TNAG-1105-FCO40-1355-Detention-of-Hong-Kong-British-passport-holders-in-China-1981 — Page 3

布政司署

花下亚厘畢道

Page

CONFIDENTIAL

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT

LOWER ALBERT ROAD

HONG KONG

3 September, 1981

१

WWW OUR REF.:

SCR 1/1167/55 XII

BRIM YOUR REF.:

LAST PAPER

H L1 Davies Esq

Far Eastern Department FCO

INDEX

PA

HICK

KONTO SA BAY 10. 51

14 SEP 1981

DESK OFFICER

REGISTRY Action Taken

38412

1,51

мо

No 2752.

Pas ista

8

PROTECTION OF HONG KONG BRITISH SUBJECTS IN CHINA

We here are content with the arrangements for dealing with any cases of protection of Hong Kong British subjects in China, as laid out in your letter of 3 August to Michael Atkinson in Peking.

2.

It

It is just possible that good relations in the UK/China/Hong Kong triangle may lead to more requests for intervention on behalf of Hong Kong British subjects who get into trouble in China. But I would be surprised if the number increased to any significant extent. is widely understood here that a Hong Kong Chinese (even with British nationality) will not have effective protection while in China. The British passport, in note 6, in any case makes it clear that those who are also nationals of another country cannot be protected by HM representatives against the authorities of that country. By travelling to China on Chinese documents, as do most local belongers, those concerned are effectively recognising that the Chinese Government also claims them as citizens of China. Incidentally, as a nitpick on para 4 of your letter, it is not strictly true that the Hong Kong Government has "agreed" that Chinese CUKCS travelling to China do so on Chinese documents. They leave and re-enter

What they do Hong Kong on British/Hong Kong documents. thereafter is not something of which we officially have knowledge.

3.

The

I think we can disregard your other hypothesis: that Hong Kong Chinese CUKCS will attempt, as a mark of concern about the Nationality Bill, to test their "Britishness" by seeking protection in China. reaction to the Nationality Bill is likely to be the opposite. People will assume that they have less chance of protection. They are not likely to test it.

/contd.

CONFIDENTIAL