TNAG-2608-FCO40-3799-International-support-from-the-USA-regarding-the-future-of-H-1992 — Page 29

RESTRICTED

132771

MDHC 34471

THAT MAKING A PUBLIC ISSUE OF THE BILL COULD WELL BE COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE IN THE MFN CONTEXT.

4. AS FOR THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT REPORT, SIR JOHN COLES SAID THAT LORD CAITHNESS HAD ALREADY EXPLAINED TO THE AMBASSADOR THAT THIS WAS A PRIVATE MOTION PUT FORWARD BY A LABOUR MEP. IT DID NOT REFLECT EITHER BRITISH OR COMMUNITY POLICY. IT WAS UNLIKELY TO LEAD TO ANY ACTION, AND IF PASSED, MEMBER GOVERNMENTS DID NOT NEED TO EXPRESS ANY VIEW. IT WAS NATURAL THAT THOSE WITH A STAKE IN HONG KONG SHOULD TAKE AN INTEREST IN IT. OUR ADVICE WAS THAT CHINA SHOULD NOT TAKE THE MATTER TOO SERIOUSLY.

5.

IN RESPONSE, AMBASSADOR MA SAID THAT CHINA'S MFN STATUS AND THE MCCONNELL BILL SHOULD NOT BE LINKED TOGETHER. THE JOINT DECLARATION (JD) CONCERNED ONLY THE UK AND CHINA. THE BILL WAS AN ATTEMPT TO INTRODUCE SUPERVISION OF THE JD. AFTER 1997 HONG KONG WOULD BE AN INTERNAL MATTER FOR CHINA. CHINA HAD NOT MADE A PUBLIC ISSUE OF THE MATTER. BUT THEY HAD MADE PRIVATE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE AMERICANS ABOUT IT.

6. SIR JOHN COLES REPLIED THAT WE WERE NOT MAKING CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE MCCONNELL BILL AND CHINA'S MFN STATUS. BUT ANY PUBLIC REACTION TO THE BILL COULD HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON CONGRESSMEN, WHO WOULD ALSO BE VOTING ON MFN. WE ALSO AGREED THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JD WAS A MATTER FOR THE BRITISH AND THE CHINESE GOVERNMENTS. WE SHOULD WAIT AND SEE IF THE FINAL TEXT OF THE MCCONNELL BILL CONTAINED ANY REFERENCE TO A SUPERVISION REQUIREMENT.

7. AMBASSADOR MA ASKED WHETHER WE WOULD GIVE A FORMAL REPLY TO THE CHINESE DEMARCHE. SIR JOHN COLES REPLIED THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO STUDY IT. HOWEVER WE HAD ALREADY GIVEN THE CHINESE A FULL EXPLANATION OF OUR POSITION. THE AMBASSADOR REITERATED THAT HE HOPED WE WOULD DO SOMETHING WITH THE US.

8. COMMENT. THE ATMOSPHERE WAS FRIENDLY. BUT MA PRESSED SEVERAL TIMES FOR US TO TAKE SOME ACTION WITH THE US OVER THE MCCONNELL BILL. LIKE YOU, WE WOULD PREFER TO REST ON THE COMMENTS WE HAVE ALREADY MADE AND NOT/NOT TO GIVE A FORMAL RESPONSE TO THE CHINESE DEMARCHE. THERE IS NO PROSPECT OF OUR REACHING A COMMON VIEW WITH THEM ON THIS ISSUE.

HURD

YYYY