TNAG-0714-FCO40-910-Future-of-the-Dependent-Territories-1978 — Page 172

CONFIDENTIAL

on the one hand, deciding that our overriding concern was to rid ourselves of our remaining dependencies and, on the other, accepting that our main concern has to be for the interests and welfare of the inhabitants. There are, of course, a number of different blends of these two extremes, including the present policy, which we should be more likely to opt for than either one of them. The problem with the present policy (I am basing myself on the formulation quoted in paragraph 2 of your outline), is that it is simply the expression of a general aim - or, more unhelpful still, the statement of an ideal - and that it is of little use to us in practical terms, because it fails to face up. to the problems that obstruct its application in practice.

5.

There is an almost endless list of questions which a funda- mental review of policy would need to ask. For instance (turning again to the question I have referred to in paragraph 2 above), how many of the dependent territories will not be covered by this policy because they are not "capable of sustaining independence?" Who is the best judge of the "interests of the inhabitants"? Do we recognise any distinction between their "interests" and their "wishes"? If so, how far are we prepared to go to persuade the inhabitants to adopt what we regard as their interests as what they are prepared to declare as their wishes? Are there any territories which might wish for independence whose interests we might judge to be best served by continuing dependence? What should our policy be towards those who are not capable of sustaining independence? Are we prepared to use the threat of withdrawing powers of ISG already granted to push territories towards independence? What are the minimum powers we need to retain if independence is out of the question? Are these powers the sort of powers which are likely to attract criticism at the

UN?

6.

I have no doubt that many of these questions have been asked and answered on previous occasions, probably in the review that led up to the 1975 statement of policy (was it a PAR, or was that earlier in 1973?).

in 1973?). But even if we are not embarking on a fundamental review, I think the introductory part of your paper needs to make clear what answers to these questions (if any) lay behind the (over-simple) statement of policy set out in your paragraph 2.

7.

}

One small step that would make these periodic exercises a little less cumbersome would be to identify those territories which are not in any case our concern in considering the general problem of decolonisation. I suggest that those to be excluded are those listed in paragraph 3(a) (c) and (d) of your outline. I think it is unnecessary to go into the reasons for their exclusion: the paper might simply begin with a list of those WIAS and dependent territories which are being considered.

8.

I am afraid that my comments are less constructive than Mr Sanders'; but this is perhaps because he has adopted one policy conclusion almost as firmly as you have adopted another, while I am only asking, at this stage, to what we need to re- consider our policy. I think that your present draft falls

/between

Lextent

CONFIDENTIAL