2.
Arguments widely used in the press after the 1971 Defence Agreement was published were as follows:
(a)
Britain was responsible for the security of Hong Kong and therefore should pay the defence costs, especially as her own com- mercial interests were at stake.
(b)
Britain was taking advantage of Hong Kong to solve her own economic problems.
(c)
Hong Kong had a very special economic position and the imposition of a Defence Costs Agreement might affect the precarious balance in such a way as to be disadvantageous in the long run to the UK.
(a) Hong Kong's peace and prosperity were threatened by riots, the influx of refugees, natural disasters and crime. To counter
this money for the defence contribution would have been better
spent on the police.
(e) Money for the defence contribution would have been better
spent on alleviating pressing social problems and public works.
(f) The Hong Kong garrison could only be expected to put up a token defence of the Colony and if Hong Kong needed a garrison
it should create its own militia.
(g) Despite imposing heavy defence costs on Hong Kong Britain
offered no long term guarantee for the future of the Colony.
Hong Kong and Indian Ocean Department
9 October 1975
CONFIDENTIAL
#
Page 15Page 16