**
CODE 18-77
alu
Ms Foulds o/r
Mr Hand
Reference....................................
ONR
241133
376
DT REPRESENTATION AT THE WORLD CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
1.
ESED have dug out the two attached tels relating to DT participation in UKDel to UNCED. Unfortunately, they have been unable to provide any background to the internal discussions which
I understand that resulted in FCO telno 43 to Hamilton issuing. both Bermuda and BVI took up this offer, although Bermuda withdrew at the last minute.
2.
In
We
I am not sure how helpful this is. We have a precedent for inviting the DTS to send "observers", at their own expense. practical terms, Bermuda, having accepted and then withdrawn once may well do so again (although I do not know, I would not be surprised if Bermuda had also agitated for a place at UNCED). can probably discount the smaller, more far-flung and sparsely-populated DTS. But if we send a telegram similar to telno 43 to Hamilton we may well be faced with an additional 6 or 7 delegation members. Insisting on the DTs bearing their own costs will deter some, and emphasising that the FCO delegation will, of course, represent fully all DT interests will be good enough for some others. Aside from Bermuda, I would guess that Gibraltar, Hong Kong and Anguilla would be most likely to take up any offer. The Caymans and BVI are also possibles, but less likely. We could play the logistics "joker" and say that space, transport, communications, etc, precluded any DT participation, but I do not believe that such an argument would be sustainable. A better approach might be to use the agenda (when agreed) as a basis for arguing that the Conference will not address issues that merit DT attendance, or will not address them in such a way that In the meantime, an merits attendance, or some similar formula.
I interim reply to Bermuda is probably called for. If you wish, will draft on my return from Tunis.
MiPinnock. Ise go ahead
Min Foulds
I
do agree, Thank you.
sup
Stuart Pinnock
Human Rights Policy Unit
K147
270-2488
30 October 1992
slii
Mitand
87% (0711
I think x is right.
I in also difficult to Justin given the UNCED precedent, We should not exclude DTS they wish to cattend (reviles) procedure do not allow for separk DTCC presentation). I suggest a
consination of the line in Iln043 to Hamilton remperca 31 Y. DO You agree?
SUFF 4/11