SECRET
4.
No provision for the costs of a Hunter unit have been included in the statement pending the outcome of the correspondence which rests with your letter to Carter of 15th September (TSX 1/57). But if the alternative of visits by RAF aircraft on training detachments is accepted as a solution to the problem of providing fighter cover for Hong Kong, then provision for the capital and recurrent costs of such visits will need to be included in the statement. We shall be writing to you separately on this point.
5. Coming now to the question of the future defence contribution, you explained to the Defence Secretary the considerable difficulty you had been faced with in 1966 because of the notional division of the
garrison between internal security forces and external defence forces.
We can see your point and we share your wish that the form of negotiations should be designed to give you the greatest possible assistance in presenting the case to unofficial opinion in the Colony. But while we are receptive to ideas about a new approach to this problem it is still necessary for us at this end to keep at the back of our minds the proposition that the cost of internal security is a Colonial
responsibility. Difficult though we know it is to measure the forces and costs involved, this is bound to be one consideration against which any proposals which you may make would be considered. But clearly a concept of the problem which does not distinguish between internal security and other forces leads to the conclusion that it is the costs of the whole garrison to which the Colony's contribution should be
related.
6.
Again, we are bound to take into account the doctrine that has been applied since the last century that a Colony' contributes to its own defence according to its capacity to pay. I think that you yourself appreciate the force of this argument although we realise that it is not one which would command much sympathy from your unofficial advisers. However, having regard to Hong Kong's buoyant economic position and to the considerable benefit to the local economy generated by the local expenditure of the Service departments, of their uniformed and civilian personnel and dependants, it is an argument which cannot be ignored.
While the main question on which you will now be taking a preliminary view is of course the level of the cash contribution, there are important subsidiary questions on which it would be useful to have your opinion at the same time. We should be interested to have your
7.
views
SECRET