-
11. Determination not by the “Self ”, but by the "Other"
- LANGAA RPCIG
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Chapter Eleven Determination not by the “Self”, but by the “Other” Decolonisation of the Third World occupied a major part of the activities of the United Nations during the first three decades of its existence. The decolonisation efforts of the UN derived from (i) Chapters XI, XII and XIII of its Charter devoted to the interests of dependent peoples, and (ii) two distinct but interrelated rights under international law, the equal rights of peoples, and the right of self-determination of peoples.1 Since 1960 the UN has also been guided in its decolonisation efforts by the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples2 by which UN Member States proclaimed the necessity of bringing colonialism to a speedy end. The UN was thus able to use self-determination as the basis for decolonisation even before the normative status of that principle became generally recognised. Self-determination quickly became the battle cry of colonial peoples in their struggle for independence. While some colonial territories achieved independence consensually others did so through armed struggle.3 In the vast majority of cases of consensual decolonisation4 sovereignty was simply transferred to the new state and devolution agreements providing for the inheritance of certain treaties were concluded between the departing colonial power and the new state. In a few cases of consensual decolonisation the plebiscite procedure was employed for the purpose of ascertaining the wishes of the people of the colonial territory on the question of independence. One example is the popular consultation organised by Belgium in the Trust Territory of Ruanda-Urundi, the outcome of which was the division of the territory into two, one half achieving independence as the Republic of Rwanda and the other as the Republic of Burundi. The UN itself used the plebiscite in some cases to ascertain the freely expressed wish of a given population,5 whenever it was satisfied that the population in question constituted a people within the meaning of the legal right to self-determination.6 It appeared therefore that the plebiscite was considered a legitimate method of the exercise of that right.7 170 Betrayal of Too Trusting a People More often than not the exercise of that right resulted in the establishment of a sovereign independent state. It was not the case though that independence had always to be the result of the exercise of the right. In terms of relevant United Nations resolutions, termination of colonial status may result in any of the following political status options: (i) independence, (ii) internal autonomy within a freely formed association, (iii) integration in an independent state, or (iv) emergence into any other political status freely determined by the people.8 It therefore stands to reason that to be meaningful a self-determination plebiscite has to avail the people concerned with all the above-mentioned political status options. Whenever independence has been included among the available options, the people concerned have invariably opted for it. A free and informed choice from the various options would amount to a full exercise of the right to self-determination and would result in complete decolonisation. Dependent status (annexation, occupation, or recolonisation) cannot possibly be a permissible mode of implementing the right to self-determination. If a colonial territory is transferred to another state for occupation, annexation or colonisation de novo it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said that the territory in question has thereby been decolonised. The termination of colonial status, even where it results in integration with an independent state, must, at the very minimum, result in autonomy or internal self-government for the territory in question.9 The “decolonisation” of the Southern Cameroons is a compelling case study of a self-determination process marred throughout by serious defects and controversy, to the extent that any informed person would readily argue that the exercise was so deeply flawed that it never resulted in the real decolonisation of the territory. The plebiscite in the Southern Cameroons did not avail the people of the territory with all the political status options provided in relevant United Nations resolutions on decolonisation. The so-called “two alternatives” were not alternative status options. There was only one political status option: dependent status The people of the Southern Cameroons were simply required to choose between becoming a dependency of either of its two neighbours, Cameroun Republic or Nigeria The idea of “two alternatives” was thus a [54.84.65.73] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 07:22 GMT) 171...