1
Mr. Wilford
U.K. RELATIONS WITH HONG KONG ON TEXTILES.
Thank you for letting me see copies of Mr. Carey's
minute to the Board of Trade and Mr. Hughes' minute on the
above subject.
2.
The proposed concordat started from the constitutional
position that H.M.G. was responsible for Hong Kong's international
commercial relations and attempted to draw up procedures under
which H.M.G. would grant Hong Kong derogations from its authority.
The proposal in Mr. Carey's minute in constitutional terms starts
from the premise that H.M.G. will make a general delegation of
its authority in this field. I agree that this is a more
meaningful approach in the sense that it is likely to reduce
arguments with Hong Kong and that, subject to such elaborations
as come out of further examination of it, we should put this
approach to the Governor. The terms of such an approach will
have to be considered carefully from the presentational angle,
but this should be possible even with the substance of Mr. Carey's
proposal.
3.
There is one passage in his proposals, however, which
seems to me to need further elucidation. This is the statement
in para.4 that our quid quo pro by giving Hong Kong freedom in
her commercial relations should be the abandonment of Hong Kong's
special relationship with us. (Mr. Carey restricts this to
textiles but by extension, as Mr. Hughes points out, other
exports would have to be concerned). Just what in practical
terms does Hong Kong's special relationship with the U.K. in
textiles mean and what is it worth to her? Your comment on the
minute suggests (and I agree this is probably right) that
/Hong Kong
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.