NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
international organisations. We see advantage in the more precise meaning introduced by the proposed amendments, particularly since it carries the implication that other arrangements may need to be agreed in these "special circumstances" so leaving the field clear to consider separately the points raised by
Melville.
But acceptance of this Hong Kong amendment does not resolve the points raised by Melville in his letter of 3 December. It leaves in the air what these "other arrangement s" are to be. Its effect is to qualify only the application of paragraph 4; by implication the rest of the statement will apply to inter- national organisations and it is clear from Melville's comments and proposals that he is, for example, unhappy about the application of paragraph 5(a) to international organisations and 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).
But as you may know he has since changed his ground (his letter of 23 December to Goldsmith) As we read and understand his later letter, he now considers that we should avoid any form of "written concordat" on the representation of Hong Kong interests in international organisa-
tions.
We find ourselves very much in agreement with this letter. We accept that it is not possible, in international organisations where Hong Kong is represented by us, for anyone in the UK delegation to rise and speak as if separately and independently representing Hong Kong interests as would be the case if the Hong Kong representative on the delegation were to voice views quite opposed to those which other members of the UK delegation were
There is room, advancing on behalf of HMG.
as Melville says, for explaining and elaborating
on Hong Kong's position and special interests;
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.