No.208 (10724/1082/47)
Copied to:
China Dept., F.0., No.458.
BRITISH EMBASSY
NANKINO
25th August, 1947.
CONFIDENTIAL
21
(My dear MacDougall,)
I enclose a copy of a further memorandum which we have addressed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the strength of the decretariat letter to Chancery No.57 (10/2706/47, of the 7th August, in reply to the objections of the Chinese Government communicated to His kajeoty 'a smosesy on the 3rd July on the subject of the arrest of the two members of the Kwangtung Provincimi Lesce preserva- tion Corps. (Incidentally the Chancery letter under reply, I now find, was incorrectly dated June 19th it should in fact have been July 19th. ¡
2. I am not very happy about this our latest communication to the Miniatry or for that matter about the whole affair. Not that there can be my question about the man's guilt whatever may have been their official mission, it is clear enough from the evidence that they were engaged in a piratical operation of their own (I take it that there is absolutely no doubt that the assault upon the junk did take place in Hong Kong waters). There i», however, in my opinion a weak link in our defences with regard to the agreement relating to the special treatment of armed forces, which makes our case at least vulnerable, and I can't honestly say that I am convinced by the Secretariat's comment that "the irrelevancy was confirmed by the fact that the agreement was never invoked", pre- sumably at the time. This agreement certainly has been quoted since, though the Chinese arguments are somewhat confused.
3. In any case I am afraid that this incident may be worked up sooner or later as the basis of an attack upon Hong Kong. There is no doubt that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, perhaps under the usual pressure from the Overseas Affairs Commission or other violent Kuomintang organistions, are ready to make the most of it. For example, in the course of a long interview with Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, George Yeh, on 13th August he aubjected me to a decidedly fierce attack about this case which he used as a focus, or one of them, of a tirade against Hong Kong and all the Colony's works, threatening publicity etc. He simply refused to listen to reason. This is of course no justification for us in any way modifying our stand, and certainly I have no sympathy for this work of hysterical outburat which is in fact tantamount to blackmail tactics. I am however thinking in terms of expediency with a view to the future and wondering therefore whether as a matter of practical politics we should not consider the possibility of eliminating a potential source of trouble and emo arrasament. What I had in mind was
D. M. MacDougall, squire, C.M.G.,
Colonial Secretariat,
Hong Kong.
/whe ther