TNAG-1218-FCO40-1523-Future-of-the-Dependent-Territories-1983 — Page 27

1061

[Mr. Stanbrook]

Dependent Territories

15 APRIL 1983

independence if that is the wish of the inhabitants. Otherwise we should seek to remove what has become a stigma of colonialism from those dependencies which seek a permanent place within the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

In this connection I was rather disappointed with the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to my written question on 13 April. I asked what Her Majesty's Government's policy was towards the constitutional progress of the dependent territories and he replied-I paraphrase that it was to encourage independence where feasible. I would have hoped for something more imaginative than that. As there are now few territories which desire independence and still fewer which could sustain it, that seems to be a rather inadequate reply. It leaves out of account the massive problem of Hong Kong, the acute question of the Falklands, the confrontation policy of Spain towards Gibraltar, the ill-defined constitutional position of Brunei, which has not been mentioned in the list of dependent territories but in respect of which the position is rather uncertain, and many other situations in the majority of our dependent territories where indpendence is simply not an option.

Bermuda, with a population of 54,670-I quote from that invaluable publication “Whitaker's Almanac”, which I commend to all hon. Members who want a quick and accurate guide to facts such as those with which we are dealing now has a healthy economy, and is perhaps for that reason viable as an independent entity, but for most of our dependent territories independence in the diplomatic sense is out of the question. The experiment of the West Indies federation failed to reconcile the interests of small islands within a viable federal entity. The idea of West Indian association states died with the transition of St. Kitts and Nevis, the last remaining associated state, to full independence, albeit with a total population of less than 45,000. We must seek some way of ensuring democracy and security for the populations of those small islands dotted around the world, many of which have belonged to us for centuries and which have no chance of survival on their own.

One option that I believe we should avoid is the Belize formula. For many years British Honduras, latterly Belize, wanted independence and we were prepared to give it. However, the Guatamalan claim to the territory of Belize meant that an independent Belize would be at the mercy of the armed might of Guatamala. So the leaders of Belize sensibly preferred to remain within the military protection of Britain as an internally self-governing colony. That arrangement persisted until the British Government of the day allowed themselves to be persuaded to grant independence subject to a form of treaty-I think that it was an exchange of notes-under which, in effect, we are obliged to go to the assistance of Belize if it is attacked. That is one interpretation of the agreement with Belize. In any event, we now keep a substantial garrison there and it is alerted every time some Guatamalan leader courts political popularity by threatening to invade.

As I have criticised my hon. Friend the Minister of State twice so far, it is perhaps right that I should now give him a bouquet. I think that he has been right in his parliamentary answers on this subject, when subjected to close questioning by some of my hon. Friends, in avoiding giving a specific guarantee to Belize. I wish that some of

546

Dependent Territories

10%

my hon. Friends would not try to persuade him to give because the situation is potentially very dangerous a should be brought to an early end.

It cannot be over-emphasised that indepndence is a o way ticket. Dependent territories that seek independer should understand that their ability to defend themselv without calling on the former imperial power is a sine q non of their independence. Let them negotiate alliances all means, but Britain must look first to its own secur and that of its own territories. We should not comr ourselves to go to the aid of a regime where we have strategic interest and no influence beyond that of a form imperial power.

For this reason I should be glad to hear from my ho Friend the Minister of State on the subject of Brunei. it independent or is it not? It is no longer a protectorat one understands, although its 212,840 citizens—I a indebted once again to that excellent publication entitl "Whitaker's Almanac"-include over 100,000 who a still treated as British protected persons and hav therefore, status under the British Nationality Act 198 We have a treaty with the sultan. I hope that it does n involve us in obligations that we cannot realistical sustain. We have our hands full enough elsewhere witho having to protect regimes over which we have no politic control.

The option that I prefer for most of our depende territories is association with the United Kingdom in th same way that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands ar associated with the mother country. The concept of th United Kingdom and islands has already lasted man centuries, to the satisfaction of all concerned. It provide for self-government suiting the special needs of territorie historically and geographically separate from the Unite Kingdom, it provides association with but not membershi of the European Community, and it keeps the island within the economic sphere of the United Kingdom. The are defended, naturally, by British troops and their peop! are full British citizens. The Channel Islands, for instance are just a few miles off the northern coast of France, by France makes no claim to sovereignty over them.

We have already gone some way along those lines wit our dependent territories, as a result of our new citizenshi laws. In deference to Hong Kong, the Government foun it expedient in the British Nationality Bill to give unifor treatment to all the dependent territories. The Bill a originally published refused them British citizenship an instead created a special British dependent territorie citizenship for them alone. In Standing Committee, I an other hon. Members, including Opposition Members ventured to point out the anomolies that that would cause and so it has proved.

The main justification for treating the depender territories differently from the United Kingdom was, c course, immigration. To make British citizens of al inhabitants of our dependent territories as they now exis would have given the right of abode in the Unite Kingdom to millions of Hong Kong Chinese. Obviousl we could not do that. We could have excluded Hong Kon citizens from the privilege and restricted it to the fev thousand inhabitants of our other dependent territories That would have been politically acceptable, but for Hon Kong it would have been politically unacceptable and unfair, so the Government excluded all the dependen territories from British citizenship.