TNAG-1040-FCO40-1290-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1981 — Page 78

x

8.

SECRET

215

My letter of 23 October to Mr Steel was intended to give him a chance to comment on my own very tentative ideas on possible modalities for unilateral action by the United Kingdom but I did not of course put forward any specific proposal for advice. If you feel it desirable to keep him generally in the picture we can certainly let Mr Steel have copies of any later items of interest. As I see it, however, no question of law fis before us at the moment or legal policy on which we can reasonably ask for Mr Steel's opinion, let alone the advice of the Law Officers.

Ais

9. I recognize of course that if you are going to mention the possibility of relinquishing United Kingdom sovereignty over Hong Kong to United Kingdom Ministers, they will need to be given some general idea of what this will involve. As a matter of international law, it would be a major concession in relation to which the United Kingdom would hope to make the best bargain it could. Presumably the United Kingdom's optimum position would be for UK administration to be allowed to continue substantially as at present until some orderly handover at some future date after due notice. If, however, the Chinese put forward proposals under which China would participate in the government and administration in particular ways, as well they might, then detailed study would have to be given to methods either of dividing responsibility, or of sharing responsibility, in relation to different aspects of the government and adminis- tration. Token Chinese participation might not be too difficult for the United Kingdom but substantial participation would obviously present problems.

10. I am not sure who first suggested to us that the Chinese would expect the United Kingdom to relinquish sovereignty in 1997 and what the underlying notion was. If the idea was a sort of token relinquishment of, or gesture concerning, sovereignty with the minimum of substantial change in day-to-day administra- tion that is of course a very different matter from the institu- tion of a new joint regime.

11.

From a strictly legal point of view a variety of joint institutions could probably be devised, but one would first need to know what we wanted. Equally I suppose one could look at cosmetic and token changes that would not seriously alter the existing structure. Unless, however, one has a fairly detailed proposition of policy, there is not much one can say about legal devices.

A.R.R.

A R Rushford Deputy Legal Adviser

SECRET