TNAG-1625-FCO40-2239-Relations-between-Hong-Kong-and-China-1987 — Page 43

SECRET

-

UK EYES ONLY

cause difficulty in the future"; and that the Japanese memorandum on annexation admitted "by implication that most of the territory covered by the claim consists of rocks the majority of which are to our knowledge incapable of effective occupation and therefore, according to our view of international law not annexable".

45.

The relevant part of the Foreign Office brief for the Japanese Peace Conference in 1951 reads as follows: "His Majesty's Government have a claim to Spratly which has never been formally abandoned; but they are not prepared to contest the French claim to sovereignty which is considered to be good in law". The Commonwealth Relations Office told the Australian Government in 1950 that the British Government was concerned with the strategic importance of the islands: it would not object to French ownership but would object to ownership by the Philippines, China, Taiwan or Japan. By 1955 however when the Foreign Office (1) replied to a United States enquiry on the area, no mention of the fact that the claim had never been formally abandoned was made. Instead a history of the British claim to. Spratly and Amboyna Cay was given. It was stated that HMG had never acknowledged the various claims made since by other countries. "With regard to the other islands listed within this group, the view of Her Majesty's Government has been that, with one possible exception, all except the two already mentioned are reef and shoals, some of them being listed as covered at all states of the tide and therefore uninhabitable and incapable of appropriation and occupation". In that year also a Legal Adviser said he could give no firm legal opinion on the status of Spratly Island until more investigation had been done. He referred to the 1932 legal opinion and added that he thought nothing since 1932 had occurred to strengthen the British case; "indeed it has become progressively weaker through 20 years of inactivity".

46. The question of the British claim was raised again in 1956 when the Commissioner-General of the United Kingdom in South-East Asia reported that the Shell Company of Borneo had asked the Commander-in-Chief Far East Station to transport one of its geologists to Spratly Island.

The Commander-in-Chief had asked the Commissioner-General whether HMS Dampier on her visit should hoist the British flag and take formal occupation of the island. It was decided with the concurrence of the Legal Advisers that in view of the disputes as to sovereignty over the Nansha Islands, HMS Dampier should not hoist the flag or formally occupy the island. It was considered that it would be most inadvisable even to visit the island. The claim was described as never having been abandoned but as too weak "in view of the lack of effective exercise of sovereignty" ever to win acceptance before an International Court. The Prime Minister commented on the question of oil. It was decided not to reply to the Prime Minister on the grounds that if oil were discovered the British claim would be

(1)

The Legal Advisers were consulted before the note was sent.

15

SECRET

--

UK EYES ONLY