SECRET
Reference....
.༩༥
future, they were kept under War Office control and paid out of UK Votes, with appropriations-in-aid in the form of contributions from the African colonial governments, supposed to represent the local interest. Deciding expenditure in London and sending the bill (or most of it) to the African taxpayer caused as much friction as might have been expected, and we had to unscramble this arrangement in the mid-50's, well before independence. The colonies took over full responsibility for their own troops, but in the political circumstances it was then obviously impossible to seek cash contributions to Imperial defence as well.
9. Palestine comes to mind as an example of a territory which tied up large British forces for both defence and internal security but did not pay a defence contribution because it couldn't afford to. The prolonged disturbances had unbalanced the budget and put Palestine on grant-in- aid, and it would have been silly to superimpose a book transaction to reimburse the War Office. I rather think that Malaya was in the same boat, but I don't feel sure of my facts there.
10. Two instances at least exist of colonies with no internal security complication and no overwhelming deficit problem, which still don't so far as I know contribute to the cost of the British garrisons needed to defend them against *XX***** foreign claimant states. Gibraltar has never been asked to share the cost of the British base, which was a British interest long before it became a Gibraltarian one too (politically as well as economically). The Falkland Islands are an even clearer case, though the cost is, very much smaller; there is no longer any "imperial defence" interest, and the Marine contingent is there solely to deter the Argentinians. In these cases I assume that Ministers have thought it politically unacceptable at home to use the strong cards we hold vis-a-vis the colony if, we, wished to seek a defence contribution.
11., I suspect that the best precedent for Hong Kong would be Hong Kong itself. As you may know, an exercise like that described in your minute was gone through with Hong Kong in the '60's, at the time of the Defence Review conducted by the previous Labour Government. I don't know the details but I remember that a Minister had to go out in order to reach alsettlement. Having accepted that settlement, which I presume led to their present defence contribution, I don't see. that the -Hong Kong Govt. are in any position to re-open the
principle of defence contributions now, whatever the position in other colonies.
Tailpiece
12. I do not suggest you pass all this on to Hong Kong. Quite apart from its hasty and provisional nature, it contains some Scripture which the devil(if I may say so) might quote against us.' Perhaps the less said the better at the present stage?
Research Dept., 19 Feb. 1975
J.S. Bemb
(J S Bennett)
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.