20
see) that "A state may not afford diplomatic protec-
tion to one of its national s arainst a State whose
nationality such person al so possesses**
(The
principle was recognized by the Law Officers in
1879 when they advised that His Majesty's
Covernment ought not to insist upon extending British
protection to persons of Chinese descent whilst
they are within Chinese territory).
-
vivedi,
As regards the Chinese Netherlands modus vi
it may be recalled that it was extorted from the
Chinese Government as a quid pro quo in exchange
for the right of establishing consulates in
Dutch possessions (cf. Sir C. Clementi's desp.
of 12.9.30 (8 on 72392/30) and paragraph 25 of
the Foreign Office Memorandum in 9 on 52710/28)
1 911
Malay Stules
HK.
precedents are almost useless in China of
1930. It is scarcely possible, even if it were
our policy, to extort now an "unequal" privilege.
The suggestion is only another proof that the
present orientation of British policy towards China is not understood in Malaya. (Whether that
policy is richt or wrong is another question).
This is al so se en in the new despatch about
the establishment of a Chinese Consulate at
Kuala Lumpur, with which it will be most
convenient to deal at the same time (8 on 72392).
Sir Cecil there suggests (in the name of the Rulers
of the Federated Malay States) that as a quid pro
quo in exchange for the right to establish a
consulate the Chinese Government ould be
required to bind itself to consider its Consul s
as
commercial agents only, protecting the commerce
thais
nationals within their con sular
[national
districts,
Page 20Page 21