CONFIDENTIAL
wrong to imply that HMG or the Governor had abdicated their responsibilities.
Sir P Cradock: Noted.
"They were shown the text". Factually incorrect. They were informed of the substance.
Sir P Cradock: Accepted the correction.
- "Their request for consultation before it was delivered was rejected". Oversimplified. The Chinese asked that we not announce the proposals on 7 October, pending consultation; said the speech had to go ahead but that we hoped consultation could take place subsequently, and lead to agreement.
Sir P Cradock:
we
Proposed "that they should be consulted (which in their eyes probably meant a full process of negotiations leading to agreement)..."
- "This was contrary to previous practice". The Governor explained at some length why it was no longer possible in Oct 1992 to negotiate behind Hong Kong's back. Furthermore Sir P Cradock implies here that consultation across the board was "previous practice" (having taken pains in Chapter 23 to explain that the airport MOU did not concede the principal of consultation in any other areas).
Sir P Cradock: Rejected this amendment.
- P8/9: Description of Chinese analysis of the Governor's proposals is neutral to the point of implying that the analysis is reasonable (rather than unsupported by the facts).
P9
-
"LegCo, to them a purely advisory body". The Chinese view is constitutionally incorrect. The passage should not imply that it
is reasonable.
"Detected a conspiracy". Implies there was a conspiracy to detect. Better "alleged a conspiracy".
Sir P Cradock: Proposed that he indicate that HMG took a different view.
- The Governor visited Canada, but did not visit the United States in this time frame (not until May 1993) and has never yet visited Australia.
Sir P Cradock:
Accepted this amendment.
- "Confirmed Peking in the instinctive suspicion". Again implies China's unreasonable views were justified.
jm.lett.JM
SLM
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.