(b) Partial cooperation: pros and cons
1.
Partial cooperation could cover all or any of the following:- (a) Acceptance of visiting missions and/or observers to all or
to selected territories;
(b) Consultations with the Committee or a mission from it in
London;
(c) Provision of up-to-date information on dependent territories
throughout the year;
(d) Willingness to reply in writing to the Committee in response
to specific questions on individual territories;
(e) Participation as administering power in the Committee's or
sub-committees' debates on UK dependent territories.
2. Many of the remarks already made in connexion with full membership apply, in reverse, to partial cooperation by the UK. The only additional points worth noting are:-
(a) We are not asked to do more than cooperate with the Committee
in the discharge of its mandate. This means that we, like the Americans, would be expected to be present and, if necessary, to join in debates of the Committee on our remaining dependent territories; and we should accept visiting missions when requested to do so by the Committee of 24 and/or the Fourth Committee and the General Assembly. We do not have to become full members to comply.
ie
(b) There is a good argument for testing the water gently,
cooperating more this year than we have since 1970 and seeing how our interests have been affected by this year's debates before taking the plunge on full membership. If there is no change in the Committee's attitude towards us, we can freeze our position or even withdraw our cooperation again, without provoking as much criticism as we are likely to do should we become full members this year and then withdraw again subsequently.
3.
As against this, we would not be able to vote, and our lobbying influence would be more limited. But as suggested earlier we may not always want to be put in a position where we are bound to be in a minority, or where in order to secure a consensus we have to go further than we would have liked.
CONFIDENTIAL