CO129-588-24 China- British extra-territorial rights- negotiations with China 23-11-1942 - 1-1-1943 — Page 55

OUTWARD

Colonial Office

TELEGRAM L. Monson. Esq

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

With the Compliments

Under Secretary of State

of the

for Foreign Affairs

*

1942

kept under Lock and Key.]

MOST CEORET

235

55

USUAL DISTRICTION

[This telegram is of particular secrecy and should be

retained by the authorised recipient and not passed on]

F.8482/828/10,

[Cypher]

WAR CABINET DISTRIBUTION

TO: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FROM FOREIGN OFFICE TO WASHINGTON

No.8265

29th December, 1942.

Do 10.30 p.m. 29th December, 1942.

IMMEDIATE

234 My immediately preceding telegram [extra-territoriality]. Following is text of letter to United States Chargé

d'Affaires:-

[Begins]

I am sending you in a separate letter a memorandum on the latest position in our negotiations on extra- territoriality in China. From this you will see that in order to reach early agreement and to be in a position to sign our treaty on the same day as the United States Government sign theirs we have conceded the Chinese requirements on every outstanding point but one, including certain points, such as national treatment for commerce, in respect of which we attached importance to obtaining what was no more than reciprocal treatment so far as we were concerned. Our desire has been throughout to align ourselves with the United Statos as closely as our differing positions allowed and to make of the signing of our treaties an Anglo-American-Chinese act of political solidarity.

Only one point remains to be settled and this, although not of our raising, is of essențial importance to us. In reply to the Chinese Government's proposal for the rendition of the "New Territories at Kowloon we have, as you will see, offered a formula whereby we indicate that in our view this is a matter, if tho Chinese Government wish to raise it, for discussion when victory has been won. We are unable to admit that this question falls under the head of the abrogation of extra-territoriality and we are unable to withdraw from the position which we have taken up. To do so would be to lay ourselves open to further Chinese pressure on other matters the extent of which cannot be foretold.

.....If