TNAG-1040-FCO40-1290-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1981 — Page 18

242

Никоно

RECEIVED IN KLUMAN

- 4 DEC 1981

SESK

Mr Clift!

SECRET

сс

Sir I Sinclair

Mr Freeland

Mr Williamson, HKGD

Af Giliz

THE FUTURE OF HONG KONG:

FALKLAND ISLANDS AND PANAMA

2.

Many thanks for your minute of 11 November. See HKK 040/1 @

1982

As regards the lease-back proposals for the Falkland Islands, you may recall that I mentioned the lease-back idea in para. 5 of the postscript to my minute of 5 November and I certainly think the idea has possibilities for Hong Kong.

3. As regards the Panama Canal, you have already noticed that Panama is stated to have territorial sovereignty over the canal zone. I am not sure whether the U.S.A., which certainly exercised extensive powers of a sovereign character in the Zone, ever claimed sovereignty. If it did, then we have an instance of "relinquishment of sovereignty" but even so, it does not seem to me that Panama provide a helpful parallel for our present purposes.

4. As regards the suggestions I have made in various recent minutes, I simply had in mind that the Chinese Government might be induced to adhere to some general statement (which could be published) to the effect that they regard Hong Kong as a single entity that should be administered as a whole under the present arrangements until such time as the United Kingdom and China agreed to make a change..

Given this,

-

the United Kingdom could legislate by a simple Order in Council to prevent its powers over the New Territories from running out in 1997. I cannot be more specific but obviously the terms of the statement could be elaborated in a number of ways it seems to me to be just the sort of thing that Mrs Thatcher or the Secretary of State would negotiate brilliantly, without embroiling themselves in legalistic formulae, though of course they might have to agree to some changes (not amounting to relinquishment of sovereignty) and to some propositions about the future.

5. The essential point I wish to make is that such a statement should provide a sufficient basis in international law for the United Kingdom to extend its administration de jure, not merely de facto. Given that the Chinese do not recognize the old formal treaties and that the negotiation of new formal treaties would raise issues awkward for both parties, proceeding on the basis of an agreed and published political statement would seem to have distinct advantages, particularly if it could be negotiated soon.

A.R.R.

AR Rushford Deputy Legal Adviser

/ P.S.

16 November 1981

SECRET