CONFIDENTIAL
ito Barrow
5
Ok. Let the dog slaap for the moment. Bur
agar.
18 with book Agreed therefore tha
812
Dr Wilson
Me fare t
to late
2.
Povell or
passere vite
1 Sums
croen
FROM: CO Hum, HKD
WeDATE: 28 December 1984
2 January 1985
Mr Burrows, Legal Advisers o/r
live
Cc:
1281;
HONG KONG AGREEMENT: ARTICLE BY CHINESE LEGAL EXPERT
3
(982)
A 1. You commented on 10 December, in connection with an article
the Hong Kong agreement by a Chinese lawyer,
that his definition
B
on
of "the laws currently in force" as those laws in force before the
initialling of the Joint Declaration was exactly the view we were
intent on insuring against. You said that we should not let it
stand unchallenged and suggested that we might put out an article in
Hong Kong countering it.
In
the
2 Mr Margolis commented on the same article in a letter to me on
8 December. He noted that none of the independent papers or commentators in Hong Kong had picked up Zhang Youyu's point. light of this I wrote to Hong Kong asking whether they thought that HKKC0/should still try to get own interpretation put across.
our
C
187
D
040/1 (84)
988
I
pointed out that it might have the effect of bringing the point to public attention and risking a Chinese rebuttal which would increase
Hong Kong have now replied agreeing that it would be best
concern.
to let the matter rest.
3.
conclude that we should not seek to publish a refutation of
Zhang Youyu's article. We need however to have a line prepared in
case at some later stage
someone picks the point up.
views on how best we can
It would be
present our
helpful to have Mr Burrows' argument on a point where the Chinese interpretation of the
our own.
It seems
out Sooner or
later in the
clearly runs
to directly counter agreement
inevitable that we shall have
to argue it
Joint Liaison Group itself.
2 January 1985
съ
HKK 040/12.
CO Hum
Hong Kong Department
لا
CONFIDENTIAL
A
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.