TNAG-0834-FCO40-1042-Foreign-and-Commonwealth-Office-seminar-on-the-future-of-Bri-1979 — Page 52

6

only be envisaged as a relatively short stage in a process leading

towards independence. I cannot see that it is acceptable as an

indefinite arrangement for a territory that has shown no inclination

to assume full responsibility for its own affairs.

A further question arises. Should we be pursuing policies

(and in this case I am thinking in particular of development assist-

ance policies) aimed at facilitating an eventual move to independence,

even for territories that have set their faces firmly against it?

This, too, is something we might discuss. But the policy of succes-

sive governments up to now has been to seek to create effective

political and economic institutions, in the territories for which

we are responsible;

tions, and thus to give them the experience and confidence to run

their own affairs. If this can be interpreted as putting pressure

on them to move towards independence, then I think it needs no

apology.

to train people to work within those institu-

Nor do I think we need apologise for occasionally making

it uncomfortably plain that dependent status imposes limitations on

a local government's freedom of action, and reminding them that if

they do not like it, the alternative of independence is always open

to them. But is this the limit of the pressure that it is legiti-

mate for us to exert on reluctant debutantes? I look forward to

hearing your views on that.

I do not wish tonight to get into a discussion of what

alternatives to full independence may be available, though I would

like to stress that we should be reluctant to repeat our experience

with the Associated States created under the 1967 West Indies Act.

Not that I believe that they have been a failure:

associated

/statehood