CONFIDENTIAL
FM FCO
TO PRIORITY HONG KONG
TELNO 433
OF 18163UZ FEBRUARY 88
INFO PRIORITY PEKING
ان
Lieneta
CONFIDENTIAL
105570
MDLOAN 2751
YOUR TELNOS 586, 624 AND 625 AND PEKING'S TELNO 326: ECVII'S
1. PARA 7 OF FIRST TUR AND PARA 4 OF SECOND TUR: IT IS NOT ALTOGETHER CLEAR TO US WHETHER YOU HAVE IN MIND THAT A FINAL MEETING IN CANTON WOULD COME BEFORE OR AFTER OUR DEMARCHE IN PEK ING. IF IT IS THE LATTER, SHOULD WE NOT PERHAPS INCLUDE AN OFFER OF SUCH A MEETING IN THE SPEAKING NOTE?
2.
PARA 1 OF SECOND TUR: ON THE FACE OF IT, AND SUBJECT TO UKMIS GENEVA'S COMMENTS, WE THINK WE SHOULD RESTRICT OURSELVES T A DEMARCHE IN PEKING IN PARALLEL WITH YOURS IN HONG KONG. HOWEVER AN APPROACH BY UNHCR BOTH IN GENEVA AND PEKING MIGHT WEL BE APPROPRIATE.
3.
WE HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED THE ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTATION, BUT HAVE THE FOLLOWING INITIAL COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SPEAKING NOTE I
THIRD TUR:
(A) WE SUGGEST THAT PARA 2 BE THE SIZE AND STATUS OF EACH OF (B) WE SUGGEST THAT PARA 3(C)
(B). (C) WE SUGGEST THAT THE FINAL SENTENCE OF PARA 4. 1 BE OMITTED: IT ADDS NOTHING TO OUR CASE AND RAISES THE QUESTION OF A UNHCR FUNDED CAMP WHICH WE CANNOT RESPOND TO.
RECAST TO INCLUDE A REFERENCE TO THE FIVE GROUPS.
SHOULD COME BEFORE PARAS 3 (A) AND
(D) WE SUGGEST THAT 4.2 AND 4.3 BE COMBINED: AND THAT THE LAST SENTENCE OF 4.2 AND THE FIRST HALF OF THE FIRST SENTENCE OF 4.3 BE OMITTED. THE FIRST SENTENCE OF 4.3 WOULD THEN BEGIN QUOTE IT WOULD NOT BE EQUITABLE
UNQUOTE. THIS WOULD REMOVE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE ECVII'S HAD QUOTE SETTLED UNQUOTE IN CHINA, WHILE FOCUSSING ON THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN THERE FOR YEARS WHICH IS THE STRENGTH OF OUR CASE.
4.
4149
(E) PARA 4.4: SHOULD QUOTE GROUP III READ QUOTE GROUP I UNQUOTE?
PARA 3 OF SECOND TUR: WE NOTE THAT YOU MIGHT BE READY TO CONSIDER RESETTLEMENT OF THE FANG CHENG CASES WITHOUT THE FORMALITY OF REPATRIATION TO CHINA. THIS WOULD SEEM A WORKABLE ARRANGEMENT, ALBEIT ONLY AS A FALL-BACK.
HOWE
1
PAGE CONFIDENTIAL
:.....
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.