TNAG-0429-FCO40-494-Programme-Analysis-and-Review-(PAR)-Future-of-Dependent-Terr-1974 — Page 94

cons red territory by territory in the light of the

particular circumstances of each. Dependency status

is now an anachronism, and our traditional policy of

devolving power is virtually irreversible.

Even when const bloce

Λ

we retain sovereignty, the process of devolution

continues, with the disadvantage to us that, although

we have an ultimate responsibility, we have less and

less effective control. The exercise of our respon-

Themselves, sibility, or actions by dependency governments are

liable to involve us in domestic and international

embarrassment, particularly if we have to use the

жские Armed Services to maintain law and order. it is in

keep

our long term interest to retain responsibilition for

dependencies

GS

few territories; in others, undue haste in relin-

quishing our obligations could prejudice the chances

of handing over to a friendly successor government,

illing and able to deny their country to influences

hostile to the United Kingdom. But in general we are

onvinced that we should encourage the remainder to seek

dependence, or (in a few cases) association with a

third power

as soon as international constraints and

local circumstances allow (we acknowledge that thing.

this last

lost in the case of Gibraltar is unlikely to be

practical politics in the foreseeable future, but the

long term objective remains valid).

ECONOMIC AID POLICY

3. The review distinguishes two main options. First

essentially our present policy -to seek where possibl

to establish an economic and social infrastructure

which a territory can ultimately, though not

necessarily immediately, sustain from its own

T

IDENTIAL

/resources

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN