CONFIDENTIAL
this is a safe assumption. Even if China were prepared to consider the possibility of pressing with us for an amendment to Article 1, I imagine that it would not be easy to obtain the necessary two thirds majority and consequently the ratification of any such vote by two thirds of the members (the last time any amendments to the constitution were passed was in 1964 but these have yet to be ratified by two thirds of the members). The chances of persuading the Chinese to press for such an amendment would in any case appear to be nil. One only has to consider their attitude to Hong Kong's future membership of the GATT: membership of that organisation
is not limited to states and yet the Chinese are most reluctant to consider separate membership for Hong Kong.
5.
If Hong Kong therefore participates in the ILO under the Chinese umbrella after 1997 (even though speaking for its own interests), the question arises of how ILO conventions to which the PRC is not a party are to be applied to the SAR. On this we are in the process of researching this further and will let you know the outcome as soon as possible. But, as with the short-term questions in paragraphs 2 and 3 above, we should be grateful for any views, however preliminary, on how you see the long-term future for Hong Kong in the ILO.
W G Ehrman
Hong Kong Department
cc F Burrows Esq OMG, Law Officer (Special Duties),
Hong Kong
D B Gould Esq, Education & Manpower Branch,
Hong Kong
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.