TNAG-0060-FCO40-96-Strength-of-Hong-Kong-garrison-1968 — Page 95

L

TOP SECRET

Generally, the need for these levels is argued on military grounds, the increases being due to our inability to provide forces or to reinforce from Singapore. The exception is the fighter aircraft for which it is stated there is no military justification (paragraph 31). The inclusion of aircraft, the paper states, must depend on a judgment as to whether there are overriding political arguments for providing air cover. If it is necessary in this

forum to mention the political considerations, the letter which we

hope our Secretary of State will send to Mr. Healey can be drawn Flag C upon (copy attached).

Gurkhas

At the planners meeting I queried the reference in paragraph 16 to "all Gurkha forces" being "concentrated in the Colony", pointing out the need for a balanced garrison including at least two British

units. I was told that by 1971 there would be four Gurkha

battalions in existence and these would be further reduced thereafter.

In the circumstances we do not need to make a point here.

Cost of Forces (Appendix I to the paper)

The additional foreign exchange cost of maintaining forces at

these levels is stated at £1.4m. of which more than half is

accounted for by the additional infantry unit. But none of the

costings include the cost of maintaining additional MCMs. or the

Hunter aircraft which, the paper asserts, should be met outside the Defence budget (paragraph 41(h) ).

The conclusion that these two items should be met outside the

Defence budget represents an improvement on the earlier draft of this paper which reflected faithfully the views expressed in Chiefs of Staff meeting on 12 March that the Hong Kong Government

should pay for both these additions.

However, in the body of the paper it is stated (paragraph 21)

that the Hong Kong Government might be invited to meet the cost of

the additional MCMs. This apparent inconsistency gives a clue to

M.O.D. reasoning on the subject which, put very briefly, is as

follows. The aircraft are required for political reasons (maintenance of confidence); it matters not who pays for them so far as the M.O.D. are concerned (i.e. C.0. Votes or Hong Kong) so

long as they are not charged to the Defence budget. On the other

hand the MCMs. role is primarily an internal security one

i.e. "direct support of maritime police patrols to prevent the

influx of refugees by sea and to contribute to the control of piracy and smuggling" paragraph 5(b); the Hong Kong Government should, therefore, pay in accordance with the doctrine that a

Colony is responsible for its own internal security.

TOP SECRET

/ In the