TNAG-1406-FCO40-1881-Future-of-Hong-Kong-passports-and-visas-1985 — Page 159

CONFIDENTIAL

GVV MEX/341/1

Reference..

to

на

I dan's fonow

This

كيا

4.

Unfortunately the second and third category VAAS are difficult to express in terms of the BNA, 1981. For example, a Hong Kong Chinese living outside Hong Kong (or any other DT) prior to 1 January 1983 would have been issued with a British passport which, according to the terms of category 2 and 3 VAAS, would have entitled him/her to visa free entry into countries (including Mexico) where a DT issued passport would not. Likewise a CUKC of UK origin who, by chance, held a DT issued passport could benefit from category 2 and 3 VAAS.

5. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Mexicans decided that persons bearing passports describing them as BDTC or, if bearing CUKC passports, appeared likely to have become BDTCs by reason of birth in a DT, were ineligible to benefit from the VAA. This is not a decision we can question since it does not conflict with the letter of the VAA. Nor

The we reproach the Mexicans for not having informed us. VAA does not place any obligation on them to communicate with us about the operation of the VAA except: -

(a)

(b)

to suspend it temporarily for reasons of public order, and

to give one month's notice of denunciation in writing.

6. What are we to do? Unlike similar problems we have encountered with category 1 VAAS (i.e. pre 1949) we cannot argue that the bilateral VAA covers DTs. The only course of action likely to assuage Bermuda and Hong Kong is to negotiate an extension of the VAA (similar to that for British Honduras) to cover all BDTCs. There are, however, hazards in this course of action. For example, the Mexicans might ask us to renegotiate the 1959 VAA in terms of the BNA 1981. This would inevitably bring in the problem of BOCS and British Subjects without Right of Abode in the UK or anywhere else. We are supposed to obtain for these categories equal treatment with other British passport holders. I am not aware that BOCS or British Subjects have been an immigration headache to the Mexicans but the latter are certainly alert to the endorsement made in British passports (from 1973) to the effect that "Bearer is subject/control under the Immigration Act" (see Annex 1 to the letter from Director of Immigration, Hong Kong to HKD of 28 May). (For BDTCs this may be replaced by "Bearer has Right of Abode in (name of Dependent Territory)" (See Miss Veale's minute of 25 July to HKD) but this is no help so long as the Mexicans place a visa requirement on BDTCs). However, there is only one way of finding out the Mexican attitude and that is by asking them.

7.

How should we now proceed? The Embassy at Mexico City have not so far performed brilliantly. By their action in regard to the Cayman Islands (where they apparently entered into an agreement with the Mexicans without FCO authority) and Bermuda (where the Consul seems to have made a singularly ill-judged approach to the Mexicans) they may well have given the Mexicans reason to believe that we do not much care about BDTCS thus making it that much harder to obtain a favourable result.

18.

CODE 18-77

CONFIDENTIAL