TNAG-1311-FCO40-1673-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1984 — Page 162

934

GRS 300

CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL

FROM PEKING 22032OZ NOV 34

TO PRIORITY FCO

TELEGGAM NUMBER 2806 OF 22/11/84

INFO PRIORITY HONG KONG AND UKMIS NEW YORK

FROM THOMSON

1930

(931

YOUR TEL NO 2289 AND HONG KONG TEL NO 3535: HONG KONG AGREEMENT:

TOP COPY

HUK 040/1 никоно

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY

23 NOV 1984

DESK OFFICER

INDEX

PA

Три

REGISTRY

Action Taken

выгры

REGISTRATION AT THE UNITED NATIONS

1 WE AGREE WITH YOU THAT THERE IS SOME HOPE THAT THE

CHINESE MAY NOT REJECT OUT OF HAND A PROPOSAL FOR

JOINT REGISTRATION (PARAGRAPH 3 OF YOUR TUR).

WE ARE NOT, HOWEVER, ATTRACTED TO THE IDEA OF APPROACHING

THEM ONLY SHORTLY BEFOR RATIFICATION. THEY

WOULD WANT TIME TO CONSIDER A PROPOSAL FROM US FOR JOINT REGISTRATION

AND THEY MIGHT FEEL THAT BY WAITING UNTIL JUST BEFORE

RATIFICATION BEFORE MAKING IT WE WERE ATTEMPTING TO BOUNCE

THEM INTO AGREEING WITH US. WE WOULD THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW,

UNNECESSARILY RUN THE RISK OF A REBUFF.

2 TO US THERE SEEMS TO BE A CHOICE OF TWO WAYS IN WHICH

TO PROCEED:

(A) TO PROPOSE JOINT REGISTRATION SOME TIME IN ADVANCE

OF RATIFICATION, EG. TWO OR THREE MONTHS:

(B) TO WAIT UNTIL RATIFICATION HAS TAKEN PLACE BEFORE

MAKING A PROPOSAL.

3. SEEN FROM HERE, THE ADVANTAGE OF (A) IS THAT IT WOULD

ALLOW MORE TIME FOR US TO TRY TO PERSUADE

THE CHINESE TO REGISTER JOINTLY. THE DISADVANTAGE

OF (A) IS THAT IT COULD BRING US INTO DISPUTE WITH THE

CHINESE AT THE WRONG TIME, PARTICULARLY IF THEY CHOSE TO

ASSERT THAT IT WAS UNSUITABLE FOR US TO REGISTER THE

AGREEMENT (EG BY ARGUING THAT WE WERE TRYING TO

CONFIDENTIAL

'INTERNATIONALISÉ