CONFIDENTIAL
Ministry of Defence.
The main argument for offering an apology or an explanation
to the Chinese was that it was our present policy to do our utmost
to avoid provoking Peking into taking any tougher action against
Hong Kong and we could best achieve this by making it clear to
Peking that the two shallow overflights had been wholly accidental
and in no way provocative.
This would demonstrate that we
intended to act strictly in accordance with the rules, which was
the message we would like to get over to the more sensible elements
in the Chinese leadership. To admit an infringement of foreign
territory would, I understand, also be in accordance with our
normal practice in such cases.
5.
6.
Against this were the arguments that:-
(a) British public opinion would find it difficult to
understand that when we made a small and accidental
navigational error we rushed in to apologise to
Peking, whereas the Chinese having committed gross
indignities against our representatives in Chine
and abused our authorities in London and Hong Kong,
rejected our protests and justified their completely
unacceptable behaviour.
(b) Peking would publicise our apology as an attempt
to cover up a deliberate provocation.
(c) Peking would also publicise any apology as an
abject surrender. This would not help to maintain
public morale in Hong Kong.
On balance we considered that we should not take any initiativ
in raising this matter with Peking. If, however, Peking protested
to Mr. Hopson or publicised the incident, we thought we should
CONFIDENTIAL
/authoris
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.