TNAG-1941-FCO40-2767-Future-of-Hong-Kong-defence-and-public-order-1989 — Page 230

CONFIDENTIAL

003503

MDHOAN 4492

4.

I ASSURED HIM THAT IT WOULD BE DEALT WITH PRUDENTLY. YOU PLANNED TO MAKE A SIMPLE REFERENCE TO THE PROJECT WITH NO ALLUSION TO THE NAVAL BASE. OF COURSE PEOPLE MIGHT SUBSEQUENTLY ASK ABOUT THE BASE AND WE WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT IT WOULD BE FILLED IN. BUT IF THE QUESTION WERE RAISED, WE WOULD ALSO SAY THAT A FUTURE DECISION ON ANY EVENTUAL NEW BASE WAS NOT THEREBY PREJUDICED. I HOPED THAT KE WOULD EXPLAIN TO THE CHINESE MILITARY AUTHORITIES THAT THE QUESTION OF THE POSITION OF A FUTURE NAVAL BASE COULD BE TALKED ABOUT FURTHER. THE ONLY POSSIBILITY THAT WAS FORECLOSED WAS LEAVING THE BASE IN ITS PRESENT POSITION. THE CHINESE SIDE HAD APPEARED TO ACCEPT THAT LEAVING IT THERE WOULD MAKE NO ECONOMIC SENSE.

5. KE REITERATED THAT THE MATTER WAS SENSITIVE AND COMPLICATED. THERE SHOULD BE PRUDENCE ABOUT WHETHER ANY MENTION OF THE

RECLAMATION SHOULD BE MADE, AND, IF A MENTION WERE MADE, ABOUT ITS TERMS.

6. I EXPLAINED THAT IT WOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD IN HONG KONG IF THERE WERE NO ANNOUNCEMENT OF A DECISION WHICH HAD BEEN SO

WIDELY EXPECTED. BUT KE'S POINT ON THE MANNER OF ANNOUNCEMENT

WAS WELL TAKEN.

7. KE CONCLUDED BY STATING THAT HIS REMARKS WERE PRELIMINARY. IF NECESSARY, FURTHER VIEWS WOULD BE CONVEYED AFTER STUDY THROUGH APPROPRIATE CHANNELS.

MAJOR

YYYY

DISTRIBUTION

68

ΜΑΙΝ

65

.HONG KONG AGREEMENT

.(RESTRICTED)

LIMITED

HKD

HD/FED

RESEARCH (FE)

PUSD

NEWS D

PS/MR MAUDE

PS/LORD BRABAZON

MR GILLMORE

MR MCLAREN

MR MOSS

ADDITIONAL

3

MR EDWARDS LEGAL ADV

MR WHOMERSLEY LEGAL ADV

PAGE

2

MR FIFOOT HAD.

CONFIDENTIAL