TNAG-0752-FCO40-956-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1979 — Page 225

RESTRICTED

Foreign and Commonwealth Office KK Oud/1.

London SW1A 2AH

P Faulkener Esq British High. Commission

OTTAWA

Telephone 01.

INDEX

15 FER 1978

PA

No Yourmeren

urdularence

Our reference

Date

0.31

محمد

Con T...

#

7 February 1978

Sex 19

19.

1.

Would you please refer to my interim reply for January about the letter from the Export Development Corporation.

2.

You will have seen David Wilson's letter of 17 January, copied to you, commenting on the naivety shown by the Canadians in asking such questions. I quite agree with his comment that we should not, even if we could, speculate on the future of Hong Kong to a third party. I would therefore suggest that you respond to Mr McBride's points as follows:-

i) Britain has always regarded as valid the Treaty of Nan King (1842), the Convention of Peking (1860) and the 99-year lease of the New Territories under the 1898 Convention.

ii) While describing these Treaties as unequal, China has made no move to abrogate them. The Chinese position has always been that they are "a legacy from the past, which will be resolved by peaceful negotiations when the time is ripe". While fully aware of this position, HMG have made no statement about it.

iii&iv),

HMG have no plans to hand Hong Kong over to China, nor has China made any such suggestion. Recent statements have indicated that the Chinese authorities are at present satisfied with the status quo.

This is I think fully dealt with by the four answers above.

(There appears to be no vi) The answer to questions iii) and iv) applies here.

*)

vii)

viii)

Yes.

13

RESTRICTED

13.

Page 225Page 226