CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
FM HONG KONG
TO PRIORITY FCO
TELNO 662
OF 271015Z FEBRUARY 89
AND TO PRIORITY PEKING, HOLY SEE
156672
MDLIAN 0468
the A-lil.
HOLY SEE TELNOS 11 AND 13 TO FCO: VATICAN OFFICE IN HONG KONG
•
-
1 THIS QUESTION WAS RE-REEXAMINED IN 1985 AFTER THE ORIGINAL REJECTION IN 1984 IT WAS DECIDED NOT TO TAKE THE INITIATIVE IN RAISING THE MATTER WITH THE VATICAN AS THE POLITICAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST STILL OUTWEIGHED THOSE FOR.
2. OUR INITIAL VIEW IS THAT THEY PROBABLY STILL DO. HOWEVER WE NEED TO CLARIFY ONE OR TWO POINTS, WHICH WERE LEFT ASIDE IN 1985, NOW THAT THE VATICAN HAVE RETURNED TO THE CHARGE.
3. THE FIRST QUESTION RELATES TO THE STATUS ANY REPRESENTATIVE. FIRST
DELEGATE. IF SO WOULD TUR SUGGESTS THEY HAVE IN MIND AN APOSTOLIC HE NOT BE ACCREDITED TO THE LOCAL HIERARCHY, NOT THE GOVERNMENT ? ''STRICTLY ECCLESIASTICAL THERE IF HE WERE, AS MONS CELLI SAID WOULD BE NO LEGAL BASIS FOR GRANTING ANY PRIVILEGES, EG A DIPLOMATIC POUCH SERVICE. THESE ARE NOT MERELY ''TECHNICAL MAATERS BUT QUESTIONS OF STATUS GOVERNED BY LAW.
4. ON THE OTHER HAND WE ARE NOT SURE THAT AN APOSTOLIC DELEGATE IS PURELY ECCLESIASTICAL. THE HOLY SEE IS A SIGNATORY TO THE CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS. IS A DELEGATE A PAPAL EQUIVALENT OF A CONSUL OR CONSUL-GENERAL ? IF SO WE WOULD BE OBLIGED TO GRANT THE APPROPRIATE CONSULAR PRIVILEGES.
THE VATICAN AND
'OFFICE OF THE VATICAN'' 5. WITH OR WITHOUT PRIVILEGES, OUR WOULD INEVITABLY ATTRACT ATTENTION. RELATIONS BETWEEN PEKING DO NOT SEEM TO HAVE PROGRESSED SUFFICIENTLY FAR TO INVALIDATE OUR EARLIER CONCERNS. PEKING MAY HAVE VIEWS ON THIS. AS FAR AS WE CAN SEE THE PROPOSED MOVE DOES NOT IMPLY VATICAN ''DE-RECOGNITION'' OF TAIWAN.
6. THAT SAID, WE PRESUME A MAJOR REASON FOR THE TIMING OF THE
POPE TO VATICAN'S PRESENT APPROACH IS THE POSSIBLE VISIT OF THE HONG KONG LATER THIS YEAR. THEY MAY FEEL THEY NEED MORE GROUND WHICH IS QUITE REASONABLE. WE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE
1
PAGE CONFIDENTIAL
MEN ON THE
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.