SECRET
3
Mr Youde
хочдо
RECEIVED IN
REGISTRY No. 51
26 MAR 1974
H.KK 10/
FAR EAST DEFENCE COMMITMENTS
1.
%
in Croposon 6 see they As
22/3
Է
F/A
I have no comments on Mr Hickman's draft submission attached
to his minute of 19 March. But we are in rather an odd position about the Hong Kong garrison.
2.
There was no suggestion either in the Chancellor's minute to the Defence Secretary or in Mr Mason's reply, of any intention to review the need for and size of the Hong Kong garrison. Presumably this was because the Chancellor was pinning his request for an immediate decision on Five Power to the 1968 policy, which specifically excluded cuts in Hong Kong. It may be that the Defence Review, to which Mr Mason refers, will repair this omission.
3.
But I
We have agreed that we should not feed in, as an FCO thought the possibility that Hong Kong could do with a smaller garrison. still believe it to be the case, and given the cost of the Hong Kong garrison, it makes somewhat absurd our search for candle-end savings on foreign expenditure. I realise that the Hong Kong garrison is not paid for out of FCO votes; but, from the point of view of HMG as a whole, there should at some point be a link between the consideration of separate departmental priorities. I have discussed the question of possible cuts in strict confidence with Mr Stratton, recently Political Adviser Hong Kong. He expressed concern about any general policy of withdrawal and about the dangers of affecting confidence in Hong Kong. However he thought it not impossible that a battalion, or even two, might be slipped out of Hong Kong without too much notice being taken, provided that the headquarters structure of CBF stayed the same and that a Lieutenant General remained in command. He thought that a four battalion force might be needed to contain civil disturbances in Hong Kong, but conceded that this might be an exaggeration.
4.
I have no recommendation to make. But we should perhaps consider at some stage, whether there is anything we should do to point up the unreality of looking for small savings which could cause trouble (which might presumably even include Five Power), when the possibility of more substantial savings lies to hand. Even the welfare argument for staying in Hong Kong that it is needed to give the Army some overseas experience - falls away if we can grasp the nettle of abolishing the Gurkhas, since the British contingent in Hong Kong would presumably remain the same size even if the garrison was reduced to a force sufficient to meet a purely internal threat.
20 March 1974
CC
Mr Wilford
Mr Hickman
Mr Squire Mr Evans
LAST PAPER
ACSL..
A C Stuart
Hong Kong & Indian Ocean Dept.
is
ofperent that
SECRET