CO537-3711 — Page 23

11. Between 1953 and 1987, there were exchanges of corres pondence (Paper 2, 10. 2 attached) between H... and the Chinese Government, but in the result neither retreated from their position. The Chinese interpretation of the Convention of 1898, as set out in Notes of the 26th June and 27th July, 1933 and repeated later (Paper à, Ho. 2, pp.11 and 14, was that only areua outaide "owloon city had been leased, the city itself being retained under Chinese control, and that accordingly R... had no authority to order the evacuation of the residents. "The Chinese Government relied in aupport of this interpretation, upon the words in Article 3 of the Convention of 1898 "within the reaminder of the newly leased territory Oreat Britain shall have aole jurisdiction". They requested the cancellation of the decision to evacuate. In a me orandum dated 14th august, 1984, M....0. pointed out that the scheme for evacuation was in the interests of the residents and that generous teras had been offered to them. The Kemorandam stated that no

question or breach of treaty stipulations «rises”. The Chinese Government made charges regarding the arrangemente for evaduation and reiterated ita conteution that Kowloon City was Chinese territory and was not included in the lease to Great Britain. They also attacked the validity of the Order in Council of 27th Deceber, 1899, as being inconsis- tent with the treaty. M... did not revert again to the legal sapects of the matter until an interview which took place between the Ambaseador and the Chinese Foreign Minister on 7th Bay, 1987. On that occasion the Ambassador stated H...' views on the legal position mentioning in particular the military requirements of Hong Kong and the threat from Japan and Communist quarters, and having done so said he had no authority to discuss the matter further. The four or five recalcitrants who refused to acnept the alternative acco:mmodation offered were evicted by force in the autumn of 1037, 1.e. two or three months after this laat conversation. The autter was then dropped, and with the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese war in that year it went into abeyance. It #ecŋe clear that during the course of the correspondence which took place H.3.0. did not desire to be drawn into a long legal argument at that time. hile it appears that in the oral discussions on the 7th May 1957, H.. Ambassador at Manking did assert the right to take the action on which it had been decided as being coasistent with the Treaty, the written coersunications in this period from the British side tend to justify the action on the basis of the voluntary acceptance by the Chinese concerned of alternative aocomoda- tion (1.e. a site for a dwelling plus money to erect it) and no doubt some atreas would be laid on them by the Chinese before an international tribunal.

12. Having remained dørsant for nine years the subject was again raised in September, 1946, in the following circumstance

The yuzatics was revived an a result of the activities of the Chinese magistrate of ko (n. This official had studied the Convention and other documents and got into touch with the Chinese inistry of Foreign Affaire to whom he augɛsated that Chinese civil adainistration should be restored in Kowloon City by him in accordance with what he conceived to be Chinese Treaty rights. It appears uncertain whether the Chinese Government actually agreed to this suggestion

, but...