SECRET
4.
In enclosure (b) of your letter, the Legal Advisers ask for guidance on what they term the "conceptual notions" of the Chinese. I am a little surprised at this since there has been sufficient in telegrams and letters from here over the last three years to give ample guidance. The key issue is, as we all know, sovereignty. It is of paramount importance to them that "China's sovereignty should be safeguarded". Zhao Ziyang put this before the prosperity of Hong Kong when he outlined China's "general stand" to the LPS in January. The Chinese position is that Hong Kong is Chinese territory and always has been; it follows from this that they would require from us a concession on sovereignty and that this would not be in their eyes a cession or a reversion of sovereignty, but an acknowledgement that sovereignty lay with China.
5.
The questions of legislative authority and responsibility for external relations are less straightforward; it is likely that the Chinese have not focussed on these matters (or indeed on the other points listed in paragraph 5(a) of enclosure (b).) My strong feeling is that the Chinese would prefer "an informal agreement in broad terms, avoiding legalistic terms" as suggested in paragraph 8 of that minute. They will not want Acts of Parliament. They do not think like Western jurists and do not attach much importance to UK law, or indeed to international law (except when they feel that, as in the case of Taiwan, the legal arguments can be used to support their own position).
6. In paragraph 3 of enclosure (b) of your letter, Rushford writes that "it might be possible for HMG to make some sort of political declaration that would satisfy the Chinese while allowing the status of Hong Kong in UK law as part of Her Majesty's dominions to remain unchanged". Such a declaration could indeed satisfy what we perceive (my preceding two paragraphs) as the Chinese requirements; we need to know from the Legal Advisers just what exactly is possible.
7. To sum up, there is now a pressing need to focus legal advice exclusively on options C and D of the draft contingency paper, and specifically on how these might be achieved with a minimum of legislation.
8.
Since writing this letter I have seen your telegram No 171 to Hong Kong. I am glad something is moving on the main subject, but of course this emphasises the need for relevant legal advice.
Yours
wer
Ancy Cradock.
PERCY CRADOCK
-2-
SECRET
/Copied to:
110
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.