+
`, 1097
Mr. Moate]
Dependent Territories
15 APRIL 1983
assertion. That is what it was all about. Those people looked to Britain to defend their right to self-determination and to express their wishes in a free world. We have a moral duty; not just us, but the world at large. In considering the future of our dependencies we are entitled to look at the remarkable way in which the world has changed, along with the evolution of the Commonwealth and the independence of so many of our territories.
When the United Nations was formed in 1945, there were about 50 members. Today there are over 150. Some small nations are not members. Many of those United Nations members have a smaller population than many of our constituencies. Before 1945 we could not have contemplated the existence of those small nations. Probably they should have been taken over by what was described earlier as covetous neighbours. It was a world of force. It was impossible for small nations to exist in that
way.
Many of those nations are not economically or militarily viable. However, this is the best world that we can create, with international organisations, so that small nations that cannot fight wars for themselves can exist with the confidence that they can retain/their right to exist as separate nations. It is the highest ideal to achieve nationhood. That ideal is not sullied in any way by the need to receive aid from abroad or to be dependent either. upon specific military alliances or upon a general belief that the world is one where individual nations can be allowed to survive.
That is what the Falklands war was about. To a large extent it is the right of small territories to be independent and not to be threatened by their larger neighbours. If that principle were to be abandoned, dozens of small countries throughout the world would live in greater fear than at present.
If we are looking for a world in which tiny nations can exist-- some of them are very small; I think that the smallest independent nation at the moment has a population of 7,500–
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Woolwich, West): Nauru.
Mr. Moate: I have many statistics. I think that that country has 7,500 people. We are talking about dozens of nations with fewer than 100,000 people. I shall come back to the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington about associated status. We should be able to accept the concept of independence for many other nations. I know that my hon. Friend was shot down vigorously by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East when he was talking about Gibraltar, but that could apply even to Gibraltar. We should consider the concept of independent states that are dependent on alliances or foreign aid for their continued existence. If we accept that concept and the independent nations achieve the right to recognition in the United Nations, any invasion of their territory will be an affront to the United Nations. That is a considerable security. It would give us the moral, legal and international right to step in and protect them whenever necessary.
Mr. Stanbrook: Is not the problem that my hon. Friend has posed one of Britain being obliged to go to the assistance of a very small territory with a very small electorate over which Britain has no political control to
Dependent Territories
1098
ensure that that territory remains democratic and conducts its policies in a suitable way for such an arrangement? If we grant or thrust independence upon small territories which are not viable, we are taking on dangerous obligations which might become acute if control over those small territories pass into unsuitable hands.
Mr. Moate: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but while he was speaking I was checking some statistics. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) was right when he said that Nauru was the smallest territory, with a population of 7,254. Tuvalu has 7,349. The point, nevertheless, is valid.
I accept fully the dilemma that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has described about associated status. However, his alternative solution puts us in exactly the same position. He asked why we do not offer such territories Isle of Man or Channel Islands status. That will not give us effective control over the policies or character of those territories. If their regimes or policies change- they might do silly things like adopting Socialist policies of nationalisation- we cannot say that for, that period we shall not defend their integrity, but that while they adopt good, sensible Conservative policies we shall. One has to take the rough with the smooth.
My hon. Friend's distinction is more apparent than real. He is saying, "Let us offer Gibraltar or any of the other 13 territories membership of the United Kingdom". We will then guarantee their territorial integrity. We shall have exactly the same defence commitment to them. Whichever way it is done, we are asserting an absolute determination to guarantee their right as separate territories. That being the case, we are talking only about the detail.
One must get the principles right. We are no longer talking about unreal defence commitments and having to fight to defend countries which are unwilling to remain part of our empire. That is history. We are not talking about enormous defence commitments. We are talking about maintaining forces to defend those territories that I want in any event. I want that flexibility and military capability. It is a major contribution to our NATO effort and defence of the Western world. We are not sacrificing anything. We are doing what is right and in our interests.
I believe that we must assert our national confidence. We are saying "Let us be clear in our purpose. Let us emphasise our commitment to these territories." I believe it to be a realistic commitment and one that emphasises this nation's belief in the principles of freedom, the rule of law and the right of self-determination.
I believe that we can take a leaf out of the French book. So often we have had introspective, self-analytical debates about our relationships. In France one will find an automatic acceptance of the fundamental relationships with many of their overseas territories. During the French elections, I remember watching the election boards and seeing that they were expecting votes to come from Guadalupe, Guiana, Martinique, Mayotte, St. Pierre and Miquelon to quote just a few of the French overseas departments or territories which return members to the French National Assembly and Senate. That is accepted as natural by the people of the world, of those territories and of France. I regard that as an expression of national, not military, confidence. It is confidence that the French are doing something that is acceptable to the peoples of those
364
Page 45Page 46