TNAG-0834-FCO40-1042-Foreign-and-Commonwealth-Office-seminar-on-the-future-of-Bri-1979 — Page 101

3.9 Is a regional solution still a possibility for all or some of our dependencies?

3.10 Are there any other independence options?

Decolonisation Options

4.1 The formal transfer of responsibility to another country has proved impracticable in the past because there have been no takers no one wants to accept or to increase colonial responsibilities. However some form of free association or pooling of certain common services (such as international representation) could be useful. A regional postal union in the Caribbean is now under discussion and it has been suggested that the former Associated States should have one High Commissioner in London.

4.2 It is most unlikely that we shall wish to have any more West Indies Act style "Associated States", whereby we bear international responsibility for defence and external affairs, but have no authority over internal security, and where we have to carry the entire aid burden, since other donors still regard the State as our colony and we consequently have to come to the rescue when local plans go awry. This arrangement simply means that we have all the penalties of being a colonial power in respect of these States, with no authority, even to ensure good government.

4.3 Transfer to UN management or trusteeship is also an unlikely prospect. The UN does not have the necessary experienced personnel to cope with colonial administration and none of the dependencies have in the past shown any disposition to accept administration by the UN in exchange for the UK. In fact they have resisted suggestions that the UN should supervise territorial elections. There is no

advantage in our transferring nominal responsibility to the UN and continuing to administer dependencies on their behalf.

4.4 Formal integration with the UK has been suggested for some territories in the past. Integration implies permanent assimilation with representation in the metropolitan legislature, equalisation of taxation and services, and unrestricted freedom of movement between the two territories. This principle has been used by the Americans for Alaska and Hawaii and by the French with their overseas territories (see Annex 9). It was seriously considered for Malta in the 1950's when a round table conference of Westminster political parties recommended representation at Westminster for Malta if its people so wished. Approximately 75% of the Maltese voted in favour, but negotiations broke down when the Maltese Government refused to recommend integration on the terms proposed by HMG.

The main causes for disagreement were over the level of British contributions to the Maltese budget, the future of Services employment in Malta and other defence considerations. These proposals, however, caused considerable misgiving in Britain and more recent suggestions of a similar nature from Seychelles and Gibraltar came to nought. To suggest integration now for, say, St Helena might encourage other territories which can well sustain independence, to hold out for this option also. It might therefore be better to keep it in reserve as our ultimate act of decolonisation - provided the inhabitants concerned want this solution.

/4.5