TNAG-2207-FCO40-3164-Multiple-entry-visa-agreement-between-Hong-Kong-and-Japan-1990 — Page 20

CONFIDENTIAL

FM HONG KONG

TO PRIORITY FCO

TELNO 921

OF 15095OZ MARCH 90

INFO PRIORITY TOKYO

2

CONFIDENTIAL

HRCD 345/1 нко

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY

18 APR 1990

066155

MDLIAN 6581

ม

DESK OFFICER

REGISTRY

INDEX

PA

Action Taken

YRTELNOS 520 AND 521: HONG KONG/JAPAN MULTIPLE ENTRY VISAS

1. THE JAPANESE RESPONSE REPORTED IN TURS IS DISAPPOINTING TO PUT

·

IT MILDLY FOLLOWING FOREIGN MINISTER NAKAYAMA'S VISIT HERE LAST YEAR, IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT HAVE MADE CONSIDERABLE EFFORTS TO SIMPLIFY AND SPEED UP THE PROCESSING OF EMPLOYMENT VISAS FOR JAPANESE BUSINESSMEN. WE HAVE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS EXPRESSED OUR WISH TO BE AS CO-OPERATIVE AS POSSIBLE IN FACILITATING THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONTACTS AND OUR ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP WITH JAPAN. THEIR RESPONSE ON THIS ISSUE SEEMS TO DISPLAY LITTLE SPIRIT OF

RECIPROCITY.

2. FIRSTLY, WE ARE PUZZLED WHY THEY SHOULD RESPOND IN LONDON WHEN YOU HAVE MADE IT SPECIFICALLY CLEAR TO THEM THAT NEGOTIATION SHOULD TAKE PLACE IN HONG KONG (HONG KONG/FCO TELNO 3653 AND FCO/TOKYO TELNO 884 OF NOVEMBER 1989 REFER). APART FROM INEVITABLE DELAY AND CONFUSION CAUSED BY TRYING TO NEGOTIATE IN TWO (OR THREE) DIFFERENT PLACES, THIS SORT OF ISSUE IS ONE WHERE IT IS VALUABLE TO GET OTHERS USED TO DOING BUSINESS DIRECTLY WITH HONG KONG. IT SEEMS HOWEVER THAT THE MESSAGE HAS NOT GOT THROUGH. WE SHOULD THEREFORE BE GRATEFUL IF YOU COULD AGAIN CONFIRM TO THE JAPANESE EMBASSY IN LONDON THAT YOU WISH TO USE ONE CHANNEL AND ARE CONTENT THAT IT SHOULD BE IN HONG KONG.

3. CONFUSION AS TO WHO TO LISTEN TO MAY HELP EXPLAIN THE FACT THAT THE NOTE PROPOSED BY THE JAPANESE SEEMS TO IGNORE RECENT DISCUSSION AND RETAINS ITS ORIGINAL LAYOUT. THIS IS NOT SIMPLY A QUIBBLE ABOUT FORM. FOR INSTANCE, IT IS NOT CLEAR TO US WHAT THE WORDS 'ON A RECIPROCAL BASIS' WOULD MEAN IN PRACTICE, WHEN THE TEXT OF THE NOTE ITSELF DEALS ONLY WITH HONG KONG VISITORS TO JAPAN, NOT JAPANESE COMING HERE.

4. ON THE SUBSTANCE OF OUR REQUESTS THEY SEEM TO HAVE SAID NO TO VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING. AS WE HAVE EXPLAINED, THE PRESENCE OF A CLEAR CUT-OFF DATE IN THE TEXT MAKES THE WHOLE IDEA CONSIDERABLY LESS ATTRACTIVE IN PRESENTATIONAL TERMS. WE REALISE THAT A PERMANENT

PAGE

1

CONFIDENTIAL