Page
CONFIDENTIAL
3
appear that any serious consideration had been given to this, although we had understood that the PC(O) meeting on 5 September had agreed that there should be an examination of possible modifications to the CTA. We had heard nothing further on this.
11.
My letter (CREIC 1240) of 20 September to you was largely concerned with the "Article XIX approach" which caused us so much concern. Later Bob Goldsmith told us it was dead, but when Stewart came to Bob's meeting on 25 November, he immediately reverted to it.
12.
I recognise that part of the difficulty is that there are still unreconciled differences of opinion in London on these complicated issues and this means that things must go unanswered because there is no agreed answer that can be sent. E.g. our telegram 854 which we sent after we had digested our talks with the Americans in Geneva, The reason why we had no answer was clear at Bob Goldsmith's meeting referred to in the previous paragraph: the CRE/Industries 1 dis- agreement is now translated to BOT/Mintech.
13.
But in this situation, since the battle is still raging, and since its outcome may be of crucial importance for Hong Kong, I think we must continue to fire what ammunition we have. We'll do it in person when we can but when we aren't there we may still have to ask you to bear with some pretty long letters.
14.
I'm copying this letter to no one but David Sellers.
K.M. Wilford, Esq., CMG,
Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
King Charles Street,
London S.W. 1,
ENGLAND.
DHJ/ml
Yours sincerely,
Danio
(D.H. Jordan)
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.