TNAG-0752-FCO40-956-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1979 — Page 34

CONFIDENTIAL

82

布政司署

香港下亞

畢道

本署檔號 OUR REF:

SCR 13/4841/59

* Your Ref.:

J T/Masefield Esq

Far Eastern Department F C O

ес MACAU

Randle,

acol

GOVERNment SECRETARIAT

LOWER ALBERT ROAD

HONG KONG

22 July, 1978

syy.

I Thompson

HKK_040/1

£318

RAGLIAD MARISMAY MO. 51

D. NK 0.

INDEX

4 AUG 1978

PA

No

bb

Action Ten

Chr

I am conscious of writing far too many words recently about minor points of detail connected with Portuguese negotiations to establish diplomatic relations with China and the question of Macau. At the expense of becoming tedious on the subject, I think it is still worth taking note of an apparent misunderstanding by the Portuguese Foreign Minister (and indeed Reg Hibbert) about the historical status of Macau.

2.

In the record of the conversation between the Secretary of State and Dr Sa Machado on 30 June, the latter is quoted as saying that "Macau was held by Portugal under an unwritten convention. There was no treaty". A similar point is made later by Reg Hibbert. In fact there is a treaty, although it came late in the day after the Portuguese had already been established in Macau for over 300 years. Following successful attempts by other powers to annex parts of China (including Hong Kong), the Portuguese signed a treaty in 1887 under which the Chinese conceded that Macau was an inalienable part of Portugal in perpetuity. treaty is, of course, considered by the Chinese to be an "unequal" one. This is why, in their official statements, the Chinese lump together the questions of both Hong Kong and Macau, saying that both derive from unequal treaties and that both are historical problems to be settled "when conditions are ripe".

This

(D C Wilson)

сс

M I Goulding Esq (LISBON)

K Sullivan Esq (PEKING)

Research Department (Far Eastern Section)

CONFIDENTIAL

eve

loved