CONFIDENTIAL
10.
In the view of the Ministry of Defence, the
attitude of the Hong Kong Government is illogical,
since there was no material difference between
"Highland Bonnet" and "Spring Clean".
Since
that Government agreed to meet the cost of the
latter, then in the view of the Ministry there is
no reason why it should not likewise meet the
costs of the former operation. It app ars to the
Ministry of Defence that the Hong Kong Government
is basing its case simply on the fact that it was
not consulted before the works required for
"Highland Bonnet" were put in hand.
11.
The Hong Kong Government's case is as follows:-
(1) The border positions occupied by the
Army under "Highland Bonnet" were old
military positions which had originally
been prepared by the Army several years
earlier to meet external armed
aggression: they had been sited as a
military commitment long before the
nature of the 1967 disturbances became
apparent. Such works had previously
always been a charge to Her Majesty's
they had been refurbished
(2)
Government:
in 1967 by the military authorities on
their own initiative and without
reference to the Hong Kong Government
which sees no reason why it should meet
the costs involved.
The experience of 1967 made it clear
that there was a more permanent need
6.
CONFIDENTIAL
/for
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
Page 45Page 46
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN