TNAG-2698-FCO40-3904-Diplomatic-representation-of-Hong-Kong-overseas-1993 — Page 42

1.status15

|HKA 406/1

CONFIDENTIAL

RECEIVED IN REGISTFY

1 - JAN 1993

DESK OFFICER

INDEX

8 January 1993

REGISTRY

PA

4chon Take

Mr JF Yaxley CBE JP

Commissioner

141

fi

Miss Bouch

114 pa

Will

Hong Kong Government Office

6 Grafton Street

London W1X 3LB

Dear John,

川

川

Foreign & Commonwealth

Office

File

(3

London SWIA 2AH

Telephone: 071-270 2647

STATUS OF HONG KONG GOVERNMENT OFFICE POST 1997

HKA 40€/2 (1992) (33) Thank you for your letter of 5 October in which you invited my views on your preliminary thoughts on the status of the Hong Kong Government office post-1997. I am sorry it has taken some time to reply but, as you will appreciate, I have had to consult colleagues on the options identified.

The three options in the paper are all technically feasible. Option I would not require any action on HMG's part, and your office would continue as at present but without enjoying certain privileges. In the case of Option II, HMG would need to know the full functions of the HKETO before confirming that it would be acceptable as a section of the Chinese Embassy and that its staff could be received as Embassy staff. Option III would require an Act of Parliament to grant special status to the HKETO.

It is, of course, for Hong Kong to decide which option is politically the most desirable. It seems to us that the key points to consider are:

- What relationship the Office will want with the Chinese Embassy after 1997. Presumably they will want maximum autonomy and minimum scope for direction or interference from Peking.

What the functions of the Office will be. The key here is access to government departments on the economic and trade issues where Hong Kong will have autonomy.

In my view, Option II would have very significant disadvantages. To have the HKETO as part of the Chinese Embassy after 1997 would run counter to the current policy of separating Hong Kong ETOS from Embassies and would run counter to the autonomy provisions set out in the JD and in Article 156 of the Basic Law. Apart from that, there is also the consideration that the scope of operation of the ETO could be

CONFIDENTIAL