DRAST DETTER TO TAM DALYELL 1) IP.
The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your
letter of 28th December with which you enclosed a pamphlet
by Frank Allaun which questioned, among other things why
we station forces in Hong Kong.
I connet accept that our forces in Hong Kong serve no
military purpose. We maintain a garrison in Hong Kong
because we are constitutionally responsible for protecting
those who live and work there and whose safety and prosperity
can be threatened even without an overt Chinese attack
which is the only threat which Frank Allaun's pamphlet
apparently contemplates.
Firstly, internal disorder, whether politically
motivared or not, can break out unexpectedly and, as we
learned in 1967, can prove very difficult for the civil
police to control unaided. Secondly, the cross-border
incursions that occur from time to time could rapidly becono
more ambitious, and therefore more dangerous, if they could
not be instantly contained by a uilitary presence on the
spot. Thirdly and more generally, our military presence
in Hong Kong is tangible evidence of the importance HIG
attaches to its constitutional responsibilities, and a total
military withdrawal could not fail to be seen, both by the
inhabitants of Hong Kong and by its neighbours, as implying
an end of HMG's concern for the integrity and well being of
the territory.
It is for these reasons that we did not consider it
night to withirew our forces from Hong Kong although, as
Roy Mason and I made clear, we hope to make economics in
their manpower and cost to the Defence Budget.