SECRET
23
NO TOKEOn Sepurite menite
Mr Treason
DEFENCE REVIEW:
HONG KONG
Mails
20/€
1. I have seen a copy of Lord Rothschild's minute of 7 May to Sir John Hunt suggesting questions which should be examined by the Defence Studies Working Party. Lord Rothschild's third question suggests either that the Hong Kong Government should pay the full cost of the existing garrison, or that a reduced force should also be paid for by Hong Kong (with the implication that, in this case also, the contribution should be 100%).
2. Under the Defence Agreement with Hong Kong, which runs to 1976, Hong Kong pay about £8 million a year towards the cost of the garrison. The proportion of the total cost which this represents is open to dispute. Lord Rothschild's £42 million is presumably achieved by lumping a substantial proportion of the total costs of support facilities such as Masirah and Gan, and most of the cost of RAF support command, as well as the whole cost of the Gurkha Brigade, under the general heading of Hong Kong. This is questionable. Gurkhas are posted in Brunei and the UK as well as in Hong Kong. And for so long as the Gurkhas and Five Power arrangements continue, a large part of the support facilities for the Eastabout route must be related to commitments other than Hong Kong. A realistic allocation of present costs might show that Hong Kong are bearing more like a third than a fifth of the total cost of the garrison.
The
3. Be that as it may, I believe that, for the purposes of the Defence Review, the best way to tackle the problem is from the other end to that suggested by Lord Rothschild. We need first to decide what garrison is essential for the security of Hong Kong, and then to consider who will pay for it.
4.
Hitherto we have allowed the Ministry of Defence to maintain that all force options, including total withdrawal, must be kept open. I think we must make it clear that total withdrawal is not in fact an option. Hong Kong could not be governed without a garrison of any kind. Nor would confidence in the Colony's future survive total removal. The elimination of the garrison would thus only be conceivable in a situation where we intended to withdraw politically from Hong Kong in the immediate future. The Secretary of State has made it clear, most recently in a letter to Sir A Royle (attached) that this is not in contemplation.
5. Therefore there must be a garrison sufficient to maintain internal security in Hong Kong and confidence in the Colony's future. A recommendation of its size for the first purpose will require the combined wisdom of the military and the Governor. We will then have to consider the confidence factor (which is largely a matter of presentation) in careful consultation with the Governor. I myself believe that the better course would be to keep the garrison at a level at which it could cope with an internal security crisis without
SECRET
/swift