CODE 18-77
Mr Holroyd HKD
HKCISI/1
HONG KONG AND THE IVORY TRADE
Reference
304
1.
I have just seenHong Kong telno 3631 of today's date about the ivory trade. We have talked at length about your submission to Ministers on the compensation issue. which will also make some reference to Hong Kong's ideas on a reservation, but I am concerned that Hong Kong seem to be labouring under some misapprehension as to what is and what is not practical.
2.
As I explained to you on the telephone last night we in MAED firmly believe that there is no chance of either DOE or FCO Ministers agreeing to enter a reservation on behalf of Hong Kong and Hong Kong should not be encouraged to believe that there is such a chance. I presume that Hong Kong realise that they themselves cannot do so, although the drafting of some of their telegrams raises some doubts on this. The possibility raised in para 7 of their TUR is even more alarming. Not only does it suggest that the Hong Kong legislature could in some way put the UK in breach of CITES but also runs counter to the thinking behind the UK's own resolution on the removal of the 90-day grace period, which incidentally the Japanese have just announced they will unequivocally accept (unfavourable comparisons are bound to be made). Perhaps legal advisers should be asked for their views on this.
3.
Two other pointsin the Hong Kong telegram needs addressing, that is paras 5a and 5b. As Simon Lyster of the WWF put it to me during the CITES Conference, Hong Kong should have seen which way the wind was blowing well before now and taken corrective action months ago.
Julian Evans MAED
1 November 1989
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.