Mr Quantrill, HKGD
CONFIDENTIAL
HKG.025/1
Ner
nor my
музда
Reference
cc Mr Stratton
36
DECOLONISATION DESPATCH: POLICY TOWARDS THE DEPENDENT TERRITORIES
CODE 18-77
SS 8/78
1.
I am very sorry we have been so slow in responding to your
request for comments on the latest version of this despatch,
especially since I have fairly substantial changes to suggest.
I have already commented briefly (my minute of 7 August).
2.
a)
My comments are as follows:
Despatch addressed to "OAGs" not Governors as there is a
variety of titles;
b) The amendment now proposed in line 13 of paragraph 1 is
sensible but I wonder whether, as much for the sake of future
readers less familiar with the situation than ourselves, the
despatch should not spell out more fully than it does which these
territories and why they cannot have independence now.
are
This is not a WIAD point but it strikes me reading the draft after
some weeks that it skates over this issue too lightly;
c) Paragraph 2 line 3. If we were to do as I have suggested above
we would not then need to replace the work "wishing" by "able and
willing". I see the Gibraltar point but I am equally concerned
that the use of the word "able" is far too vague. Tuvalu was
politically" able" to go independent but is it "able" to sustain
it economically? Can we in the face of our desire to decolonise
deny independence on the basis of lack of "ability? I therefore
需要
IY
prefer the original word "wishing" but if the Gibraltar point
cannot be got round in some other way, then I would still prefer
to leave out the word "able";
d)
I strongly endorse the change of words at the top of page 2.
e) A major change: To put right a misunderstanding for which I am
largely responsible. As it stands, the last part of paragraph 2
implies that once
once a territory has accepted a firm timetable for
CONFIDENTIAL
/moving