TNAG-0060-FCO40-96-Strength-of-Hong-Kong-garrison-1968 — Page 8

TOP SECRET

2

Argument

3. The reasons for seeking a fighter presence in Hong

Kong are given persuasively in the Commonwealth Secretary's

minute. The Defence Secretary, however, takes the line,

which has already been endorsed by the Chiefs of Staff, that

given the current concept of the role of the garrison in

Hong Kong, i.e. to help maintain internal security and to

"identify aggression" on the border, there is no proper

military task for fighter aircraft there. He sees the

requirement as essentially a political one, and states that

although the Ministry of Defence could provide aircraft,

there would be no military justification for meeting the cost

from the defence budget. (e are told that the Ministry of

Defence would not be concerned whether the cost fell on Hong

Aong, the Commonwealth Office or ourselves!)

4. The Defence Secretary's letter is argued from a very

limited definition of the term "military task" and I think

we must make the point that our defence policy is normally

conceived not as an autonomous activity but as one which

supports our overseas policy as a whole. We should avoid

exposing ourselves to the suggestion that there are two

differing kinds of military deployment, one which falls

legitimately to the Defence vote and another which is under-

taken for "spurious" reasons at the request of e.g. the

Foreign Office who should therefore contribute towards the

cost.

TOP SECRET

15.