I still think that there would be some dvantage in Lord Shepherd seeing Mr. Newens. In the past this has usually had a salutary effect at least for a time (e.g. Mr. Royle). However, the subject referred to in paragraph 4 of your minute is a very delicate matter and since we know nothing about Mr. Newens we should need to be guided by Ministers as to whether it would be appropriate to approach him in this way.
1
2. I think the penultimate paragraph of your letter is on the right lines. We do not want to link in any way the cases of the thirteen British subjects with those of the convicted prisoners in Hong Kong. The Chinese themselves have never admitted to a connection (Anthony Grey excepted). The reasons for the detention seem to be different in each case and unconnected. Our main complaint against the Chinese is not the fact of detention but that they refuse to provide information on the charges against those detained and do not permit Consular access.
3. It is true of course in a general sense that the deterioration in Sino-British relations coincided with the detention of these persons. I think it is plausible to speculate that the nationals of some other countries might have been given the benefit of the doubt if caught in similar situations but, being British and the offences having occurred at a time when our relations were bad, they had little chance of being let off. One must however qualify this in a way since a number of nationals of other countries were detained by the Chinese during the same period. As you can see from the draft, I have suggested that we might make this point in the letter.
4.
I attach the submission referred to in paragrah 2 of your minute. Paragraph 13 is relevant to Mr. Newens' letter.
bilsom
(V. Wilson)
10 February, 1969
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.