TNAG-2224-FCO40-3195-Gulf-War-burden-sharing-Hong-Kong-contribution-1991 — Page 59

Mr Pau

13

Mr Shine

dml.ph/letter/smi7.2

HM Treasury

55

B. FURNESS 15/2

Roy

RM."

R Smith Esq

GONELDENTIAL

建

ET MON

Parliament Street London SWIP 3AG Telephone 071-270

→ Ms Munden, HC) Dear 10)%%%

Эсс

Pol/Mil Emergency Unit

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

J

Whitehall

LONDON

SW1

Dear Roland,

GULF:

BURDENSHARING

HKD)

HKB 02013

91

30

Mr. Podra

File

9

2

7 February 1991

4820

44)

your more, but....

RIS

8/2

that

a

reasons

I have seen telegram no. 413 from Hong Kong, suggesting contribution should be devoted to logistic/medical and other support facilities only. I think, unless there are compelling otherwise, we should discourage conditions of this sort. There is some risk that, as we are evidently obliged to limit Japanese assistance in this way, there may not be in the end sufficient non-warlike components of the cost of war to go around.

In the particular case of Hong Kong, one might I suppose accept a contribution towards eg transport costs incurred last Autumn if there is no prospect of the Japanese paying. But it would still be a precedent, and I note that there is apparently no chance of the contribution being voted down in the legislative council. My

instinct is therefore to take a firm line.

I have also seen that, for example, the Belgians would prefer to contribute in kind rather than cash. It is primarily for MOD to say whether or not this would be practical. But I worry similarly that there could prove to be a limit on what can be accepted in this way, if a large

number of countries take the same line. Cash, with no conditions attached, would I suggest be much better.

I am copying this letter to Margaret Aldred in MOD.

Yous

Rob

ROBIN FELLGETT

CONFIDENTIAL

Switchboard 071-270 3000

Fax 071-270 5653

Telex 9413704