TNAG-0429-FCO40-494-Programme-Analysis-and-Review-(PAR)-Future-of-Dependent-Terr-1974 — Page 5

Mr Champion

RESTRICTED

Man. Joj

ce Mr Stuart HK10D

Mr Cox WIAD

Hr Bullock PDTD

13th

+30/2/7/02

(36)

Have we seen chr

paper washer reference

паре

DIR

Mre Maccoll ITLU 14/

Mr Kerr FRD

Mr Rae #6

Mr Preston Caribbean Dept, FCO Mr Ensor E

FUTURE OF THE DEPENDENT TERRITORIES

I have the following comments:-

itr

•

1. "The Associated States in the Eastern Caribbean are, as the draft suggen but should bring out more strongly, in a different category from the other countries. They can now move to Independence at times of their own choosinĮ and some of them are already talking about doing so well within the time apuñ of the proposed study. The existence of CARICOM and the possibility of momo kind of functional federalism under its auspices also complicates the situat den and para 11(i) may well need some qualification. The options which we would wish Ministers to consider are also affected by this; and the results of our own past policies which have equipped these States with political and admini- strative structures and economic infrastructures that they will find hard to maintain without prolonged assistance should also be taken into account. A further point which needs to be brought out is that the Caribbean Development Division has been undertaking a series of surveys (now nearing completion) of the Associated States of the kind which the paper appears to be recommending

•

2. Mr King has already made some tentative proposals as regards our future sil policies for the Associated States which we are to discuss with the FCQ or 7 January. Althoughthese will be restricted to the Associated Staten, discussion will be relevant to at least some of the dependencies. We should therefore like to postpone our detailed consideration of the paper until aft that meeting.

}

3. Quite apart from the reservations noted above, we have one major and a number of minor comments on the paper as a whole. The major point is that the paper and the revised recommendations appear to fluff the main quenlion mi issue which is whether our objective ahould be to help the States to achieve economic independence at whatever economic level may be possible or to help thei to ensure that their standard of life reaches and maintaing some level dermed to be tolerable. The arguments which might support either alternative are not developed in the paper and there is no attempt to quantify or supply criteria for the second alternative. We find it disturbing that the paper makes no attempt to argue the case for the second alternative since we consider that this option would involve a continuing and probably increasing financial liability from which there would be no way of withdrawing once the option had been accepted. It would seem to us that further work should be done on thene issues and arguments and, if possible, a more meaningful set of recommendation a worked out between the FCO and ODM before a paper goes to Ministers.

4. The points of detail are as follows:-

A.

The point should be made in the paper that having by our past policier placed some countries in a position of economic dependence, we may find that our commitment to them will increase with the growth of their populations. It is estimated that populations in the Caribbean will rine very rapidly between now and 1990, and some of the population figuren in the country annex will need to be revised upwards in view of limited opportunities for emigration;

b. As will be seen from what is said above we would agree with Mrs Macroli that some estimates of the costs of alternative policies should be made and at least the cost of continuing aid at the present levels should be givm.

RESTRICTED

/1

LAST PAPIER