TNAG-0061-FCO40-97-Strength-of-Hong-Kong-garrison-1968 — Page 87

SECRET

- 3 -

137

5.

If the Commonwealth Secretary speaks first_7.

I agree with the Commonwealth Secretary that the part

of the memorandum dealing with the apportionment of costs

is unsatisfactory. I do not quarrel with the inter-

departmental rule on the subject in general but only with

its relevance in this particular case. In the context of

Hong Kong a distinction between external defence and internal

security is arbitrary and in my view unrealistic. There can

be no doubt that if the Chinese wished to take over Hong Kong

they would do it by deliberately creating an internal security

problem, rather than by direct attack. Any distinction

between the internal and external threat is therefore

questionable in a way that would not be true, for instance,

of a remote island not immediately adjacent to a hostile

power.

6.

It has always been my understanding that one of the

criteria used in apportioning the defence costs of Hong Kong

was the ability of the Colony to contribute according to its

means. I believe we should maintain this position. If it

is thought that the Defence Vote should not bear the difference,

then I suggest we should consider setting up a separate Vote

to cover the Hong Kong case, which is unique. It is diffi-

cult to think of any other Colony where an external threat

to our position is likely to be realised by internal subversion

rather than by direct attack. Moreover, Hong Kong is the only

Colony where the normal method of removing the causes of

internal subversion, namely a democratic advance to independence,

SECRET

/is

*