TNAG-2871-FCO40-4125-Hong-Kong-immigration-policy-and-statistics-1993 — Page 8

CONFIDENTIAL

66

000634 MDLIAN 8125

CONFIDENTIAL

FM HONG KONG

TO ROUTINE FCO

TELNO 1917

OF 231046Z DECEMBER 93

AND TO PRIORITY PEKING

MY TELNO 1713: ONE-WAY PERMITS

1 OP COPY Q DIST?

pa 3411!

RECEDED IN DEGISTRY

13 JAN 1994

SUMMARY

DESK CEPICEN INDEX

REGISTRY

PA

Action Take

WE HAVE NOW CONCLUDED NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CHINESE. A RECORD OF AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED WHICH MEETS MOST OF OUR CONCERN'S WE ARE LEFT WITH THE QUESTION OF HOW TO PRESENT THIS TO THE PUBLIC.

DETAIL

2.

ON 4 NOVEMBER, THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF EXIT-ENTRY ADMINISTRATION OF THE CHINESE MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SECURITY HANDED A PROPOSED DRAFT RECORD OF AGREEMENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION. ON 12 NOVEMBER, THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION HANDED OUR AMENDED VERSION OF THE RECORD OF AGREEMENT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF EXIT-ENTRY ADMINISTRATION (WHO WAS VISITING THE IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME). ON 17 NOVEMBER, THE CHINESE SIDE REVERTED WITH A SLIGHTLY AMENDED VERSION OF OUR COUNTER- PROPOSED DRAFT. OUR PROPOSED VERSION AND THE CHINESE FINAL VERSION FOLLOW BY FAX (TO HKD, FCO AND PEKING).

3. THE MAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OUR PROPOSED VERSION AND THE FINAL VERSION ARE

(A) THE REFERENCE TO THE UNDERSTANDING REACHED WITH THE

CHINESE SIDE IN 1982 WAS DELETED BY THE CHINESE SIDE. THIS WAS EXPECTED. WE HAD HOPED THAT THEY WOULD ACCEPT AT LEAST SOME REFERENCE TO THE 1982 UNDERSTANDING, BECAUSE WE HAVE ALWAYS PUT WEIGHT ON IT PUBLICLY. BUT WE KNEW THAT THE CHINESE DID NOT WANT TO ACCEPT THAT THIS CONSTITUTED AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE, OVER THE YEARS, COOPERATED WITH US IN PRACTICE, AS THOUGH THERE WAS SUCH AN UNDERSTANDING;

(B) WE HAD TRIED TO INCLUDE, AFTER THE COMMITMENT TO

CONSULTATION ON QUOTA CHANGES, A SENTENCE TO THE EFFECT

1

PAGE CONFIDENTIAL