TNAG-0757-FCO40-961-Strength-of-UK-armed-forces-stationed-in-Hong-Kong-1978 — Page 5

SECRET

5. The Defence Policy Staff argue that since 1974 NATO authorities have been, sympathetic whenever the UK has had to withdraw NATO-assigned forces for a national task. Moreover, with growing awareness in NATO that the Soviet Union and its allies are active in many parts of the Third World, it makes sense to counter Soviet destabilising activity by the judicious deployment of NATO national forces outside the NATO area, though not in the name of the Alliance.

6.

There is one gap (which we are promised will be remedied in the next draft): there is no analysis of the Royal Navy's current capability to undertake Category Two tasks nor of its experience in doing so since 1974. I suspect that the, RN are doing their best to keep their heads down. They suffered less from the Defence Review than the other Services and are still reasonably well equipped with ships that can undertake deployments outside the NATO area in support of foreign policy objectives, to deter aggression,

or to assist the civil authorities in Dependent Territories.

7. Subject to your views, I propose to comment on this draft that:

8.

i

i. we must continue to maintain to the full our existing commitment

to NATO;

ii.

iii.

we agree the RAF's transport forces have been cut too much, as have the army's logistic support and reserve supplies;

!

there must be improvements in both areas if the policy recommended in the Paper, with which we broadly agree, is to be adopted, but we will reserve for the next version our detailed comments on the implications of the proposed new policy.

J

I should be grateful for any comments you may have (by 14 September if at all · possible).

12 September 1978

i

OH

D

B Watkins

Defence Department

I

J

SECRET

!