?
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
SECRET
004215
MDHIAN 0676
15.
THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION OF HOW WE SHOULD REPLY IF THE CHINESE TRIED TO SET NEW CONDITIONS. I SAID THAT IF THEY INSISTED THAT TALKS SHOULD TAKE PLACE ON THE BASIS OF THE JOINT DECLARATION, THE BASIC LAW AND THE 1990 EXCHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE, THAT GAVE ME NO PROBLEM. NOR WOULD I INSIST THAT MY PROPOSALS SHOULD BE THE SOLE/SOLE BASIS OF DISCUSSION. IF THE CHINESE ASKED US NOT TO GAZETTE WHILE THE TALKS LASTED, I WAS PREPARED TO ACCEPT THAT AS LONG AS WE WERE CLEAR THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO BREAK OFF TALKS IF THEY GOT NOWHERE. IF THEY TRIED TO INSIST THAT ALL OR SOME HONG KONG OFFICIALS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE DELEGATION, WE SHOULD HAVE TO REJECT THAT. IF THEY TRIED TO SECURE A COMMITMENT FROM US THAT LEGCO WOULD NOT AMEND WHATEVER WE AGREED, WE WOULD HAVE TO EXPLAIN THAT CONSTITUTIONALLY IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO GUARANTEE THIS, ALTHOUGH WE WOULD RECOMMEND ANY AGREEMENT TO LEGCO.
16. I SAID THAT I DID NOT WANT TO UNDERCUT WHAT LU PING APPEARED TO BE TRYING TO ACHIEVE. NOR DID THE CHINESE REACT WELL TO SHORT NOTICE OF DEADLINES. I SUGGESTED THAT THE AMBASSADOR MIGHT PRESS HARD TODAY FOR AN IMMEDIATE REPLY FROM LU PING, BUT THAT IF HE WAS NOT ABLE TO GIVE ONE, WE SHOULD MAKE CLEAR THAT OUR FINAL DEADLINE WAS 5 MARCH.
PAGE 3 SECRET
THIS IS A COPY THE ORIGINAL HAS BEEN CLOSED UNDER
FOI EXEMPTION NO. 27(1)
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.