TNAG-2177-FCO40-3114-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-1990 — Page 30

CONFIDENTIAL

HKD 241/1.

RECE

14 NOV 1990

1366

Ms major

We have discussed:

Yes.

you

INDLA

are pursuing para mu keep the point

2 and

hu

in para

I in mind

From:

Jill Barrett

Assistant Legal Adviser Date: 12 November 1990

13/11

CC: Ms Major, HKD

Mr Paul

Paul

Mr Fifoot, Legal Advisers

MY VISIT TO HONG KONG 10-19 OCTOBER 1990: BILL OF RIGHTS

clarified

же

1874)

1. Thank you for your minute of 8 November. You asked whether we should clarify with Hong Kong exactly what our objective would be in offering to the Chinese the "subject to the Basic Law" concession. I agree that we should. While obviously the "full prize" would be such an achievement that no one would quibble with the concession, a deal based on a "half prize" would be much more controversial. We would be seen to have "watered down" the BOR without receiving anything tangible from the Chinese in return; it might therefore be difficult to sell to Exco and Legco. Moreover, I am not entirely clear what Mr Ehrman meant by the "half prize"; whether he meant Chinese silence or whether ambiguous public statements short of denunciation in the Telno would do. Whatever it consisted of, clearly the benefits of it might be shortlived. If it merely postponed Chinese denuciation of the BOR until nearer to 1997, might not the effects be even worse than denunciation now? Presumably the only point of a half prize would be the hope of converting it into a full one later; a hope which depends upon emergence of a more liberal Chinese government within seven years. The plenary meeting on the BOR which I attended in Hong Kong did not address any of these questions. In view of the fact that Mr Galsworthy (in our private conversation) assessed the prospects of securing the full prize at less than 40% it seems to me that we do need to focus now on the pros and cons of the possible fallback positions.

-

2. Regarding your second point the myth of the unilateral imposition of the BOR on Hong Kong by Sir Geoffrey Howe I did make the point to Mr Ehrman that I recalled hearing both Sir David Wilson and Sir Geoffrey announce to the FAC on the same day and in the same terms (my recollection is that it

His was in April 1989) that a BOR was being considered. response was that, as far as HKG was concerned, it would have remained under consideration indefinitely; HKG had not now been implementing the provisions of the ICCPR for many years and this had been a very convenient state of affairs. When I asked Mr Galsworthy for his views on this point, he

3514

Bratt

Letter to

Mr Paul

-

пов

TOL

isoned.

KC9AEF

CONFIDENTIAL

Page 30Page 31