TNAG-1385-FCO40-1833-Future-of-Hong-Kong-nationality-and-citizenship-1985 — Page 248

CONFIDENTIAL

7. The Indian Association's proposal would undermine the principle of the 1981

Act by exceptionally allowing BDTCs in Hong Kong who might otherwise be stateless

after 1997 to become British citizens and thus to claim the right of abode in

the UK. This would undesirably suggest that we had little faith in the undertakings

given by the Chinese Government and in the security of the arrangements after

1997. It would also inevitably lead to claims for similar treatment from the

Chinese Hong Kong BDTCs, the necessary rejection of which would put in jeopardy

their acquiescence in the agreed arrangements.

8. In any event, the Indian Association's requests cannot help them further to

secure their future in Hong Kong. Their main concern is that they should have

-

which

a citizenship which carries with it a right of abode. They claim that a nationality

without right of abode in the parent country is a form of statelessness. In fact,

they will not be stateless after 1997, since those who might otherwise be will

become British Overseas citizens. British citizenship, which gives them a right

of abode in the UK, could not give them a right of abode in Hong Kong

is where they say they want to remain because after 1997 it will not be within

the British Government's power to grant that right. Indeed, under the agreement,

Chinese nationals themselves will only have the right of abode there after 1997

if they have specified links with Hong Kong. Nor is there any substance in their

suggestion that the arrangements agreed with the Chinese are racially based.

The Government's provisions to guard against statelessness will apply to any former

Hong Kong BDTCs, whatever their ethnic origin, who do not become BN(0)s and who

would otherwise be stateless, and their children and grandchildren. And they

are fully in accord with our obligations under the UN Convention on the Reduction

of Statelessness.

9. The granting of British citizenship to the Hong Kong Indian community would

certainly preserve the citizenship of future generations. But, as was fully

argued during the passage of the Hong Kong Bill, we do not believe the Government

should recognise an obligation beyond the second generation born after 1997.

By then the link with Britain will be more than tenuous. And in that period it

would be open to them to apply for Chinese nationality if they so wish. No doubt

successive Governments would be prepared to review the situation if circumstances

up to the middle of the next century and beyond seemed to require it. But it

would not be wise of any Government to attempt now to make predictions on these

matters so far ahead.

3

CONFIDENTIAL