NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
reference in paragraph 5(a) to the possibility
that HMG and Hong Kong might pursue divergent
policies in GATT or UNCTAD. We have told
Melville that his suggestions will be taken
into account in the further consideration we
shall be giving to the statement (Goldsmith's
letter of 11 December).
are
It seems to me that the choices before us
(a) To "fuzz" the issue of international
organisations by leaving the amended
statement (including the proposed
addition to paragraph 4) as it is and
taking no further steps to clarify
the position; the difficulties
would then be ironed out as they
arise.
(b) To add separate detailed provisions
to the present draft, on some such
lines as Melville has proposed.
(c)
To exclude international organisations
completely from the scope of the
statement (by amendment of the
heading) and provide for them by
means of a separate set of agreed
guide lines. This would involve
modification of the proposed addition
in paragraph 4.
I judge that Melville would strongly
contest the wisdom of (a); and we would agree
that, tempting as it may be to let this aspect
drift, such a course could involve us in a
series of arguments with Hong Kong about who
says what on its behalf in the GATT, etc.,
which would produce a recurring strain on our
/ relations.
Page 15Page 16
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.