TNAG-1021-FCO40-1271-Relations-between-Hong-Kong-and-international-organisations-1981 — Page 28

RESTRICTED

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

London SW1A 2AH

Telephone 01-233-3130

MAS

Your reference

HKIC

Ο

zzlı

CW Long Esq UKMis Geneva

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY NO. 51

Our reference

UNS 243/14

11 March 1981

16

ICM

12 MAR 1931

DESK OFFICER

INDEX

PA

No

MS

12

REGISTRY Action Taken

Date

AW12/3

NIR

see

1. Thank you for your letter of 16 February. I can imagine the embarrassment caused by our failure to comment on James Carlin's letter of January 1980, and can only say in our defence that none of us was here at the time. I agree that it would be best to reply now in terms of your option (b), with suitable apologies for the delay.

This

2. On the substantive issue, I cannot hold out much hope. is not to say that we do not recognise the great strides ICM has made in improving its effectiveness in recent years, and the help it has given Hong Kong, as the Governor noted in his letter to Carlin of 8 January. But it is another matter entirely to secure the necessary approval for any proposal that we rejoin ICM, not least because it would involve a subscription. For the moment, there is no question of finding the money from the FCO vote. I am however prepared to put a case to the ODA, on your behalf but would need some pretty good arguments to sustain both the political and the financial justification. We should, for example, need to identify the political disadvantages of continuing non-membership. I can think of none, off-hand. We should also need to be able to make a convincing case to demon- strate that the money would be better spent on ICM than, say UNHCR or ICRC, since there can be no doubt in the present climate of opinion about voluntary multilateral aid that no "new money" will be authorised.

3. On the related issue of Hong Kong's possible membership of the ICM (paragraph 5 of Keith MacInnes' letter), we cannot comment substantively without sight of the Constitution to check whether it is possible for a dependent territory to join without HG being involved. I should therefore be grateful for a copy. As to the questions on the cost and the Conventions, I think these have been answered in your letter of 13 February to David Wilson. Here again, however, we will have to reserve comment until we see the Constitutaon.

14.

RESTRICTED