TNAG-1168-FCO40-1448-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1982 — Page 47

SECRET

HKK

་་་

040/1

17 MART 2

R+h to me

J11.3.

BRITISH EMBASSY,

PEKING.

1224)

020/393/2

R D Clift Esq

Hong Kong &

FCO

Dear Dick,

FUTURE OF HONG KONG

1.

X

کہا

1 AGO 515

15 March 1982

1 Department for 10 ouns.

ви

2013 noted Fio 26/3

See (131)

w 2013

44

1.5

In your letter of 10 February to Robin McLaren you asked for our views on the legal papers enclosed.

2. Our main concern is that the legal material seems unrelated to the work done on the draft contingency paper, and that consequently there is a good deal of discussion of options which are, frankly, not on. You put your finger on two essential points in your paragraph 3. First, it would neither be appropriate nor feasible to deal with the matter of individual New Territory land leases in isolation from the lease itself. The Chinese clearly see theproblems as one. Secondly, we are equally convinced that there can be no prospect of "unilateral" amendment of our legislation. The suggestion in paragraph 6 of enclosure (a)

The Chinese of your letter, for example, is simply not a starter. would not appreciate the distinction between municipal and inter- national law. They would see any such action as an attempt on our part to edge towards continued British administration (which is after all what it would be) and they would see this as a flagrant disregard for China's own position. It is therefore unnecessary to take examination of such options any further.

3. We have little time left now in which to complete the preparatory work needed to give the Prime Minister the best possible chance of making progress on Hong Kong when she visits Peking in September. It is vital that we concentrate our efforts on examining those options we believe to have a chance of success, and discard those which are possibly only in theory. I think we are agreed that options C and D of the draft contingency paper are the front-runners i.e. public agreement by UK and China that the treaties no longer apply and that Hong Kong is Chinese territory temporarily under British administration, or a Chinese declaration that change in Hong Kong's administration would only occur after a 15-year notice period. Frankly the former is a much more likely starter. The other options in the paper are either unlikely to be enough to bolster long-term confidence or

We should now seek unlikely to be acceptable to the Chinese.

urgent legal advice on the implications and mechanics of the first two options.

-1-

SECRET

14.