TNAG-2714-FCO40-3920-House-of-Commons-Select-Committee-on-Foreign-Affairs-enquiry-1993 — Page 71

CODE 18-77

RESTRICTED

HAB. 011/8

EGISTRY

Dr Bristow-Smith

RECT

23

1993

REGISTRY Action Taken

Reference

Ба

(45)

.....

Missy same mett

FAC: QUESTIONS

1.

When I bumped into Dr Ferdinand at lunch today, he gave some indication of questions which he thought might interest the FAC:

2.

www.

human rights, Tibet etc

should the development of bilateral links only be done on a governmental basis or should there be more people-to-people input? If the latter, did we have/are we producing enough people with knowledge of China and Chinese? Did even the FCO have enough Chinese speakers? And what of Cantones speakers?

- should there be a discussion forum like China like the 2000 Group with Japan?

-

- are there areas where we could be developing a non-confrontational dialogue with China? eg environment? Or even aid to the LDCs?

- as the Chinese economy develops, how are we going to integrate into world economic groupings? Not just GATT, but also the G7?

- given that China is not like other countries, (eg it is hard to negotiate with the Chinese outside China), how far do we have to adapt to Chinese characteristics, or should we be trying to "socialise" China to international patterns of behaviour? [I am not sure I fully understood this!]

- how is China going to develop, both politically and economically, over the next 5 years or so?

standard questions on Taiwan: could we be doing more? Did France and the Netherlands really suffer over their arms sales, or did they not find ways round Chinese displeasure?

- what is the position on GATT? Shopuld Taiwan be made to wait for China?

The only question he offered on Hong Kong was the obvious one: had HMG been too soft on China before Patten?

Graham By

GH Fry

Far Eastern Department

WH 243

270-2951

6 July 1993

се

ce Mr Hum

Nur Ricketts, HKD

1

1

RESTRICTED