1
I
CONFIDENTIAL
Foreign and Commonwealth Office London SW1A 2AH
Telephone 01- 233 3184
PJ Weston Esq WASHINGTON
Your reference
Our reference
ड
Date
7 April 1981
HKKC Ouol3
RICHTVER : ALO:STRY NO. 51
2 2 APRISO
6
Dear Lin,
THE HONG KONG/CHINA BOUNDARY
1.
n.
INDEX
ملل
R
1 REGISTRY
Action Taken
AW 23
I am sorry not to have replied before now to your letter of 11 February on the Hong Kong/China maritime boundary. David Wilson's letter of 18 March, copied to you, sums up the UK position on this.
2.
The problem is, as you will perceive, peculiarly cartographic. There is in practice no dispute over territorial waters. The Cartographic Publishing House have followed their customary practice of dividing Deep Bay and Mirs Bay down the middle. It is not clear from Research Department records how long this has been the practice, but it probably goes back to the establishment of the Chinese People's Republic.
3.
As David Wilson says, our maps follow the terms of the 1893 Convention of Peking which included the whole of Deep Bay and Mirs Bay within the leased territory, while retaining right of access for Chinese vessels. A series of deliniation meetings were held in 1899 to determine the exact position of the border and a joint memorandum was signed. The results are set out in the Second Schedule to Chapter One of the Hong Kong Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (copy attached).
4.
As to which map National Geographic should follow, we would, of course, much prefer them to continue following our practice, both in fixing the boundary and in spelling of Hong Kong names. I hope that the State Department can be persuaded to convince them of this, not least because following the Chinese practice will make their man appear different to those produced by most other authorities and publishers.
Yous
Dich
R D Clift
Hong Kong and General Department
cc Political Advisor, HONG KONG
Chancery, PEKING
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.