TNAG-2908-FCO40-4182-Detention-of-Hong-Kong-residents-in-China-1993 — Page 21

Mir blood now,

Thanks.

imply required pl.

Mr. Man's

CONFIDENTIAL

See 'Xid I hath spoken will Misa Brooks was confions that we

CONFIDENTIAL

FM PEKING

have no formal Locus in this matter and that in

care the Chinese are not bound to give

any TO TELELETTER FCO any information

TELELETTER (NFR)

aus

they

are not a to the International Covenant on

OF 160754Z JULY 93 and political rights. We therefore have

FROM N J COX

TELELETTER

по

grounds

on which to demand any information from them.

FOLLOWING FOR J MORRIS ESQ, HKD

COPIED TO:

Bo

065645

MDTTAN 6885

avii

party Metodnow,

Has Miss Brooks

exprimed an opinion

& Woodrow

19/7.

Jigl

J ASHTON ESQ, DPA, HONG KONG

yet

?

Miss Bliss

HONG KONG RESIDENT DETAINED IN CHINA: CHONG KWEE SUNG

1. I NOTE FROM THE POST-SCRIPT TO JOHN ASHTON'S FAXED LETTER TO JONATHAN MARSHALL OF EARLIER TODAY ABOUT ECVIIS THAT HONG KONG DO NOT AGREE THAT WE HAVE NO FORMAL LOCUS TO RAISE SUCH CASES WITH THE CHINESE. I DO NOT QUITE UNDERSTAND HOW THEY CAN COME TO THIS CONCLUSION. MY UNDERSTANDING (WHICH HONG KONG COULD OF COURSE CHECK QUICKLY WITH DAVID EDWARDS) IS THAT, EXCEPT TO A CERTAIN EXTENT UNDER THE DEVELOPING INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING HUMAN RIGHTS, THE REPRESENTATIVES OF ONE SOVEREIGN STATE HAVE NO LOCUS OR RIGHT IN INTERNATIONAL LAW TO RAISE WITH ANOTHER SOVEREIGN STATE CONSULAR-TYPE CASES CONCERNING NATIONALS OF THAT OTHER STATE, WHETHER OR NOT THOSE NATIONALS HAVE BEEN RESIDENT IN THE TERRITORY OF THE FIRST STATE. IN ANY CASE THE CHINESE DO NOT RECOGNISE BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY OVER HONG KONG.

2. OUR PRACTICE OF INFORMAL

THOUGH SERIOUS AND ENERGETIC

REPRESENTATIONS IS A DIFFERENT MATTER. I BELIEVE THAT SUCH REPRESENTATIONS HAVE SOMETIMES HELPED THOSE CONCERNED, THOUGH SO FAR THEY HAVE NOT HELPED CHONG KWEE SUNG. THE QUESTION WE POSED WAS WHETHER THERE IS A RISK THAT THE CHINESE REACTION TO MINISTERIAL-LEVEL REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THIS DISGRACEFUL (AND THUS TO CHINESE DIPLOMATS AND MINISTERS FACE-LOSING) CASE COULD BE TO BRING DOWN THE SHUTTERS, DISMISSING OUR APPROACH AS INTERFERENCE IN THEIR INTERNAL AFFAIRS. ONCE SUCH A PRECEDENT WAS SET, CHINESE OFFICIALS WOULD PROBABLY FEEL OBLIGED TO REJECT ANY FUTURE REPRESENTATIONS WE MADE ABOUT OTHER CASES.

3. IT IS FOR HONG KONG AND YOU TO JUDGE WHETHER YOU ACCEPT OUR

Could you ADVICE THAT THERE IS SUCH A RISK AND, IF SO, TO JUDGE WHETHER IT IS Jabuk. WORTH RUNNING.

was

X

BUT IT MIGHT BE USEFUL TO KNOW WHETHER MINISTERS HAVE PREVIOUSLY RAISED SUCH CASES WITH THE CHINESE EMBASSY, AND IF SO WHEN WAS THE LAST OCCASION AND WHAT WAS THE RESPONSE.

1

PAGE CONFIDENTIAL

HKD 0267,

26 JU! 1993