5. ON THE HONG KONG SEAMEN ISSUE THE CHINESE FASTENED ON THE QUESTION OF THEIR DOCUMENTS (AND ALSO DOCUMENTS ISSUED TO UK EAMEN BY HONG KONG AUTHORITIES). BUT IT MAY BE THAT THEIR PROBLEM RELATES NOT SO MUCH TO THE DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES (SINCE IN CERTAIN CONTEXTS THEY ACCEPT THE ISSUE OF DOCUMENTS BY THE HONG KONG AUTHORITIES), AS TO WHAT THESE DOCUMENTS IMPLY BY WAY OF THE RIGHTS WHICH WOULD BE ACCORDED TO CREW MEMBERS BY VIRTUE OF THEM, ESPECIALLY ACCESS BY DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR OFFICIALS. SO FAR AS THE ISSUING AUTHORITY IS CONCERNED WE MIGHT, IF THE CHINESE DO MAKE DIFFICULTY, TRY OUT THE ALTERNATIVE TEXT SUGGESTED BY FCO TELNO 96 OF 1977, WHICH REPLACED I DO **COMPETENT'' WITH 'RELEVANT'' IN DESCRIBING AUTHORITIES'. NOT SEE ANY EASY WAY ROUND THE ACCESS PROBLEM, UNLESS BOTH THE CHINESE AND OURSELVES ARE PREPARED TO TAKE A PRAGMATIC VIEW. EVEN IN METROPOLITAN AGREEMENT HOWEVER HONG KONG CHINESE SEAMEN, LIKE SEAMEN OF ANY NATIONALITY, ABOARD UNITED KINGDOM SHIPS, WOULD BE GRANTED RIGHTS ACCORDED IN ARTICLES 8, 9, 10 AND 11 OF THE AGREEMENT, BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 2. ARTICLES 8 AND 11 APPLY EVEN TO THOSE CREW MEMBERS NOT COVERED BY ARTICLE 7. INDEED AT THE ROUND OF NEGOTIATIONS ON 9 FEBRUARY 1977 (PARAGRAPH 13 OF THE RECORD) NI CONCEDED THAT DIFFICULTIES MIGHT WELL OCCUR IN RELATION TO SHIPS OF OTHER COUNTRIES WHICH HAD HONG KONG SEAMEN ABOARD. THE PROBLEM OF PROTECTION AND ACCESS DOES NOT SEEM PECULIAR TO THE AGREEMENT.
6.
WE SHOULD THEREFORE PRESS FOR THE TEXT AS IT STANDS ON THE GROUNDS THAT BY SIGNING IT THE CHINESE DO NOT GIVE ANYTHING AWAY. DONALD'S LETTER OF 26 APRIL 1977 TO SAMUEL IS RELEVANT. THE FACT IS, HOWEVER, THAT WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION FULLY TO PROTECT HONG KONG BELONGERS IN CHINA. AND INPRACTICE HONG KONG SEAMEN WOULD BE NO WORSE OFF UNDER AN AGREEMENT, WHETHER METROPOLITAN OR OTHERWISE, THAN THEY ARE AT PRESENT.
(THE CHINESE ALREADY SEEM PREPARED TO OFFER SOME FORM OF ASSURANCE THAT HONG KONG WOULD NOT IN PRACTICE SUFFER FORM THE SIGNATURE OF A METROPOLITAN AGREEMENT.) MY GUESS IS THAT, ALTHOUGH THE DIFFICULTY FOR THEM MAY BE MORE APPARENT THAN REAL, THE CHINESE WILL CONTINUE TO DISLIKE ANY PROVISION FOR PROTECTION OF AND ACCESS TO HONG KONG SEAMEN. IF THE GENERAL 'NO PREJUDICE' UNDERSTANDING IS NOT ENOUGH TO CIRCUMVENT THE PROBLEM, ONE POSSIBLE WAY FORWARD WOULD BE TO ACCEPT A FORMULA. PREFERABLY IN THE FORM OF AN UNPUBLISHED EXCHANGE, IN WHICH IT WAS AGREED THAT ARTICLES 8 TO 11 WOULD BE APPLIED TO SEAMEN REGARDED BY THE ONE COUNTRY AS THEIR NATIONALS, BUT WORKING IN VESSELS OF THE OTHER, AT THE DISCRETION OF THE AUTHORITIES OF THE COUNTRY. (SUCH A FORMULA WOULD NEED TO BE RECIPROCAL TO BE ACCEPTABLE.) I DO NOT MUCH LIKE THE "NON POSSUMUS' WHICH THIS IMPLIES. BUT IT COULD CONCEIVABLY PAVE THE WAY FOR THE CONSULAR AGREEMENT, ON WHICH ACTION CANNOT NOW BE LONG DELAYED.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.