Mr Martin, FED
Reference....
רי
り
1. I am sorry that this seems to have become such a prolonged exercise. The point I was trying to indicate in my minute was that there was nothing exceptional about Ms. Shen's statement. That point is still valid. While I accept that the 1972 letter (a copy of which is attached for reference) covers some of the same ground as the 1963 editorial, I think you will find that it is not as explicit as the 1963 editorial, which uses virtually the same formula as Ms. Shen. Also, as far as I can trace, the Chinese have given very little publicity to the 1972 letter.
It does not appear to have been published, for example either by NCNA or in the Peking Review. The 1963 editorial on the other hand was given very wide publicity by the PRC in the course of the Sino-Soviet dispute. I would still see it as the authoritive Chinese statement. Perhaps your letter could quote both.
12. I do not agree with Mr. Janvrin's comments on your paragraph 13.
Inspite of the belief in some parts of the FCO that 1997 is not a significant date, I still think that what little evidence we have shows that it is. It is probably useful to remind Hong Kong and Washington of these Chinese straws in the wind, but of course, it is for you to decide whether this is a suitable occasion to do so.
10 June 1976.
fartone.
JE Hoare
Far Eastern Section Research Department
CODE 18-77
cc Mr. Janvrin, HKIOD
EN C
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.