1094
1095
n the
more
lands
it we 1 and
two
. out
ly in
st of
for
not
ties
›f a
ys,
ent
1r.
nd
is
ct
je
2 5 9 9 >"
se
*e
.y
of
S
S
>
Dependent Territories
15 APRIL 1983
Quarter of a century. The fact that today we are talking
out 13 dependent territories is an illustration of what has happened in regard to that very proud chapter of British history. As it is a proud chapter, we are entitled to look at one or two of our failures and to learn from them so that we do not commit errors in the future.
My hon. Friend, in moving his motion, has helped us --and, I hope, the Government- -to make the issues much clearer, so that we can avoid some of the problems that have confronted us in the past. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) showed in his speech his continuing obsession with the Falklands war. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) argued that the war was unnecessary, but his standpoint was totally opposed to that of the hon. Member for West Lothian. My hon. Friend, who has persisted so conscientiously and consistently with his point of view, said once again that because we failed to make our purpose clear, and because there was shilly-shallying and uncertainty of purpose, the dictators and the aggressors were encouraged. The hon. Member for West Lothian would have it otherwise. As he admitted to me candidly, he would rather have surrendered the Falklands interests and by so doing avoided a war. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is totally out of touch with reality and with the views of this nation. My hon. Friend, by contrast, expressed those views much more clearly.
We must assert clearly and without any doubts that it is our purpose and our determination to defend the integrity, the independence and the freedom of the dependent peoples who still look to us. In so doing, we are not referring simply to the 13 territories that are associated with us because of history. We are referring also to the many other small independent nations throughout the world-many of them members of the United Nations and some of them not—that look to nations such as ours to defend their right to exist as free nations.
My hon. Friend's motion is explicit. It says
"That this House affirms its concern for the well-being and security of all Her Majesty's subjects resident in British dependent territories; assures them of its support for their economic and constitutional development; asserts the paramountcy of their interests in all matters affecting their future; expresses its determination to defend their territorial integrity by force if necessary.'
**
It then talks about other forms of association. We must make it clear that we assert and support the right of such territories to territorial integrity and, above all wherever it can conceivably be arranged-their right to independence if they so wish it. We must also assert that we shall not push them into independence if it is unsuitable or if they do not want it.
I hope that my hon. Friend's motion and the assurances that I hope we shall receive from the Minister --will enable us to make our position absolutely clear to those who may think that they can use military power or aggression to take over such territories. If we do that, they will know that they wil be resisted by the British Government and the British people, using military force if necessary. I believe-as I think most people do that if we make our position clear from the beginning, military force will not be necessary.
Mr. Clinton Davis: Hong Kong.
Mr. Moate: The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) refers to Hong Kong. I used the words "wherever possible", and I think that we have generally
563
Dependent Territories
1096
agreed today that Hong Kong is very much a case on its own. It was not my intention at this stage to refer to Hong Kong, but perhaps I may do so in passing. This is an anxious time for the people of Hong Kong.
I do not think that it was particularly helpful to have had a reference from the Opposition Benches to the fact that the undoubted miracle of Hong Kong is not one of a democratic character. That comment does not detract in any way from the miracle of the success of that part of the world, nor does it detract from our admiration for the people of Hong Kong. This is a desperately anxious time for the people of that colony and a time that calls for very great statesmanship. The recent involvement of the Prime Minister, and even just the start of the process of statesmanslike negotiation, should be helpful and reassuring to the people of Hong Kong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan), with his considerable knowledge of Hong Kong, referred to the agreed statement that there was a common aim to maintain the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. That statement in itself should be reassuring. Later we read that the Chinese Government's main spokesman on overseas Chinese affairs told a visiting delegation of Hong Kong factory owners that China would maintain Hong Kong's present system, its inhabitants' way of life and its status as a free port and a financial centre.
Commenting on that statement, the Hong Kong Communist newspaper said that rule by the people of Hong Kong meant that Britain would not administer Hong Kong, nor would China's Communist party central committee have any say in appointing officers to the Government, not even the governor. If we have reassuring statements such as that emanating from the Chinese mainland, and if we can achieve the common aim of stability and prosperity for the 15 years, we can cling to the hope that there will be a statesmanlike solution to the problem of Hong Kong. We have to accept that the territory is different in character and nature from all the other dependent territories that we are 'discussing today.
In congratulating my hon. Friend on his motion, my only regret is that it enabled the hon. Member for West Lothian to carry on his saga of, or obsession with the Falklands campaign. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not in the Chamber now. The more one hears his attacks on the Falklands war and the more one sees his obsessive digging out of tiny details of history, the more one feels that for at least the next 25 years we shall have to listen to him trying desperately to prove that he was right and that everybody else was wrong. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's motivation is genuine and that he was genuinely opposed to the loss of life that occurred, but one feels that it is now much more an exercise in self- justification than concern about the future of the Falklands or the principles of freedom, integrity and the right to self- determination.
The Falklands war and the principles about which we are talking are summed up in these words:
"It is a question of people who wish to be associated with this country and who have built their whole lives on the basis of association with this country. We have a moral duty, a political duty and every other kind of duty to ensure that that is sustained.”—[Offical Report, 3 April 1982; Vol. 21, c. 638.]
Those were the words of the Leader of the Opposition during one of the early Falklands debates. Anything else that we have said since should not detract from that basic
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.