сня
CONFIDENTIAL
[HKC 282/1
RECET
PEGISTRY
2 2 JAN 1991
134370
MDLOAN 9400
TOP COPY
Q DIST?
CONFIDENTIAL
FM FCO
TO ROUTINE HONG KONG
TELNO 131
OF 18145OZ JANUARY 91
AND TO ROUTINE UKREP JLG HONG KONG
R
Puxili
PERSONAL FOR GOVERNOR FROM PAUL, HKD
''WHO LOST HONG KONG?''
1. I EXPECT YOU WILL HAVE SEEN AN ARTICLE WHICH APPEARED IN THE DECEMBER 1990 EDITION OF THE US PUBLICATION **COMMENTARY*' BY ROSS MUNRO OF THE FOREIGN POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE IN PHILADELPHIA, ENTITLED 'WHO LOST HONG KONG?''.
2 =
THE THRUST OF MUNRO'S THESIS IS THAT THE FOREIGN OFFICE MADE A MAJOR MISTAKE IN 1979 IN RAISING, AND THEN PRESSING, THE LAND LEASES PROPOSAL.
B
ONE FEATURE OF THE ARTICLE IS THE QUOTATIONS ATTRIBUTED TO LORD MACLEHOSE (WHOM ROSS MUNRO INTERVIEWED). WE HAVE DRAW THE CONTENTS OF THE ARTICLE TO THE ATTENTION OF LORD MACLEHOSE, WHO HAS COMMENTED THAT THE ARTICLE IS 'MADDINGLY AND PERSISTENTLY PERVERSE IN THE DEDUCTIONS DRAWN AND IN THE TWISTING OF THINGS SAID TO HIM. NEEDLESS TO SAY HE GOT NONE OF HIS THESIS FROM ME, BUT I AM SURPRISED THAT HE DID NOT HINT AT ANY WHEN HE SAW ME.
LORD MACLEHOSE ADDS THAT IF WE THINK A DETAILED COMMENTARY FOR THE RECORD, OR ANY OTHER REACTION TO THE ARTICLE, WOULD SERVE ANY USEFUL PURPOSE, WE SHOULD LET HIM KNOW.
4.
5. WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR YOUR OWN COMMENTS, AND THOSE OF TONY GALSWORTHY, ON THE ARTICLE AND FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF THE LOCAL REACTION (IF ANY) TO ITS ALLEGATIONS. SUBJECT TO YOUR VIEWS, WE ARE INCLINED TO THINK THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE A DETAILED COMMENTARY FOR THE RECORD FROM LORD MACLEHOSE. ALTHOUGH THIS IS ALL WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE, IT IS JUST THE SORT OF ISSUE THAT MIGHT COME UP AGAIN AT SOME POINT BETWEEN NOW AND 1997.
HURD
YYYY
1
PAGE
CONFIDENTIAL
Fax to let
сва
Bu I week.
PM 28/1
J
Bou 4/2.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.