846G.00/1–2948
The Ambassador in China (Stuart) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 11.]
Sir: As a possible interest to the Department I have the honor to quote below the text of a memorandum of conversation between the Minister-Counselor and Sir Ralph Stevenson, British Ambassador to China:
“Sir Ralph Stevenson called me aside yesterday (January 27, 1948) to discuss the Kowloon incident. He said that he had finally agreed that the Hong Kong authorities could proceed to the destruction of the huts at Kowloon after he had received assurances that such action was necessary in the interest of the health of the community; that there was no question of British jurisdiction; and that the matter would be handled with care. He confirmed the agreement between the Chinese and the Hong Kong authorities to ‘let sleeping dogs lie’ after the first incident, then took the ‘British’ position that this agreement had been first breached by the action of the Pao An Magistrate in demanding that the squatters re-build their huts if they wished to receive relief rice.
[Page 64]“He said that now he had reported to his Government that there seemed to be various courses of action open: The dispute could be settled by arbitration; it could be submitted to the International Court; the British could let the matter drop; or they could stand by their guns in respect of Kowloon.
“Sir Ralph felt that even if the dispute were submitted to arbitration or to the International Court, the Chinese would continue their anti-British propaganda and their agitation of the issue. He didn’t think the British should let the matter drop at this stage as the Chinese would immediately cry to the heavens that they had won a victory. Accordingly, he had recommended the last course and there is evidence in the papers this morning that the British Government has followed that advice and is standing firmly by its guns.
“In response to an inquiry from Sir Ralph, I said that to me personally, regardless of whether the British did, in fact, have jurisdiction over Kowloon, it seemed rather shortsighted of the Hong Kong authorities to force the issue with guns and tear gas. Any one with even slight experience in the Orient should have known that such action under the circumstances existing could only result in a flareup of anti-British sentiment and that in such instances in the past the British had wound up on the short end of things. I told him that I had gathered the impression in Hong Kong that the Kowloon issue was only one in a series of Chinese continuing efforts to embarrass the Hong Kong authorities. Knowing the Chinese as I did and their sentiments in respect of British occupation of Hong Kong, I said I thought he could be sure that the Chinese would never permit any opportunity to embarrass the British authorities in Hong Kong to pass without exploiting it to the fullest. He could expect, I said, that Hong Kong would remain a constant irritant in Anglo-Chinese relations so long as it remained in British hands and I thought the British Government would wish to take into consideration whether the best interests of Britain lay in continuing this irritant or in removing it at some appropriate time.
To all this latter, Sir Ralph agreed completely.”
Respectfully yours,
Minister-Counselor of Embassy