TNAG-0598-FCO40-745-Involvement-of-United-Nations-with-Dependent-Territories-1977 — Page 39

CODE 18 - 77

Mr Jasper such mate

JJ1/5

4

CONFIDENTIAL

HKG 025/3.....

Reference....

FUTURE OF THE DEPENDENT TERRITORIES

(2)

1. You will wish to register Mr Ivor Richard's letter of 10 May and Mr Stanley's acknowledgement of 12 May.

2. As Mr Stewart has observed, it is difficult to see what part HKGD may have to play in processing the ideas in Mr Richard's letter. The immediate step is for WIAD to take account of

Mr Richard's advice on the way to handle the meeting on 24 May with the members of the UN Visiting Mission to the Caymans. WIAD will obviously look after this aspect.

3. My only general observation is that I wonder whether we are as much concerned (or need to be concerned) about the UN dimension to the future of the dependent territories as Mr Richard's letter implies that we should be. Up until the late 1960s and early 1970s, my impression was that one of our primary concerns in seeking to rid ourselves of as many of the remaining dependent territories as possible was to get ourselves off the UN hook. Nowadays, I think we are perhaps more concerned about achieving further decolonization in order to limit the resources of manpower and, hopefully, money, that we have to devote to dependent territories. In the case of the "disputed territories" it would also clearly help our relations with the countries which lay claim to these territories if we could devise a solution whereby they ceased to be dependent. If, in the process, we could get territories taken off the UN's books, that would be a bonus, but I am not sure that that would be a priority consideration.

4. As Mr Richard's letter indicates, our renewed membership of the Committee of 24 since 1973 (we withdrew from the Committee between 1970 and 1973) seems to have helped to bring about a more realistic attitude on the part of the other members of the Committee to the problems of the smaller dependent territories. It may be therefore that the Committee of 24 can be brought to accept that solutions falling short of full internal self-government/independence should absolve us of our responsibilities under Chapter 11 of the Charter and Article 73(e) in particular. The Niue solution (paragraph 6 of Mr Richard's letter) and the fact that UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV) seems to be coming back into fashion in New York (paragraph 8 of Mr Richard's letter) are encouraging devebpments. Nevertheless, it is clear from what Mr Richard says that it is going to require a great deal of patience, skill and ingenuity on our part to persuade the Committee of 24 and, eventually, the General Assembly itself, to agree that "short of independence" solutions will be acceptable. If this is so, I am inclined to think that we should not let our policy for the smaller dependent territories be governed too much by the UN aspects.

13 May 1977

Cc: Mr Steart

Do.f. Muillo

D F Milton

Hong Kong & General Department

CONFIDENTIAL