CONFIDENTIAL
15
22
8
MDHIAN
GUANGDONG HAD COME UP WITH A FORMULA, WHICH DID NOT OPENLY USE THE WORD 'CONFIDENTIALITY' BUT SIMPLY REFERRED TO THE IAEA CONVENTION. THEY HAD ALSO SAID THAT, IF WE PREFERRED, WE COULD OMIT THIS QUESTION FROM THE PUBLIC AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES AND PUT IT IN A SEPARATE PRIVATE AGREEMENT. ANOTHER POSSIBILITY WOULD BE TO USE THE WORDING WHICH THE HONG KONG REPRESENTATIVE HAD ACCEPTED AT THE FIFTH ROUND OF TALKS AND SAY THAT NEITHER SIDE WOULD PUBLISH INFORMATION AHEAD OF THE SIDE WHICH HAD PROVIDED THAT INFORMATION.
IN OUR
5. WE EMPHASISED THE SENSITIVITY OF HONG KONG PUBLIC OPINION ON THIS SUBJECT AND REMINDED CHEN OF HONG KONG'S SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IT AND THE MAINLAND. WE URGED THE CHINESE TO SHOW MORE FLEXIBILITY. WE SAID THAT PART OF THE PROBLEM SEEMED TO BE THE DEFINITION OF CONFIDENTIALITY. VIEW ARTICLE 5 (3) OF THE IAEA CONVENTION AND ANY SIMILAR PROVISIONS IN OTHER AGREEMENTS SHOULD APPLY ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL
OTHER SENSITIVE CASES OF COMMERCIALLY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. INFORMATION SHOULD NOT NEED THIS KIND OF FORMAL PROTECTION: HONG KONG WAS KEEN TO CO-ORDINATE INFORMATION RELEASE CLOSELY WITH THE GUANGDONG SIDE. HKG HAD NO INTEREST IN CAUSING PUBLIC ALARM IN HONG KONG OR IN GUANGDONG. IT WOULD ACT RESPONSIBLY AND PRUDENTLY. SO IN PRACTICE IT SEEMED UNLIKELY THAT THERE WOULD BE A PROBLEM, BUT WE HAD TO SETTLE THE SPECIFIC PROBLEM OF WHAT WAS SAID IN THE HONG KONG / GUANGDONG AGREEMENT. WHY MUST THERE BE ANYTHING ON THIS POINT ? WAS IT REALLY NECESSARY FOR GUANGDONG TO HAVE A VETO OVER HONG KONG'S INFORMATION RELEASE ? WE URGED THE CHINESE SIDE TO PUT THEIR CONFIDENCE IN THE HONG KONG AUTHORITIES AND TO THINK AGAIN ABOUT DEMANDING GUARANTEES OF THE KIND PROPOSED.
-
6.
CHEN REPEATED AT LENGTH MANY OF HIS PREVIOUS POINTS, STRESSING THAT THE CHINESE SIDE WERE SHOWING THEIR TRUST IN HKG BY AGREEING TO PROVIDE ALL THE INFORMATION REQUESTED, INCLUDING ABOUT ON-SITE HE SAID ISSUES ALTHOUGH THESE WERE HARDLY RELEVANT TO HONG KONG. THAT IT WOULD BE EASY TO EXPLAIN TO THE PUBLIC WHY CERTAIN INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE AUTOMATICALLY OR IMMEDIATELY PUBLISHED. INITIAL ESTIMATES WERE OFTEN INEXACT. WANG MENTIONED TEN MILE ISLAND AND GAVE AS AN EXAMPLE OF INFORMATION WHICH SHOULD BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL THERE WAS AGREEMENT TO RELEASE IT - THE POSSIBILITY OF A TINY INCREASE IN THE LEVEL OF WATER CONTAMINATION, WHICH WOULD POSE NO DANGER TO HEALTH BUT WOULD CAUSE PUBLIC PANIC IF DISCLOSED. CHEN SAID THAT THE HONG KONG SIDE WERE WRONG TO SUGGEST (APPARENTLY AT THE 18-21 MAY TALKS) THAT APART FROM MILITARY SECRETS AND COMMERCIAL CONFIDENCES NO INFORMATION NEEDED TO BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. HE AND WANG INSISTED THAT THERE WAS NO
2
PAGE CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.