CO129-588-23 China- British extra-territorial rights- negotiations with China 28-3-1942 - 27-11-1942 — Page 114

F4559/22810.

Colonial Office.

W. B. L. Monson Esq

[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government, and should be kept With the Compliments

of the

Under Secretary of State

fororeign Affaira

6 NOV 1942 [CYPHER]

under Lock and Key.]

REC

POLITICAL DISTRIBUTION.

copied to:-

10

70 114

FROM CHINA.

0.

7

FROM CHUNGKING TO FOREIGN OFFICE.

Eit ཐ

rey

D. 6. 15 p.m. 4th November, 1942.

Sir H. Seymour.

No. 1515..

4th November, 1942.

WWWWWWW

R. 1. 45 a.m. 5th November, 1942.

Extraterritoriality.

SECRET

Press

Chinese press continues to discuss the scope British and American offer. Resoln is reported to have been passed by the People's Political Council, (ten day session of which has recently ended) calling on the Chinese Government to secure in the pending negotiations abrogation of all rights and privileges enjoyed by foreigners in China which contravene the principle of equality. keep harping on this themselves and quote Wang Chung-Lui whose views owing to his position and legal reputation probably carry more weight than those of anyone else, as expressing the hope that negotiations will cover "all remaining special rights concessions and privileges that are incompatible with principles of equal states and of international Law"

2. Discussing the question from the standpoint of trade and economics another paper while favouring free domicile for foreigners in China, disapproves of national treatment arguing that in view of China's backwardness in economic conditions she cannot forego the right to protect the trade and industry of her nationals against foreign competition. Writer proceeds to draw attention to the danger of foreigners, if granted free domicile claiming free trade under Article 5 of the Treaty of Nanking whìbh must therefore be abolished. China in her backward state cannot afford to forego trade control or national monopolies.

3. Another paper argues that the question of free inland domicile for foreigners, must bc Androd on its merits, and has nothing to do with the abolition of extraterritoriality and concessions. Chinese industries are no match for foreign industries when on an equal footing. Restriction of inland domicile of foreigners is one of the mcasures of China's protective policy and danger of Japanese penetration must not be overlooked. Conclusion therefore is that the opening of inland China to foreigners would be undesirable though more trade ports might be opened.

O.T.P.