5 530
SECRET
SECRET
FM HONG KONG 050555Z FEB 79
TO PRIORITY F C O
TELEGRAM NUMBER 204 OF 5 FEBRUARY
INFO PRIORITY PEKING
Акконо
TOP COPY.
INS
M
YOUR TELNOS 97 AND 98: NEW TERRITORIES LEASES.
1. OF THE TWO ALTERNATIVES SUGGESTED IN PARA 2 OF YOUR TELNO 98,
I PREFER B. IT COVERS ALL THE POINTS WE NEED AND HAS THE MERIT OF BEING SIMPLER. THE RIGHTS OF LEASEES IF THE NEW TERRITORIES REVERT
TO CHINA DO NOT HAVE ANY PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND DO NOT
VERIT ADDING COMPLICATIONS AT THIS STAGE.
2. SUBJECT TO THE AMBASSADOR'S VIEWS I AGREE THAT THE CHINESE HOULD PROBABLY FIND ''POSSESS'' DIFFICULT TO SWALLOW. ON RE- CONSIDERATION I THINK WE SHOULD USE ''ADMINISTER'' RATHER THAN
**HOLD' (WHICH WAS USED IN ANNEX A OF MY LETTER OF 21 DECEMBER). THIS WORD COINCIDES WITH THE CHINESE VIEW OF THE EXISTING SITUATION, AND I FORESEE DIFFICULTY IN EXPLAINING TO THE CHINESE WHAT ''HOLD" HEANS. I AM NOT ATTRACTED BY THE LONGER ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTED IN PARA 4 OF YOUR TELNO 97. OUR OBJECTIVE SHOULD BE TO KEEP THE WORDING SIMPLE AND TO ALIGN OURSELVES AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE WITH THE STATED CHINESE POSITION ON HONG KONG. YOUR SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE
EMPHASISES THE DIFFERENCE IN STATUS BETWEEN THE NEW TERRITORIES AND THE REST OF THE COLONY, AS SUCH IT MIGHT PROVOKE UNNECESSARY
APGUMENTS WITH THE CHINESE.
3. YOUR DRAFT OMITS ANY PROVISION FOR CONTINUING JURISDICTION AFTER 1997. AS EXPLAINED IN MY LETTER OF 21 DECEMBER IT IS IMPORTANT TO TRY TO COVER THIS POINT SO AS NOT TO LEAVE A LCOPPOLE FOR CHALLENGES TO THE PRACTICAL VALUE OF WHAT WE ARE DCING. YOUR SAVING CLAUSE ONLY APPEARS TO OPERATE FOR THE PERIOD UP
TC 1997, NOT BEYOND, IT IS NOT THEREFORE AN ADEQUATE MEANS FOR MAKING IT CLEAR BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT UNDER BRITISH LAW WE CAN EXERCISE JURISDICTION IN THE NEW TERRITORIES AFTER 1997. IT IS ALSO, I SUGGEST, UNNECESSARILY WORDY. AGAIN I THINK OUR OBJECTIVE MUST BE TO STRIVE FOR SIMPLICITY AND THE MINUMUM OF OBSTACLES TO
CHINESE UNDERSTANDING AND ACCEPTANCE.
SECRET
4. YOU ALSO
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.