TNAG-2321-FCO40-3365-Human-rights-in-Hong-Kong-1991 — Page 216

For M. H. good news.

This seems

RESTRICTED

DOCUMENTS

IN SAFE

Cas

HKC 241/2

From: A V G Tucker, CSCE Unit Date: 24 December 1991

CC: Mr Watt, UND >

Mr Pearce, SED) (w/o Enclosures)

Ms Foulds, RAD)

Mr Bunten, Hong Kong Dept

Mr Wells, EAD

Mr Holland

WIAD

Mr Innes, SAAD

Ms Dixon, SPD

CSCE COMMITMENTS: DEPENDENT TERRITORIES AND REALMS

1.

(92)

Thank you for your minute of 17 December.

2. Everybody is in favour of promoting human rights; like apple pie and motherhood, it is difficult to oppose the principle. However, implementation of any commitment is tiresome; one often hears echoes of Augustine's "Make me pure; but not yet".

3.

The question posed by the Home Office as to the geographical extent of commitments made under the CSCE process can, I hope, be answered in more than one way.

4.

We may, in 1975, have decided explicitly on whose behalf we made the commitments in the Helsinki Final Act. I have separately asked Ms Foulds if RAD would examine this point.

It may be that certain entities have allotted the right to HMG to enter agreements on their behalf in areas covered by the CSCE.

Since the CSCE rules of procedure distinguish between "European" States who may participate along with the United States and Canada and States "in regions adjacent to Europa (sic)", I would agree with you that the question of CSCE commitments is of direct relevance to those entities either on the Continent or in the British Isles. I had not thought of the SBAs in this context. They have no citizens or legislatures, and I presume that the C.o. makes regulations in accordance with British law. If the American concept of a Euro-Atlantic Community gains favour then it is

TC4AFD

RESTRICTED