-
12. The ‘Independence by Joining’ Hoax
- LANGAA RPCIG
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Chapter Twelve The ‘Independence by Joining’ Hoax The plebiscite questions, phrased in extremely vague and misleading terms, raised enormous problems of interpretation as to their intended meaning. Specifically, the following two expressions, “to achieve independence” and “by joining”, were not altogether clear. They called for elucidation. Ordinarily, a territory achieves independence when it is politically free or emancipated; that is to say, when it is no longer politically dependent on or controlled by some other country. It becomes its own master, responsible for its own internal and external affairs and for its own destiny. When a territory becomes independent it is sometimes described as “independent and sovereign”. The word sovereign emphasises supreme authority and means that the state, subject to the confines laid down by international law, has full competence or liberty to act within its four walls and also outside its borders in the intercourse with other states. The word independence signifies that the State is subject to no other earthly authority. Practically, independence and sovereignty mean one and the same thing because both concepts exclude dependence upon any other authority, in particular from the authority of another state. So when the question, ‘Do you wish to achieve independence?’, is asked as indeed the plebiscite questions were framed, this is apt rightly to be construed as meaning, ‘Do you wish to be politically free, having exclusive power to control your own affairs?’ If the question had ended at that there would have been no problem of comprehension. But the matter was obfuscated by the addition of the following group of words “by joining the independent…”, and by such turns of phrases as ‘separate independence’, ‘full independence’ and ‘full measure of self-government’ frequently used at the UN at the time. What does “by joining” mean? A colonial territory may choose to unite with another colonial territory to form one country and to achieve independence as such. For example, the Trust Territory of Togoland under British Administration united with the Gold Coast, a Non-Self 192 Betrayal of Too Trusting a People Governing Territory also under British rule, in May 1956, and ten months later, in March 1957, the united entity achieved independence under the name Ghana. The Trust Territory of New Guinea, administered by Australia, united with the Non-Self Governing Territory of Papua, also administered by Australia, and in 1975 the united entity achieved independence as Papua New Guinea. But how does a colonial territory achieve independence “by joining” a sovereign independent state? Can there be anything like independence by dependence? A sovereign independent state enjoys international personality. It has defined borders. The borders of a colonial territory ossify at the moment of its attainment of independence. State borders are, of course, not immutable and may be altered under circumstances permissible in international law. Nevertheless, a colonial territory that ‘joins’ an independent state without proper safeguards as to self-government for the territory becomes merely additional territory for that state. When that happens, the colonial territory in question could perhaps technically be described as having become ‘independent’ by dint of its absorption by the independent state. Yet it is beyond doubt that the dependent status of the absorbed territory remains unchanged. In strictly legal terms there has simply been succession to territory. In fact, such a situation is hardly distinguishable from that of transfer of colonial territory. The only difference is that the classic transfer case is a unilateral act of the colonial power whereas here the act has a veneer of ‘consent’ by the inhabitants of the colonial territory. That is why some jurists have argued that the plebiscitary formula may be used as a method of transfer of territory. Also, where a colonial territory opts for integration into its parent state the effect of that option is simply to confirm the status quo. However, constitutional adjustments are then made to accommodate the formal incorporation. In either case (whether absorption or integration) there is acquisition of territory by the independent state. For example, by act of self-determination of the people of the tiny Cocos-Keeling Island (area: 5½ sq. mi; pop: about 650 inhabitants) in December 1984, duly supervised by a UN mission, and later approved by the General Assembly, the people voted for formal integration with (that is, to become part of) Australia, which hitherto was that Island’s parent State. Australia thereby gained additional territory and population, however small. [34.236.152.203] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 10:13 GMT) 193 The ‘Independence...