TNAG-1461-FCO40-1987-Future-of-the-Dependent-Territories-Hong-Kong--Gibraltar-and-1986 — Page 68

19. Both the OECS and OAS Treaty and Charter have provision for

determining an external threat and providing for mutual defence.

The Caribbean territories would be eligible for OECS

membership, (although without agreed security arrangements the provisions would have little substance), but OAS membership is only

for States. This would leave St Helena, Tristan da Cunha and Pitcairn as populated territories without defence arrangements unless a third state was prepared to take this on.

20. As for foreign relations under this option, these could be

conducted by a State of each territory choosing along the lines of

the arrangement between Western Samoa and New Zealand set out in the

1962 Treaty. In practice, the UK could perform this service for most

of the territories (except perhaps Pitcairn which could be

represented by New Zealand). An alternative for the Caribbean territories might be representation by the OECS or the larger Caribbean States which offers both foreign relations representation

and harmonisation.

21.

Such an option, although substituting one form of dependence for another, would enable the territories to be regarded as

self-governing within the terms of Article 73 of the UN Charter, and

would not prevent a territory from moving to full independence. Moreover, UK policy regarding its dependent territories would be preserved, but the UK would be largely relieved of the political and much of the financial burden for its populated territories.

CONFIDENTIAL

-

15

-