TNAG-0254-FCO40-290-Contributions-of-Hong-Kong-for-costs-of-maintaining-military-1971 — Page 124

763

From:

EH Gwynn CB

HKK 10/9

Our reference: DUS(F) 153/1 Your reference:

SECRET

Ra

شانسه

En

27.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, LONDON S.W.I

Telephone: WHItehall 7022, ext. 6613

Mihains (HK Dept)

te spoke. Pl. subunit witte com

Ассанте

18th May 1970 accetife

present state of the game.

Pres

Dear honson,

HONG KONG DEFENCE CONTRIBUTION

1. When you discussed the question of a new agreement with Hong Kong with Gedling and me on 31 July last year, it was against the background that in view of difficulties which had arisen in the 1966 negotiations Sir David Trench had suggested a different procedure. He had told the Defence Secretary in June 1969 that he thought the first step should be for him to suggest in broad terms, having regard to the size of the Garrison, the internal political situation in Hong Kong, continued local prosperity and the valuable part played by the Garrison in the 1967 disturbances, the kind of figure which would be politically acceptable in the Colony. If tentative agreement could then be reached a figure could be put forward as a Hong Kong offer rather than a demand by HMG.

2.

We all felt that it was desirable for the Governor to have before him when considering his offer the fullest and latest information available about our plans for the future size of the Garrison, and you wrote to him accordingly on 9 October 1969 giving this information. We have since supplied further information about a revised works programme.

Mr. 2%

3. I think we are also all agreed that it is desirable for the defence contribution agreement which expires in March 1971 to be re-negotiated before Sir David Trench leaves the Colony in October this year. It would clearly be a difficult subject for a new Governor to handle at the start of his term of office.

4. We are therefore disturbed to find that Hong Kong officials are giving the information which was provided as background a detailed and intensive scrutiny which seems inappropriate to the kind of approach which Sir David Trench suggested, and shows every sign of taking up an undue amount of time. We seem in fact to be engaged in the preliminaries to a 1966-style negotiation rather than the very different process which the Governor had suggested; and no progress is visible.

LAST

REF.

NEXT

REF.

24.

Sir Leslie Monson, KCMG, CB Foreign and Commonwealth Office

SECRET

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY No.51 21 MAY 1970

никюра