RESTRICTED
in its title) that we had abandoned a policy of cooperation with China. That was clearly not true. Since April we had had 17 rounds of talks to try to reach an agreement in the course of which it was the British side who had made significant concessions. His continued assertion to the contrary was unhelpful.
4. Sir P Cradock undertook to reflect on these points and respond within 24-hours. But his immediate reaction was that the gap would not be easy to bridge. He maintained that we were in effect trying to expunge all criticism of government policy by the way in which we applied our criteria. He repeated at length his view that the Government's policy towards Hong Kong had changed. He acknowledged that we still sought cooperation with China but considered that our actions had made this an unrealistic expectation. Hic strong view was that the Government had made a major blunder. He could not disguise this view in his book. He did not accept that his views could be taken by the Chinese authorities and others as reflecting views current in British official circles. His response to the specific requests for changes suggested that he would accept minor corrections of fact but would resist those which implied any softening of his judgement on the consequences of the Government's policy.
5. Sir J Coles said that if Sir P Cradock was saying that he would not make any change in response to the serious points of concern he had raised, there would be a strongly negative reaction above his level. He urged Sir P Cradock to focus on the specific passages to which he had drawn attention. It should not, in our view, be at all difficult for him to meet us on these points. Sir John Coles then highlighted in particular the passage on page 16 of the revised Chapter (tnat British domestic and prestige considerations had counted more than the
RESTRICTED
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.