CONFIDENTIAL
FM HONG KONG
TO PRIORITY FCO
TELNO 1014
OF 090225Z APRIL 92
CONFIDENTIAL
HKC
175/1
ст
INFO ROUTINE PEKING, UKREP JLG HONG KONG
TOP COPY Q DIST?
18
066652 MDLIAN 7704
YOUR TELNO 514: MARITIME TERRORISM CONVENTION.
1.
PARA 1 OF TUR: WE ARE AWARE THAT THE TERM 'APPROPRIATE
AUTHORITY IS NOT THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONVENTION. WE HAD
響
ORIGINALLY PREFERRED 'COMPETENT AUTHORITY' BUT THIS WAS LATER
MODIFIED IN OUR COMPROMISE PROPOSAL OF 17.5.91 IN ORDER TO MEET CHINESE CONCERNS. YOU AGREED THAT THIS WAS REASONABLE AND ADVISED THAT WE SHOULD WAIT FOR A RESPONSE FROM THE CHINESE BEFORE APPROACHING THE IMO SECRETARIAT TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL (YOUR
TELNO 928 OF 3.5.91).
2.
YOU ARE NOW SUGGESTING TWO POSSIBLE OPTIONS TO REPLACE OUR COMPROMISE PROPOSAL AND WE WONDER IF YOU HAVE HEARD FROM IMO THAT
THE COMPROMISE PROPOSAL WOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE. GRATEFUL FOR
CLARIFICATION.
3. WE CAN SUBSTITUTE YOUR SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE FROM OF WORDS
'THE UNITED KINGDOM DECLARES THAT THE AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 10 IN RESPECT OF HONG KONG IS THE GOVERNOR' FOR THAT
IN PARA 7 OF OUR DRAFT SPEAKING NOTE IF YOU ADVICE IS THAT TO DO SO WOULD BE PREFERABLE. HOWEVER, WE ARE UNCERTAIN HOW THIS WILL BE RECEIVED BY THE CHINESE AS THEY HAVE ALREADY CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTED 'APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY'. WE COULD PERHAPS PRESENT THE DROPPING OF 'APPROPRIATE' AS A FURTHER CONCESSION ON OUR PART, MADE NECESSARY BY OUR UNWILLINGNESS TO AGREE THAT OUR REQUESTS BE MADE THROUGH DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS (SEE UKREP TELNO 190 OF 12.6.91)?. GRATEFUL FOR YOUR VIEWS.
4
YOUR SECOND PROPOSED SOLUTION WOULD DEFEAT OUR EARLIER ARGUMENT USED WITH THE CHINESE SIDE THAT, FOR THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION, THE HKG SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED IN A COVERING DESPATCH TO THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE IMO AS ONE OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES OF THE UK TO MAKE AND RECEIVE REQUESTS DIRECTLY.
5.
GRATEFUL FOR EARLY VIEWS.
PAGE 1 CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.