TNAG-1863-FCO40-2643-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Basic-Law-1989 — Page 91

257

HKB 012 / 1 012/1

Reference...

FILE

Ms Maj

Major

BASIC LAW: CONSISTENCY WITH THE JD ETC

1. At some stage, probably before the end of the year, we will need to tell the Chinese officially if there is anything in the BL which we regard as inconsistent with the JD. We need to do this in good time before the NPC enacts the BL. We need to do it in a way that can be made public since we will inevitably be asked (in Parliament and elsewhere) if the BL is consistent with the JD and, if it is not in any respect so consistent, whether we have drawn the attention of the Chinese to the point.

2.

At the same time as drawing points of inconsistency to the Chinese attention

(a) It will be desirable, if not necessary for Parliamentary

purposes, to draw to their attention major points of concern over the Basic Law raised in Hong Kong.

(b)

It would be desirable to provide them with copies of up to date notes on the Basic Law and the linguistic critique.

and to do so in such a manner that we can refer publically to our having done so, and, so far as (a) is concerned, so that we can provide details.

3.

My draft letter to Shao was intended as an opening move on para ì and para 2(a). It was designed to put the Chinese on notice that there were serious matters still at issue. But even if the meeting of Legal Experts takes place and that draft letter is sent as a prelude to that meeting, it will not serve the purposes of official notice to the Chinese and of defending the HKG and HMG publically. For one thing it would not be the appropriate level for such a communication; for another the Legal Experts channel is a confidential one, and I do not think we should go public on it, even if the Chinese abandon it. Accordingly, even if the Legal Experts meeting takes place and my letter to Shao is sent, a further letter will need to be sent by the Secretary of State or as an official note from the Embassy after that meeting and taking the outcome of that meeting into account. Such a further letter will need to be in such terms that it could be quoted after the publication of the definitive text of the Basic Law and, therefore, would need to be reticent as to the channels through which the points had been made earlier. If no such meeting takes place, such a letter would be the only occasion. for making the relevant points.

4. We can think further about whether we would want to give publicity to the documents referred to at para 2(b) above. I doubt whether they would have the same public interest as the material referred to in para (1) and 2 (a). In any event, if

CODE 18-77

MUKABU