GRS 1100
SECRET
FUTURE EGRET
SECRET
FROM PEKING 3011352 AUG 84
TO IMMEDIATE FCO
TELEGRAM NUMBER 1995 OF 30 AUG
IMFO IMMEDIATE HONG KONG
HILK Oud So
RECEIVED I
-3 SEP 1784
23
TALY
TOP COPY M2119
for
YOUR TELNOS 1688 AND 1689 TO HONG KONG AND MY TEL NO 1962:
FUTURE EGRET: DRAFT WHITE PAPER.
1.
WE THINK THAT THE DRAFT IS BROADLY ON THE RIGHT LINES.
OUR ONLY GENERAL OBSERVATION IS THAT GREAT CARE MUST BE TAKEN OVER
THE DRAFTING ON SUBJECTS ABOUT WHICH THE CHINESE ARE SENSITIVE,
SO AS TO MINIMISE THE DANGER OF THEIR GOING ON RECORD WITH
STATEMENTS OF REPUDIATION AND/OR CORRECTION.
2.
WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE TEXT:
(A) PARAGRAPH 3:
f
(1) REFERENCE TO THE THREE TREATIES WILL NEED CAREFUL HANDLING
-BECAUSE OF THE RISK OF PROVOKING A CHINESE STATEMENT ABOUT
THEIR **UNEQUAL'' NATURE. WE SUGGEST THAT ''BY CHINA' IN LINE 3 BE DELETED OR PERHAPS REPLACED BY BY THE CHINESE
GOVERNMENT OF THE TIME''.
(11) THE FINAL SENTENCE WILL NOT GO DOWN WELL HERE AS IT REFLECTS
OUR VIEW ABOUT THE TREATIES' VALIDITY. WE SHOULD PREFER
DELETION OF AT LEAST THE REFERENCE TO THE NON VIABILITY OR REMAINING
8 PERCENT.
(B) PARAGRAPH 4:
(1) CAN RESEARCH DEPARTMENT BE (NEXT WORD UNDERLINED) CERTAIN THAT THERE WAS NO EARLIER CHINESE POLICY STATEMENT? WOULD IT
NOT BE SAFER SLY TO SAY:
Mo
''THE ATTITUDE OF THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN CLEARLY STATED:
THAT THE QUESTION OF HONG KONG AND MACAU,
(11) A REFERENCE MIGHT BE INCLUDED TO THE CHINESE POSITION ON
HONG KONG AS STATED BY THE CHINESE AMBASSADOR TO THE UN IN MARCH 1972.
*
(C) PARAGRAPH 6: IS THIS NOT TO DETAILED? WOULD IT NOT SUFFICE
SIMPLY TO SAY THAT THIS QUESTION WAS FIRST BROACHED BY THE
THEN GOVERNOR DURING HIS VISIT TO PEKING IN MARCH 1979. DENG SAID RATHER MORE THAN JUST THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FINAL SENTENCE, BUT
WE SEE NO POINT IN REFERRING TO HIS REMARKS IN THIS PARAGRAPH.
(D) PARAGRAPH 7: WE WONDER IF IT IS NECESSARY TO REFER TO SPECIFIC
INDIVIDUALS.
SECRET
/e.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.