TNAG-1349-FCO40-1790-Chinese-visa-office-in-Hong-Kong-1984 — Page 191

GRS 875

CONFIDENTIAL

DESKBY 09130OZ FCO

CONFIDENTIAL

DESKBY 10010OZ HONG KONG

FROM PEKING 091045Z APR 84

TO IMMEDIATE FCO

TELEGRAM NUMBER 686 OF 9/4/84

INFO IMMEDIATE HONG KONG

HKK 349/1

RECEIVED IN REGISTIFY

Dr

INDEX

10 APP 1994

Tee

TOP CORY avi

136

YOUR TEL NO 333:

CHINESE VISA OFFICE IN HONG KONG

311

see

1. LIN YONGPIN SUMMONED GALSWORTHY TODAY 9 APRIL TO

GIVE THE CHINESE RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PRESENTED ON 4 APRIL.

2. THE CHINESE SIDE ACCEPTED ALL THE CHANGES WE HAD PROPOSED EXCEPT THAT TO PARAGRAPH 5, WHERE WE HAD PROPOSED THE ADDITION OF ''IN RESPECT OF ACTS PERFORMED IN THE EXERCISE OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS''. WE PRESSED THEM ON THE REASONS FOR THIS,

BUT ALL THEY WOULD SAY WAS THAT THE VISA OFFICE WAS NEITHER A CONSULAR OR A DIPLOMATIC MISSION AND THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO

· TO MAKE SPECIAL PROVISION FOR IT. WE SAID THAT WE THOUGHT THAT THE OMISSION OF THESE WORDS WOULD MAKE DIFFERENCE TO THE EXTENT OF PRIVILEGES GRANTED AND WAS LIKELY TO CAUSE DIFFICULTY.

J

3. AT THIS POINT LIN YONGPIN PRODUCED A COMPROMISE'' THIS WAS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE FIRST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH 5 SHOULD BE REPLACED BY THE FOLLOWING:

''OFFICERS OF THE VISA OFFICE HOLDING DIPLOMATIC PASSPORTS

WILL BE IMMUNE FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE JUDICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES: OFFICERS OF THE VISA OFFICE HOLDING SERVICE PASSPORTS WILL BE IMMUNE FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF ACTS PERFORMED IN THE EXERCISE OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS. THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PROVISION WILL NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF CIVIL ACTION:

ETC. ETC.!!

រ

4. WE POINTED OUT THAT BOTH THE OMISSION OF THE WORDING WE HAD PROPOSED AND THE **COMPROMISE** WENT BEYOND NOT ONLY THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS BUT ALSO THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS, IN THAT IT MADE NO MENTION OF THE VARIOUS EXCEPTIONS TO IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION LAID OUT IN ARTICLE 31 OF THE LATTER. THE CHINESE SIDE WERE UNMOVED BY THESE CONSIDERATIONS, AND ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NO REASON WHY TWO COUNTRIES SHOULD NOT AGREE TO GO BEYOND THE CONVENTIONS IF THEY WISHED TO (JUST AS WE ARGUED WHEN NEGOTIATING THE CONSULAR AGREEMENT)

CONFIDENTIAL

15.