CONFIDENTIAL
2
3. POLITICAL ADVISER SAID THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO REPORT THE SITUATION BACK. POINTS (A) AND (B) ABOVE WERE BASIC PARTS OF THE PROPOSAL HADE IN PEKING AND WE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DEPART FROM THER IN HONG KONG. ON POINT (C) WE WERE NOT PREPARED TO GIVE WAY.
4. ONLY A FEW OTHER MINOR POINTS ARE OUTSTANDING. NONA REPRESENT- ATIVES WERE REASONABLE AND SEEMED ANXIOUS TO SETTLE QUICKLY WITHOUT FURTHER REFERENCE TO MFA. HOWEVER, THEY WILL NO DOUBT FEEL OBLIGED TO REPORT BACK TO PEKING, AS THERE WAS OBVIOUS DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN OUR TWO VIEWS OF WHAT CONSTITUTED 'DETAILS' TO BE SETTLED HERE, AS WELL AS WHAT HAD ALREADY BEEN SETTLED IN PEKING.
FO PLEASE PASS IMMEDIATE PEKING AS MYTEL 124.
SIR D. TRENCH
REPETITION TO PEKING REFERRED FOR DEPARTMENTAL DECISION J
DEPARTMENTAL DISTRIBUTION
ADVANCE COPIES SENT
C.O.
H.K.DEPT. NEWS DEPT.
O.L.A.
F.O.
F.E.D.
NNNNN
CONSULAR DEPT.
P.C.D.
D.D. & P.U.S.D.
J.I.R.D.
NEWS DEPT.
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.