CONFIDENTIAL
66
000634 MDLIAN 8125
CONFIDENTIAL
FM HONG KONG
TO ROUTINE FCO
TELNO 1917
OF 231046Z DECEMBER 93
AND TO PRIORITY PEKING
MY TELNO 1713: ONE-WAY PERMITS
1 OP COPY Q DIST?
pa 3411!
RECEDED IN DEGISTRY
13 JAN 1994
SUMMARY
DESK CEPICEN INDEX
REGISTRY
PA
Action Take
WE HAVE NOW CONCLUDED NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CHINESE. A RECORD OF AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED WHICH MEETS MOST OF OUR CONCERN'S WE ARE LEFT WITH THE QUESTION OF HOW TO PRESENT THIS TO THE PUBLIC.
DETAIL
2.
ON 4 NOVEMBER, THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF EXIT-ENTRY ADMINISTRATION OF THE CHINESE MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SECURITY HANDED A PROPOSED DRAFT RECORD OF AGREEMENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION. ON 12 NOVEMBER, THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION HANDED OUR AMENDED VERSION OF THE RECORD OF AGREEMENT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF EXIT-ENTRY ADMINISTRATION (WHO WAS VISITING THE IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME). ON 17 NOVEMBER, THE CHINESE SIDE REVERTED WITH A SLIGHTLY AMENDED VERSION OF OUR COUNTER- PROPOSED DRAFT. OUR PROPOSED VERSION AND THE CHINESE FINAL VERSION FOLLOW BY FAX (TO HKD, FCO AND PEKING).
3. THE MAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OUR PROPOSED VERSION AND THE FINAL VERSION ARE
(A) THE REFERENCE TO THE UNDERSTANDING REACHED WITH THE
CHINESE SIDE IN 1982 WAS DELETED BY THE CHINESE SIDE. THIS WAS EXPECTED. WE HAD HOPED THAT THEY WOULD ACCEPT AT LEAST SOME REFERENCE TO THE 1982 UNDERSTANDING, BECAUSE WE HAVE ALWAYS PUT WEIGHT ON IT PUBLICLY. BUT WE KNEW THAT THE CHINESE DID NOT WANT TO ACCEPT THAT THIS CONSTITUTED AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE, OVER THE YEARS, COOPERATED WITH US IN PRACTICE, AS THOUGH THERE WAS SUCH AN UNDERSTANDING;
(B) WE HAD TRIED TO INCLUDE, AFTER THE COMMITMENT TO
CONSULTATION ON QUOTA CHANGES, A SENTENCE TO THE EFFECT
1
PAGE CONFIDENTIAL