SECRET
3.
SECRETARY
OF STATE
which Britain should be prepared to pay for her continued sovereignty over the Colony. Some members of the Committee would be prepared to accept that Hong Kong had a duty to help pay for her own defence; but none of them would accept that she had any obligation to do so. The fact that Hong Kong wanted dependence to continue made no difference to their view. Certainly, there could be no question of Hong Kong making any capital payment for the Hunters; if this were pressed, he would have to drop the whole idea of the aircraft. Any attempt now to secure a higher defence contribution from Hong Kong would also, in his view, make the renegotiation of the present agreement in 1971 very much more difficult and lessen the chances of a favourable settlement for HMG. Mr. Healey said that in this case it would 'seem to be better for both sides to let the question of additional forces drop for the present. Mr. Cooper explained that the question of the Hunters could not be left until 1971, because the squadron would be disbanded in 1970, and the demand for the aircraft from other customers who would be prepared to pay hard cash for them would be very great. Mr. Healey said, however, that it seemed clear that unless the capital cost of the aircraft could be found from a source other than the Hong Kong Government or the Ministry of Defence which he believed was improbable - the idea would have to be dropped altogether and reliance placed on occasional visits of RAF aircraft: this at any rate' would simplify the negotiations. On the helicopters, for which he was not entirely convinced that there was a military need, he suggested that the Hong Kong Government ought to find some way of purchasing them for the police, as a means of overcoming what appeared to be a political, rather than a purely financial difficulty.
Approach to 1971 negotiations
5.
The Covernor said that he thought that the first step in preparing for the negotiation of the new financial agreement, which should be taken quite soon, might be for officials of the Hong Kong Government to work out a figure for the defence contribution, both in relation to the size of the garrison and to what would be politically acceptable in Hong Kong. This could then be tried on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and, if it seemed to be about right, it could then be put to the Executive Committee at the appropriate time. He hoped that the Committee might be able to accept it as a figure, and without a philosophical discussion of the nature and purpose of the garrison. There were arguments for an increased contribution which might sway the Committee: for example, the growth in the GNP of the Colony and the greater value of the garrison, demonstrated during the 1967 disturbances. If the Executive
/Committee
SECRET