purpose.
2. I cannot accept that our forces in Hong Kong serve no military
We maintain a garrison in Hong Kong because we aew are constitutionally responsible for protecting those who live and work there and whose safety and prosperity can be threatened even without an overt Chinese attack - which is the only threat which Frank Allaun's pamphlet apparently contemplates.
3. Firstly, internal disorder, whether politically motivated or not, can break out unexpectedly and, as we learned in 1967, can prove very difficult for the civil police to control unaided. Secondly, the cross-border incursions that occur from time to time could rapidly become more ambitious, and therefore more dangerous, if they could not be instantly contained by a military preserve on the spot. Thirdly and airdert dentext, our military presence in Hong Kong is tangible evidence of the importance HMG attaches to its constitutional
here
Делегайся
responsibilities, and a total military withdrawal could not fail to be seen, both by the inhabitants of Hong Kong and by its neighbours, as implying an end of HMG's concern for the integrity and well being of the territory.
4. It is for these reasons that we did not consider it right to withdraw our forces from Hong Kong although, as Roy Mason and I made clear, we hope to make economies in their manpower and cost to the Defence Budget.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.