Reference..
HKK 10/9
(44) on
10/16
HWB 10/16
Copy at (15
77) on 58. 5/5/8.
Mr. Carter, Hong Kong Department.
A reply is required to Mr. Haddon-Cave's letter at 14 What he says represents a considerable depart- ure from what Sir John Cowperthwaite told you last September; it seems, as you suggest, that the latter has had second thoughts on the subject.
2.
Mr. Cass' letter of 6 October, 1967, to which Mr. Haddon-Cave refers is at 2) on HWB 10/16 attached. I asked Defence Policy Department whether the doctrine quoted in that letter had ever received general inter- Departmental agreement and they have referred us to the enclosure to (56) on DD 5/5/8 attached. That doctrine did, in fact, receive inter-Departmental agreement at the official level, and I doubt if that agreement has been affected by the further thoughts which the Treasury had in December 1967 as a result of devaluation. I am not sure to what
are extent we at liberty to inform Hong Kong about this. It is in fact a matter which relates to inter- Departmental responsibilities in this country, although it naturally has an effect on Hong Kong's liability for the extra costs incurred by the Ministry of Defence as a result of the 1967 distur- bances in Hong Kong. I attach a draft letter to Mr. Haddon-Cave for consideration.
3. It appears from the Ministry of Defence letter at on this file that they, too, are not expecting any difficulty (apart from the cost of the frontier fence) and they will not be best pleased if Hong Kong are now intending to review their position in the matter. In any event, it looks as though we shall have to take up the matter of the frontier fence as a separate item, but I am doubtful whether there is much point in doing this until we know the complete extent to which Hong Kong is prepared to meet the bills raised by the military authorities.
心
(A. W. Gaminara)
21 April, 1969
have omilted the final
S
The final sentence.
под
You will be writing to nod.
2314