TNAG-0308-FCO40-344-Contributions-of-Hong-Kong-for-costs-of-maintaining-military-1971 — Page 130

ติ

SECRET

5. The fact that HMG expects dependent territories in general to organise and finance their own IS forces is reflected in the constitutional arrangements under which the Governor retains ultimate responsibility for internal security and defence, although in the final analysis HMG is responsible for the external defence of the dependent territories "as well as for their good government (which, by implication, includes ultimate responsibility for internal security)". This policy is standard practice in all the existing British dependencies which have Police Forces and Local Defence Forces. HMG could be said to contribute indirectly towards the cost of these forces in the case of territories which receive grant in aid. The only cases in which I have been able to discover direct contributions in the military sense have been Swaziland, Aden, the Protectorate of South Arabia and the Federation of Southern Arabia (vide 'papers reference CO/57/66 prepared by Financial Department of the FCO in January 1966).

6. There appear to be, however, anomalies in the application of the general policy as outlined above. For example, West Indies Department advise that British Honduras (which is not a grant-aided territory) makes no contribution whatever towards the cost of British forces stationed in the territory. It is believed that this is because the British forces in the territory are stationed there to protect British interests vis-à-vis Guatemala, and perform no internal security role. On the other hand West Indies Department also confirm that Bermuda, which is similarly not grant aided, does make a contribution towards the cost of British forces deployed in the territory.

7. On the basis of the policy set out in the War Office paper of 1963, and the fact that the Hong Kong Government have hitherto made a contribution towards the cost of British forces stationed in the territory, coupled with the strong financial resources of Hong Kong, there would appear to be no justification for the representations' made by the unofficial members in Hong Kong that their defence contribution should now cease. As you will appreciate the matter raised in your minute is a financial rather than a constitutional question; but it is hoped that the above information will be of use.

Blan

(D. Blain)

Commonwealth Co-ordination

9 March, 1971

2.

SECRET