the UK to act in defence of Hong Kong's rights even against
non-members of EC since UK spokesmen in the GATT will
inevitably be circumscribed by the need to keep in step with
fellow members of ESC. Under (i) and (ii) above therefore
Hong Kong's interest cannot be defended so effectively in the
GATT as before entry to EEC.
10. The attractions of course (iii) above are clear. As a
separate contracting party to the GATT, Hong Kong would
continue to have GATT rights vis-avis members of the enlarged
community, including Britain. Hong Kong would be separately
represented in all GATT bodies, and there would be no need to
iron out differences of view and approach hitherto required
by a UK spokesman representing Hong Kong. There would be
further advantage both domestically and externally if a
declaration were made that Hong Kong had acquired full autonomy
in the conduct of its external commercial relations. However,
it has hitherto been the view of both Hong Kong and the FCO
that such a move would antagonise the Chinese Peoples Republic,
who might see this as a stepping-stone to full independence or
the Colony. It is now thought that Hong Kong is not now so
worried about this possibility as they wore in 1967.
LINE TO TAKE
11. If these questions are raised by the Hong Kong
Delegation, we can only agree with any Hong Kong analysis that
leads them to suppose that their formal GAAT rights will be
diminished after our entry to BC, if Hong Kong's GATT status
is not changed. But loss of GATT rights is not Hong Kong's
7.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.