, both before and after the change of sovereignty and it is therefore correct that the MOU (copy of draft attached) should be signed by Hong Kong and that we should try to avoid a situation where either the UK and/or China sign it. Please could you let me know, if possible within the next few days, whether there is likely to be any legal barrier with Hong Kong being the sole signatory.
1
RESTRICTED
Page 210Page 211
CODE 18-77