TNAG-0752-FCO40-956-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1979 — Page 138

(46

300

RIORITY

CYPHER CAT A

FM FCO 071611Z

CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL

TO PRIORITY LISBON TELNO 122 OF 7 JULY

Аккою/

RAZP

1 !!! 1978

INDEX

R

AND TO PRIORITY HONG KONG, ROUTINE PEKING.

Seef 53

MY TELNO 514 TO HONG KONG: HONG KONG AND MACAU,

1. THERE IS AN APPARENT CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE LINE TAKEN BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE NCNA WITH THE POLITICAL ADVISER IN HONG KONG (HONG KONG TELNO 811) AND THE CHINESE WISH (AS REPORTED BY DR SA MACHADO TO ME) FOR A CLEAR STATEMENT FROM THE PORTUGUESE RECOGNISING CHINESE SOVEREIGNTY OVER MACAU.

2. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE PORTUGUESE POLITICAL DIRECTOR TOLD YOU THAT THE CHINESE ASKED, DURING THE TALKS ABOUT ESTABLISHING DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS, FOR A REITERATION OF THE PORTUGUESE STATEMENT ON 6 JANUARY 1975, AND DESCRIBED THIS STATEMENT AS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT MACAU IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF CHINA. THE ONLY VERSION OF THIS TEXT WHICH WE HAVE ON RECORD IS THE UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION IN CLARK'S LETTER TO MARCH 3/3 OF 7 JANUARY 1975. IN IT, THE PORTUGUESE STATED THEIR BELIEF THAT TAIWAN (REPEAT TAIWAN) WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF CHINA: THE REFERENCE TO MACAU WAS ONE WHICH THE PORTUGUESE SHOULD HAVE NO DIFFICULTY IN REPEATING.

3. IT SEEMS MUCH MORE LIKELY THAT THE CHINESE WANT A STATEMENT ON TAIWAN THAN ONE ON MACAU. COULD THE PORTUGUESE HAVE GOT HOLD OF THE WRONG END OF THE STICK? WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL IF YOU WOULD SEEK CLARIFICATION FROM VILLAS-BOAS.

CONFIDENTIAL

/4.PROVIDING THE

52