![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldOver at Nissology.com, Hans Connor commented on the United Nations List of Non-Self-Governing Territories. This list began in the early years of the United Nations as the international gold standard for determination which territories merited decolonization. What was the criteria for the inclusion of a particular territory? General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV) briefly defined a colonial territory as a territory you'd identify by looking at it, defining it by subjective factors of geographic and cultural distinctiveness. To be removed from this list, a territory had to be offered three choices: independence, free association with another state, or integration with another state.
What countries are on the list now. As Hans notes, "[o]f the 15 jurisdictions listed by the UN Special Committee on Decolonization as Non-Self-Governing Territories, 14 are islands or archipelagoes."
Decolonization is a good idea; empire and hegemony corrupts everyone and everything they touch. (Hannah Arendt was so right.) The problem with 14 of the 15 territories included on this list is that the populations of these territories overwhelmingly do not define these territories as colonies and themselves as subjects, but rather as people who have developed the relationship with their metropole that they prefer. A 2009 United Nations report does point out that many of these territories do suffer from the effects of distance and dependence.
But almost all of these conditions would remain for almost all of these territories after they became independent. Islands are inherently territories vulnerable to external shocks, whether to ecological shocks stemming from the relatively lack of biodiversity and the lack of a substantial territory to serve as a buffer for shocks, the constraints of small market size and extreme distance which make it difficult for these territories to be economically viable, and the relative lack of skilled labour (a combination of, among other things, brain drain and limited opportunities for education) that does leave the islands open to misadministration of any kind. How would Tokelau be served by becoming an independent microstate stranded in the middle of the Pacific Ocean? If anything, the loss of connections with metropoles--especially, but not only, subsidies in money and resources--would be dangerous. The populations of these island territories, too, exist only as a direct result of the actions of the metropole, creating these polities in the first place whether by importing local populations or by conquering locals; identities are intimately bound up with the metropoles.
There are marginal exceptions. Gibraltar and the Falklands, both British territories on the list, are on the list not because their populations want independence--the Gibraltarians voted massively against the idea of a condominium with Spain in 2002--but because these territories are subject to irredentist claims, whether by a Span that claims treaty rights transcend locally non-existent rights to self-determination, or by an Argentina that doesn't think the local populations has any claim to indigeneity. The legal prosecution of people on Pitcairn Island in response to what seemed to have been a tradition of institutionalized and endemic did lead some to talk of independence, but besides the far greater likely hood of dysfunctional independence on Pitcairn Island than a larger Tokelau, I'm profoundly unsympathetic to the idea of a separatism motivated by a desire to escape punishment for felonies.
There is, true, a non-marginal exception. New Caledonia, the largest of these territories, does have by far the strongest separatist movement--concentrated on the Melanesian mnority--but it has moved rapidly towards self-government, with the 1998 Matignon Accords which began the process of establishing New Caledonia as autonomous and empowering the Kanaks, leading to the 1998 Nouméa Accord which made the territory domestically self-governing and kept only fundamental state powers like defense and justice under the control of Paris, with a referendum on independence planned for the late 2010s. Inasmuch as Kanaks are a minority population on New Caledonia, outnumbered by European and East Asian immigrants and their descendants, inasmuch as it's not clear that Kanaks themselves are united behind the goal of full independence from France, and inasmuch as those political parties and their representatives which favour continued union with France hold most of the seats in the local congress, a referendum outcome favouring autonomy within France seems most probable. New Caledonia has exercised, is exercising, and will exercise its right to self-determination with the goal of obtaining home rule; independence would be an imposition for a majority of the population.
Why are these countries on the list? The list began in reaction to the continued existence of Western colonial empires, whether of the European empires with their subject territories worldwide or the United States that had gained a slew of protectorates and insular territories in the Pacific and the Caribbean. All of those subject territories wanting independence have since gained their independence. A continued, mistaken, identity of these post-colonial polities with the last few remaining dependent territories--necessarily and voluntarily dependent territories--makes sense. Just as likely, and equally in reaction to the Western colonial past, is a continued desire to tweak the noses of the Western powers which once dominated the entire world. The sort of low level irritation of another country that produces minimal chances of blowback is popular. (China, that 2009 United Nations report reveals, announced its strong sympathy with the two million subjects on these lists.)
What countries are on the list now. As Hans notes, "[o]f the 15 jurisdictions listed by the UN Special Committee on Decolonization as Non-Self-Governing Territories, 14 are islands or archipelagoes."
Territory-Administration-Area (sq.km.)-Population
Western Sahara-266,000 (The only non-island on the list, centre of administration is in dispute and there is no date available for population)
Anguilla- United Kingdom- 96- 14,766
Bermuda- United Kingdom- 53- 68,265
British Virgin Islands- United Kingdom- 153- 24,939
Cayman Islands- United Kingdom- 260- 50,209
Falkland Islands (Malvinas)- United Kingdom- 11,961- 3,140
Montserrat- United Kingdom- 98- 5,118
St. Helena- United Kingdom- 122- 7,670
Turks and Caicos Islands- United Kingdom- 430- 23,528
United States Virgin Islands- United States- 340- 109,750
Gibraltar- United Kingdom- 6- 28,877
American Samoa- United States- 197- 66,432
Guam- United States- 549- 180,865
New Caledonia- France- 35,853- 252,352
Pitcairn- United Kingdom- 5- 48
Tokelau- New Zealand- 10- 1,400
Decolonization is a good idea; empire and hegemony corrupts everyone and everything they touch. (Hannah Arendt was so right.) The problem with 14 of the 15 territories included on this list is that the populations of these territories overwhelmingly do not define these territories as colonies and themselves as subjects, but rather as people who have developed the relationship with their metropole that they prefer. A 2009 United Nations report does point out that many of these territories do suffer from the effects of distance and dependence.
The report states that in addition to general problems facing developing countries, Non-Self-Governing Territories also suffer from the interplay of such factors as size, remoteness, geographical dispersion, vulnerability to natural disasters, fragility of ecosystems, constraints in transport and communications, distance from market centres, limited internal markets, lack of natural resources and vulnerability to drug-trafficking, money-laundering and other illegal activities, as well as from the current financial crisis. To address the specific problems of the remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories, the Special Committee will continue to recommend measures to facilitate sustained, balanced growth of their fragile economies and increased assistance in the development of all the sectors of their economies. It further intends to take into account economic and other activities that affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, and to continue its cooperation with interested States to ensure that the interests of the peoples of those Territories are protected.
But almost all of these conditions would remain for almost all of these territories after they became independent. Islands are inherently territories vulnerable to external shocks, whether to ecological shocks stemming from the relatively lack of biodiversity and the lack of a substantial territory to serve as a buffer for shocks, the constraints of small market size and extreme distance which make it difficult for these territories to be economically viable, and the relative lack of skilled labour (a combination of, among other things, brain drain and limited opportunities for education) that does leave the islands open to misadministration of any kind. How would Tokelau be served by becoming an independent microstate stranded in the middle of the Pacific Ocean? If anything, the loss of connections with metropoles--especially, but not only, subsidies in money and resources--would be dangerous. The populations of these island territories, too, exist only as a direct result of the actions of the metropole, creating these polities in the first place whether by importing local populations or by conquering locals; identities are intimately bound up with the metropoles.
There are marginal exceptions. Gibraltar and the Falklands, both British territories on the list, are on the list not because their populations want independence--the Gibraltarians voted massively against the idea of a condominium with Spain in 2002--but because these territories are subject to irredentist claims, whether by a Span that claims treaty rights transcend locally non-existent rights to self-determination, or by an Argentina that doesn't think the local populations has any claim to indigeneity. The legal prosecution of people on Pitcairn Island in response to what seemed to have been a tradition of institutionalized and endemic did lead some to talk of independence, but besides the far greater likely hood of dysfunctional independence on Pitcairn Island than a larger Tokelau, I'm profoundly unsympathetic to the idea of a separatism motivated by a desire to escape punishment for felonies.
There is, true, a non-marginal exception. New Caledonia, the largest of these territories, does have by far the strongest separatist movement--concentrated on the Melanesian mnority--but it has moved rapidly towards self-government, with the 1998 Matignon Accords which began the process of establishing New Caledonia as autonomous and empowering the Kanaks, leading to the 1998 Nouméa Accord which made the territory domestically self-governing and kept only fundamental state powers like defense and justice under the control of Paris, with a referendum on independence planned for the late 2010s. Inasmuch as Kanaks are a minority population on New Caledonia, outnumbered by European and East Asian immigrants and their descendants, inasmuch as it's not clear that Kanaks themselves are united behind the goal of full independence from France, and inasmuch as those political parties and their representatives which favour continued union with France hold most of the seats in the local congress, a referendum outcome favouring autonomy within France seems most probable. New Caledonia has exercised, is exercising, and will exercise its right to self-determination with the goal of obtaining home rule; independence would be an imposition for a majority of the population.
Why are these countries on the list? The list began in reaction to the continued existence of Western colonial empires, whether of the European empires with their subject territories worldwide or the United States that had gained a slew of protectorates and insular territories in the Pacific and the Caribbean. All of those subject territories wanting independence have since gained their independence. A continued, mistaken, identity of these post-colonial polities with the last few remaining dependent territories--necessarily and voluntarily dependent territories--makes sense. Just as likely, and equally in reaction to the Western colonial past, is a continued desire to tweak the noses of the Western powers which once dominated the entire world. The sort of low level irritation of another country that produces minimal chances of blowback is popular. (China, that 2009 United Nations report reveals, announced its strong sympathy with the two million subjects on these lists.)
