TNAG-0536-FCO40-631-Strength-of-garrison-in-Hong-Kong-1975 — Page 4

རྟེ

UN BIRD 'A'

Foreign and Commonwealth Office London SW1

JD Bryars Esq

AUS(GO)

Ministry of Defence

Ilain Building

Whitehall

$71

Telephone 01-

Your reference

Our reference

30

Date

29 January 1975

Dear Desmend,

DEFENCE REVIEW:

1.

HONG KONG

We discussed your draft DOPC paper and you agreed with me tht the questions for Ministers in para. 9 were framed in such a way as to pre-suppose the acceptance of a 4 unit force. We also agreed that this might be premature. Once Ministers are focussed on the detailed questions in para. 9, it could be difficult to revert to the same questions for a ho n. force. Given that the Ministry of Defence have strong reservations about the viability of a 43 unit force and that even a reduction to 235 m. would not close the gap between ilong Long's C17 m. and Hinisters' preferred option of a 75% contribution, I think we should beware of starting down this road, unless we are sure that it can end with a viable force and an acceptable compromise on costs.

2.

I would myself prefer to phrase the questions to Ministers (your pare. 8 onwards) rther more simply as follows:

"Ilinisters are therefore asked:-

to take note of the present position and of the proposed timetable;

(a)

(b)

to decide whether studies of a 4 unit force should now be made;

(c)

to consider whether the possibility of a graduated agreement should now be explored.'

3.

However, if the group think that more detailed questions are needed, I would be inclined to leave your para. 8 as it is but to make some amendments to your pera. 9 as follows:

SEORDT

UK BY AS A

"9.