TNAG-0868-FCO40-1078-Air-services-between-China--Hong-Kong-and-the-UK-1979 — Page 177

CONFIDENTIAL

B. FOR BA TO USE THE DIRECT URUMQI (XINJIANG) ROUTE WHEN

THEY CMIT A STOP AT HONG KONG ON THEIR SERVICES TO PEKING

C. FOR BA TO BE ABLE TO OVERFLY CHINA ON SOME OR ALL OF

THEIR SERVICES TO TOKYO IF THE SIBERIAN ROUTE WERE CLOSED

TO THEM.

WE SHALL TRY TO GET THESE REQUIREMENTS COVERED IN A SIDE

DOCUMENT.

4.

THE CHINESE OBJECTION TO REFERENCES TO THE CHICAGO

CVONVENTION IS SURPRISING, SINCE THEY NOW APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF IT. WE ARGUED INTER ALIA THAT THE REFERENCES WOULD

SIMPLIFY THE AIR SERVICES AGREEMENT, BECAUSE A NUMBER OF ARTICLES AND THE TECHNICAL ANNEX WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN THE 1973 DRAFT, WHEN PRC WAS NOT IMPLEMENTING THE CONVENTION, COULD NOW BE OMITTED. ALTHOUGH THE CHINESE HAD NO STRONG

ARGUMENTS TO SUPPORT THEIR OBJECTIONS, THEY REMAINED INTRANSIGENT. WE INFERRED FROM REMARKS WHICH THEY MADE

THAT THEY DO NOT APPLY CERTAIN PARTS OF THE ANNEXES TO THE

CONVENTION AND DO NOT THEREFORE WANT THE ASA TO APPEAR TO

BIND THEM TO IT.

5. WE SHALL PRESS FURTHER FOR INCLUSION OF A REFERENCE TO

THE CONVENTION BUT ARE SATISFIED THAT THE RISK ARISING FROM

NO REFERENCE IS SMALL AND THAT AS A FALL-BACK, WE COULD ACCEPT THAT. GRATEFUL YOUR CONFIRMATION. WE INTEND, HOWEVER, TO RESIST THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE TECHNICAL ANNEX, WHICH THE CHINESE HAVE SUGGESTED, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT EQUIPPED TO MAKE THE NECESSARY EXAMINATION OF THIS TO ENSURE THAT IT IS STILL

CONSISTENT WITH THE CONVENTION ANNEXES. AS A CONTINGENCY, GRATEFUL IF STABLES (DOT) WOULD ASK CAA/DOSO FOR IMMEDIATE

ADVICE.

во

THE 1973 AGREEMENT MADE NO PROVISION FOR ARBITRATION AS A LAST RESORT IN DISPUTES WHICH COULD NOT BE SETTLED THROUGH THE DIPLOMATIC CHANNEL. THIS TIME WE PROPOSED THAT ICAO PROCEDURES COULD BE BROUGHT INTO PLAY BY EITHER GOVERNMENT. THE CHINESE OBJECTED BECAUSE THEY DID NOT THINK IT APPROPRIATE FOR A THIRD PARTY TO BECOME INVOLVED IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN BILATERAL PARTNERS. AS WITH THEIR OBJECTIONS TO THE REFERENCE TO THE CHICAGO CONVENTION, THIS IS NOT A VERY STRONG ARGUMENT,

mg 2-

CONFIDENTIAL

І в от