TNAG-2808-FCO40-4053-Future-of-Hong-Kong-International-Rights-and-Obligations-(IR-1994 — Page 36

RESTRICTED

147053

MDHIANA

B

NON-ACCEPTANCE OF THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL PETITION TO THE

COMMITTEE.

3.

ALSO CRITICISED WERE THE FORMAT OF THE REPORT (NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH GUIDELINES), FAILURE TO REPORT UNDER ARTICLES 3 (APARTHEID) AND 4 CRACIAL PROPAGANDA) AND LACK OF LEGISLATION ON RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN SOME OF THE DEPENDENT TERRITORIES (THE REPORT HAD SAID THERE WAS NO PROBLEM OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THESE TERRITORIES). THE EGYPTIAN AND THE NIGERIAN CRITICISED THE FAILURE OF HMG TO BAN THE SATANIC VERSES, WITH THE EGYPTIAN MAKING NO CRITICISM OF THE FATWAH. THE NIGERIAN AND GHANAIAN REFERRED TO THE JOY GARDNER CASE. SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WERE PRETTY INCOHERENT.

4.

•

HEAD (HOME OFFICE) AND STEEL (FCO CONSULTANT ON DEPENDENT TERRITORIES/HUMAN RIGHTS) IN RESPONSE, EXPLAINED THE MAIN LINES OF BRITISH POLICY STRESSED THE PROGRESS MADE IN FIGHTING RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, DID NOT DENY THAT SOME PROBLEMS REMAINED, AND PROMISED FOLLOW-UP ANSWERS IN WRITING ON THE MORE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. BUT AT THE END COMMITTEE MEMBERS DECLARED THEMSELVES DISAPPOINTED. THE EGYPTIAN CLAIMED (INCORRECTLY) THAT NO ATTEMPT HAD BEEN MADE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ON ARTICLES 3 AND 4. THE GERMAN AND DUTCH MEMBERS HAD ANOTHER GO AT OUR FAILURE TO ACCEPT THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL PETITION (WHICH ONLY 18 STATES PARTIES, NOT INCLUDING GERMANY, HAVE ACCEPTED).

COMMENT

5. IN 1991 WE GOT OFF BETTER THAN EXPECTED ON THE 10TH AND 11TH REPORTS. THIS TIME THE COMMITTEE SEEMED DETERMINED TO GIVE THE UK A HARD TIME, GIVING THE GOVERNMENT LITTLE CREDIT FOR THE RANGE OF EXISTING INITIATIVES TO TACKLE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. STRONG CRITICIMS SUBMITTED BY NGOS MAY BE

WHY.

6.

WE SHALL NEED TO PREPARE OUR 13TH REPORT (DUE IN 1994) CAREFULLY. IN THE CURRENT SESSION THE COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY GIVEN VARIOUS STATES A HARD TIME, INCLUDING IRAN (LITTLE CRITICISM OF THE FATWAH) AND KUWAIT, AND THE GERMANS ARE LIKELY TO GET HOT SOCKS.

MORLAND