TNAG-0715-FCO40-911-Future-of-the-Dependent-Territories-4 — Page 44

نا

We

19/5

In tal

Ith Sullivan

Mr

Duff (WIAD)

18/11 CONFIDENTIAL

HW.021/1

сс

21 SEP

DERIC

Kelarence

HwW 020/548/1

ས༈*

RICEV D XX

1 1 SEP 1978

Mr Rushford (Legal Advisers)

INDEN

PA

2

DECOLONISATION OR WHAT?

Your minute of 16 May.

2. To answer the question in your paragraph 3 first, I am afraid that, since Planning Staff is as subject as any other department to staff turnover, we have no tribal memory going back further than the longest inhabitant, who happens to be me with just over two years. Without some historical research,

therefore, we are unable to elucidate the intention of Section .10.1 of the West Indies Act, although I have always supposed

that the stiff hurdle was indeed deliberate. Against a back- ground in which we were trying to keep down the number of mini states, it can have had little other intention. Mr Rushford's tribal memory is, I am sure, longer than that of any of us and he may be able to clarify this.

3. More generally, I would not wish to dispute Mr Cockerham's thesis that Associated Statehood need not be judged as wholly unsatisfactory. As he says, Section 10.1 and the Anguilla situation need not typify future Associated Statehood arrangements. At the same time, it is not clear to me what advantages Associated Statehood would in fact offer for some of our remaining Dependent Territories.

4.

external only Pas

The main advantage, presumably, is that it devolves government to the locals and absolves us of responsibility for what they do in their domestic affairs. The disadvantage is that it leaves us with responsibility for their security and external affairs. But if a country is able fully to govern itself, why should we undertake the continuing disadvantage of being responsible for security and external affairs? Why not push it straight into independence?

5. If, on the other hand, a country is not ready for full internal self-government, it seems to me that there are political and moral objections to pushing it into Associated Statehood - moral because we will be doing a disservice to the people of the country, political because we will be tainted with the inefficiencies, corruptions or other misbehaviour of the government of the Associated State. Security and international obligations may also become involved in what such a government does and we would be drawn in on that account into areas where we constitutionally had no responsibility. It seems to me that we should do far better to avoid Associated Statehood in this kind of situation and stick to Dependent Territory status, giving the Territory as much internal self-government as may be appropriate, but subject to our control.

6. What this amounts to saying is that I believe we should retain responsibility or get rid of responsibility. An attempt to divide responsibility does not seem to me to be helpful and is likely to

Yes, But it is in mactice already divided

in оті (ексель

St. Helena)

PEA

MATUTAT.

****/lead