TNAG-0617-FCO40-765-Strength-and-cost-of-UK-armed-forces-stationed-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 112

Spoke to MN Avez-

но раст

GIN BIDE

Un Doorn to the pot. I fante, isteral y

More

CHIEF OF THE DATENCE STAVE

2051/1

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE CENTRAL AZCITARY DS G DS Z E8 1Q

23 JUN1977

M. Milton X1 мовой

is it not about time

a spade? The

We no

angle

takerco

36

Min. Si ricchury para. 2 If my heller

MAIN BUILDING

Telephone at 212 21

interesting: Y-

we called a spide

LONDON

time to the Aker

(Direct Dislina (to 024).

River import willd

*** ***, 51

29 JUN 1977

HILILOG2/2

FLO has decided that the AK Heel Borner Jokey. Account is not offeela fahlyArcher RUB OBA

J. A

me me way Head aartoe British Forces

Hong Hone

British Borups Post Office 1

Dear & John.

being

HONG KONG TERANCE COMES ACREEN SEN VA

ihen

NOF

さい

To:

Maurustration anter

MOD? SICCOS

DFM ACDB (Pol)

Hd DS 5

-29/6

Hd 3d DS 6

rid D3 11

DS6 Distribution

DOI

22 June 1977

738

903

IOPEA

FIICAN)

AFCO Kenykeny DN Plas

DARR

RED

407%

ZDAG

D Air Flads

I was grateful for your letter oo 5 May in which you reported generally on the first year of the DC4 and enclosed copies of your correspondence on this subject with E The Governor. Evidently matters are settling down well and 16 cas particularly recuparing that we are not to be faced, at least for a year or so, with the formal review of the support elements which the Hong Kong Government now has the right to request.

The contents of your letters have been brought to the attention of those concerned in the OD, who have been invited to set in hand any follow-up action that may be required. I will however comment -briefly on one or two-particular pointe:

AUS (GS)

DS6

Asst Sec

Principal GSO 2(a) HEO {a}

GSO I

GSC 2(b)

AT

D$7

Asst Sec

•

Principal(a) ... GSC 2(a) HEC (3)........

Princisal (b)....

GSC 7 (b)

AT

DS10

Asst Sec

Principal

HEO HIO (A) AT

*****

Copy ......

File Not (RS: 63161.

Infe

Review of teeth-emn common

There was some surorise here at the governor'e nuggestion, reported in paragraphi ) of your letter, that such a review night be desirable in early 1978. In the final stage of negotiation of the DO2, the Hong Kong Government, as you may know, sought to include in the HCO a clause giving them the right of review of all aspects of the garrison. This was unacceptable to MOD as far es the teeth-arm element was concerned, as the fores level had been the subject of exhaustive study both locally and in Whitehall, and was a matter for which the Chiefs of

While I do not suggest Staff bear ultimate responsibility, that HE The Governor is in fact necking to gain administratively a point not conceded at the negotiating table, it is nonetheless difficult to envisage the purpose of such a review unless the security situation (including the reinforcement capability) were changed markedly. Leaving aside for the moment the Brunei implications and also the question of replacement 02 the patrol craft, the latter having already been provided for by the proposed study in 1978 (ACS(as)'s letter 91/76/CCR6/9/II of 23 February 1976) and for which the Navy Department is

CONFIDENTIAL