TNAG-0539-FCO40-634-Strength-of-garrison-in-Hong-Kong-1975 — Page 272

CONFIDENTIAL COVERING SECRET

62)

い

Mr Wilford

DEFENCE REVIEW:

1.

BRUNEI

LAST

kit

REF.

(63)

I have just seen Ir Hudson's letter of 5 February to you (which arrived while I was on leave). lie says that it is not true that the battalion must be withdrawn from Brunei to maintain an adequate garrison in Hong Kong and seeks to make it appear that there is no respectable military argument we can advance for its withdrawal.

2.

The draft brief on the withdrawal of the battalion which DS11 have prepared for the talks with the Sultan contains the following passage:

"Although the size and cost of the Hong Kong garrison is

subject to the outcome of consultations with the Hong Kong Government, the replacement of a UK battalion by a cheaper Gurkha battalion (from Brunei) is an important feature of the current plans, and one which is likely to remain so whatever the final outcome of consultations. It is planned for the battalion to be redeployed to Hong Kong early 1977 when suitable accommodation will be available... Similarly any delay beyond April 1977 would involve the added financial penalty of retaining a more expensive UK battalion in Hong Kong for longer than planned."

I read this as meaning that Hong Kong reasons would in themselves exert strong pressures on us to re-locate the Brunei Gurkha battalion pressures which are in no way eased by a subvention from the Sultan. I see no reason why we cannot say:

(a)

(b)

the Gurkhas must accept their fair share of the overall cuts imposed on the infantry force;

(This re-

the Gurkhas in Brunei are required in Hong Kong to permit the redeployment of a British battalion. deployment will of course save some money but I assume it would be less than the £1.3 million a year the Sultan pays us.)

17 February 1975

cc

Mr Stewart, HKIOD

Mr Jackson, Defence Dept

PG de Courcy Ireland South West Pacific Dept

PA

CONFIDENTIAL COVERING SECRET

713