TNAG-0022-FCO40-58-Facilities-for-US-Forces-1968 — Page 60

10/10

CONFIDENTIAL

Pl send to Co (HIC dept)

wmis comps. 83/167

(240

BRITISH EMBASSY,

WASHINGTON, D.C.

12 July, 1968.

M. James Munay.

Му даем

Pelce

Pl. submit.

MR. 1521

224

190

You will have been thinking about the Ambassador's preference not at this stage to raise with the Americans the problem of naval visits to Hong Kong in the context of the guidelines (our telegram No. 2062). We shall perhaps have a better idea on the problem of timing from the point of view of this post toward the end of the month when the likely outcome of our application for Donald Hopson's visa is more clear. There are however several points which seem to us worth thinking about in formulating our approach to talks with the

I should Americans, and it may be helpful if I set them down. like to say at the outset, however, that, from the purely tactical point of view vis-a-vis the Americans, it would be no bad thing if, as of now, we stopped talking about "a review of the guidelines" as such and instead worked on the basis that we contemplate asking the Americans for a discussion of their application. This will sound less sweeping to them, and I am sure we can cover all the necessary points which your instructions may ultimately contain by discussing interpretation and if necessary amending the Interpretative Notes.

2.

There is no doubt that from an operational point of view the flexible and liberal use of Hong Kong is greatly appreciated by the U.S.R. If any ship is prevented from making a visit for which application is made, considerable practical inconvenience is caused. I notice indeed from Hong Kong tel. No. 703 to the Commonwealth Office, some concern that the Americans (presumably llaval Staff) have recently shown some lack of sensitivity in pressing their requests for calls by large ships. Equally, however, the State Department fully appreciates the political embarrassment which may be created for us by these visits. They are therefore sympathetic to any refusal we may feel obliged to give, and I think they will respond with equal sympathy to any proposals we put for reviewing the application of the guidelines, especially if couched in the terms I suggest in paragraph 1.

3.

I notice that final approval was given to the guidelines in June 1966. The Interpretative Note on Guideline D related the agreed level of the future visits to the 1964 level, but agreed (perhaps somewhat ostrich-like!) to an increase of up to 20% "because it would not be too visible"

presume that the rate per year reflected in the 1966 and 1967 figures

•

I

224

/given...

7.A. Wilkinson, Esq., C.K.G., D.S.O., C.B.E., Foreign Cffice, S..1.

Page 60Page 61