Spoke to MN Avez-
но раст
GIN BIDE
Un Doorn to the pot. I fante, isteral y
More
CHIEF OF THE DATENCE STAVE
2051/1
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE CENTRAL AZCITARY DS G DS Z E8 1Q
23 JUN1977
M. Milton X1 мовой
is it not about time
a spade? The
We no
angle
takerco
36
Min. Si ricchury para. 2 If my heller
MAIN BUILDING
Telephone at 212 21
interesting: Y-
we called a spide
LONDON
time to the Aker
(Direct Dislina (to 024).
River import willd
*** ***, 51
29 JUN 1977
HILILOG2/2
FLO has decided that the AK Heel Borner Jokey. Account is not offeela fahlyArcher RUB OBA
J. A
me me way Head aartoe British Forces
Hong Hone
British Borups Post Office 1
Dear & John.
being
HONG KONG TERANCE COMES ACREEN SEN VA
ihen
NOF
さい
To:
Maurustration anter
MOD? SICCOS
DFM ACDB (Pol)
Hd DS 5
-29/6
Hd 3d DS 6
rid D3 11
DS6 Distribution
DOI
22 June 1977
738
903
IOPEA
FIICAN)
AFCO Kenykeny DN Plas
DARR
RED
407%
ZDAG
D Air Flads
I was grateful for your letter oo 5 May in which you reported generally on the first year of the DC4 and enclosed copies of your correspondence on this subject with E The Governor. Evidently matters are settling down well and 16 cas particularly recuparing that we are not to be faced, at least for a year or so, with the formal review of the support elements which the Hong Kong Government now has the right to request.
The contents of your letters have been brought to the attention of those concerned in the OD, who have been invited to set in hand any follow-up action that may be required. I will however comment -briefly on one or two-particular pointe:
AUS (GS)
DS6
Asst Sec
Principal GSO 2(a) HEO {a}
GSO I
GSC 2(b)
AT
D$7
Asst Sec
•
Principal(a) ... GSC 2(a) HEC (3)........
Princisal (b)....
GSC 7 (b)
AT
DS10
Asst Sec
Principal
HEO HIO (A) AT
*****
Copy ......
File Not (RS: 63161.
Infe
Review of teeth-emn common
There was some surorise here at the governor'e nuggestion, reported in paragraphi ) of your letter, that such a review night be desirable in early 1978. In the final stage of negotiation of the DO2, the Hong Kong Government, as you may know, sought to include in the HCO a clause giving them the right of review of all aspects of the garrison. This was unacceptable to MOD as far es the teeth-arm element was concerned, as the fores level had been the subject of exhaustive study both locally and in Whitehall, and was a matter for which the Chiefs of
While I do not suggest Staff bear ultimate responsibility, that HE The Governor is in fact necking to gain administratively a point not conceded at the negotiating table, it is nonetheless difficult to envisage the purpose of such a review unless the security situation (including the reinforcement capability) were changed markedly. Leaving aside for the moment the Brunei implications and also the question of replacement 02 the patrol craft, the latter having already been provided for by the proposed study in 1978 (ACS(as)'s letter 91/76/CCR6/9/II of 23 February 1976) and for which the Navy Department is
CONFIDENTIAL