2. FIRST, I AGREE THAT DISCUSSION OF THE POINTS RAISED IN YOUR LETTER PRESUPPOSES A GENERAL SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF THE FUTURE WHICH WOULD PERMIT THE CONTINUATION OF BRITISH ADMINISTRA- TION. UNTIL WE ARE CLEARER ABOUT WHETHER THE CHINESE COULD ACCEPT SUCH A SOLUTION, WE CAN ONLY SPECULATE ABOUT THE SORT OF DETAILED CHANGES THEY MIGHT DEMAND.
3. EVEN IF THE CHINESE ACCEPT THAT THERE SHOULD BE CONTINUED BRITISH ADMINISTRATION, THEY WILL VERY LIKELY SEEK TO UPGRADE THEIR REPRESENTATION IN HONG KONG AND PROBABLY TO HAVE A SHARE IN POLICY- MAKING. ON THIS, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU AND ROBIN MCLAREN HAVE SAID. THE GOVERNOR MUST REMAIN ACCOUNTABLE ONLY TO LONDON AND HIS AUTHORITY SHOULD REMAIN INTACT. SUBJECT TO THAT, ANY WAY IN WHICH THE PRC PRESENCE MIGHT BE GIVEN A HIGHER PUBLIC PROFILE COULD BE A USEFUL SWEETENER.
4. ON THE MATTER OF ''RENT'', I AM AS UNCLEAR AS ROBIN MCLAREN ABOUT CHINESE THINKING, ALTHOUGH I
ALTHOUGH I AM QUITE CERTAIN THAT THE CHINESE HOPE TO TAKE A GREATER SHARE OF THE GOLDEN EGGS THAN THEY DO AT PRESENT. THEY MAY HOPE THAT THE FISCAL REVENUES WHICH THEY BELIEVE ARE PAID FROM HONG KONG TO THE UK TREASURY WILL IN FUTURE BE REMITTED TO CHINA. THIS IS A FICTION WHICH WE CAN EASILY DISPOSE OF, AND WE SHOULD DO SO SOON. ''RENT'' AS SUCH, I AGREE WITH ROBIN, WOULD BE DEMEANING. THE IDEAS SUGGESTED IN HIS PARAGRAPH 7 REPRESENT A MORE RESPECTABLE WAY FOR THE CHINESE TO GET THEIR HANDS ON THE GOODIES.
5. AS FOR FLAGS, MY ONLY POINT IS THAT THE CHINESE WOULD I THINK BE BOUND TO ASK FOR A BAN ON THE FLYING OF THE NATIONALIST FLAG. WOULD IT REALLY BE OUT OF THE QUESTION FOR US TO LEGISLATE TO THAT EFFECT (EVEN IF IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO POLICE SUCH A BAN
THOROUGHLY), IF IT WAS THOUGHT TO BE AN IMPORTANT ENOUGH NEGOTIAT- ING POINT FOR REASONS OF CHINESE ''FACE''?
6. I FULLY AGREE WITH PARAGRAPH 5 OF YOUR LETTER OF 30 MARCH.
SIGNED: M W ATKINSON
157
NNNN
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.