TNAG-0832-FCO40-1040-Future-of-the-Dependent-Territories-1979 — Page 53

Mr Quantrill, HKGD

CONFIDENTIAL

HKG.025/1

Ner

nor my

музда

Reference

cc Mr Stratton

36

DECOLONISATION DESPATCH: POLICY TOWARDS THE DEPENDENT TERRITORIES

CODE 18-77

SS 8/78

1.

I am very sorry we have been so slow in responding to your

request for comments on the latest version of this despatch,

especially since I have fairly substantial changes to suggest.

I have already commented briefly (my minute of 7 August).

2.

a)

My comments are as follows:

Despatch addressed to "OAGs" not Governors as there is a

variety of titles;

b) The amendment now proposed in line 13 of paragraph 1 is

sensible but I wonder whether, as much for the sake of future

readers less familiar with the situation than ourselves, the

despatch should not spell out more fully than it does which these

territories and why they cannot have independence now.

are

This is not a WIAD point but it strikes me reading the draft after

some weeks that it skates over this issue too lightly;

c) Paragraph 2 line 3. If we were to do as I have suggested above

we would not then need to replace the work "wishing" by "able and

willing". I see the Gibraltar point but I am equally concerned

that the use of the word "able" is far too vague. Tuvalu was

politically" able" to go independent but is it "able" to sustain

it economically? Can we in the face of our desire to decolonise

deny independence on the basis of lack of "ability? I therefore

需要

IY

prefer the original word "wishing" but if the Gibraltar point

cannot be got round in some other way, then I would still prefer

to leave out the word "able";

d)

I strongly endorse the change of words at the top of page 2.

e) A major change: To put right a misunderstanding for which I am

largely responsible. As it stands, the last part of paragraph 2

implies that once

once a territory has accepted a firm timetable for

CONFIDENTIAL

/moving