A “Best of Both Worlds”? Characterizations of Metropolitan Relationships by Non-Self-Governing Territory Representatives

Abstract

Long after the height of the global decolonization wave that swept the world in the decades following World War II, there still exists a number of smaller island territories around the world where the full political independence route has not been taken, but where constitutional ties to colonizing states have instead been retained. This has mainly been attributed to a range of observed relative benefits of staying affiliated with a larger, richer mainland metropole, often related to material gains, security, and citizenship. The status of affiliated territories has been described as offering a potential “best of both worlds”, combining such benefits with a degree of autonomy. At the same time, however, territory-metropole relationships have been found to frequently give rise to controversies and fears of re-colonization, and concerns related to identity and nation-building appear difficult to balance with development considerations. With the literature remaining divided about the merits of metropolitan affiliation, questions persist as to how contemporary territory-metropole relationships should be construed. Do they indeed constitute a “best of both worlds”, or are they better understood as (neo)colonial arrangements? While academic debates are ongoing with many, sometimes conflicting, arguments being made about this over the past decades, the perceptions of those living under such arrangements have rarely been directly considered. This article analyses the political arrangements in 15 non-self-governing (island) territories (NSGTs) from the experiences and voices of territory representatives themselves, as expressed in addresses to UN decolonization committees, to examine which of the perspectives and arguments put forward in the academic debates are validated, or challenged, by these characterizations of metropolitan affiliation.