TNAG-2627-FCO40-3818-Classified-communication-facilities-in-Hong-Kong-1992 — Page 37

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

HOND

HKD 196/1

39

7

communications FCO - BTC.

FROM: P F Ricketts, HKD DATE: 13 May 2992

qu

Mr Soutar ISD(0)

cc: Mr Burns

таз

HONG KONG : COMMUNICATIONS

Many thanks for your minute of 7 May about our problems in communicating securely with the British Trade Commission.

1.

2.

You are absolutely right that what we are suggesting by We well way of Cryptek is no more than an interim solution. recognise that to bid for a free-standing Comcen at the BTC would be quite unrealistic at present, and that we shall have to continue relying on the Government House Communicators for the foreseeable future. But equally, as you say, we will need to move the Comcen into the new British Consulate- General building when this opens in (probably) 1996. will be part of the more general preparations for the handover in 1997, when we shall clearly need to leave the basement of Government House entirely clear of communications equipment!

3.

This

I am grateful to you for agreeing to put in hand procurement of Cryptek for the BTC. I think this will be a major plus for the new Senior British Trade Commissioner, Mr Day. I know that it involves some duplication of facilities in Hong Kong. But we regularly experience problems as a result of having one Comcen and three separate addressees in Hong Kong, who are at times sending mutually exclusive traffic. As an example, I enclose a copy of a letter from Tony Galsworthy about a highly embarrassing piece of mis-handling by the Government House Communicators of a telegram addressed only to UKRep JLG Hong Kong. Both you and Tony suggest more use of the 'Personal' designator, to ensure exclusivity. We shall clearly need to do that. But it is not a very satisfactory answer, and shows up distribution within Missions. Mr Galsworthy's letter illustrates that there are real weaknesses at present in the GH Comcen, partly stemming from a reduction in staffing levels after the last inspection, and that this can have damaging operational consequences.

4.

Anything more that can be done by way of issuing instructions on the correct handling of telegrams addressed to only one Hong Kong addressee would be welcome. Separate secure fax to each of the three addressees is an added safeguard for traffic which we really cannot afford to have copied more widely.

PF Ricketts

SEBACA

RRchatt

HKD 196!!

am

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

1997

28