Sovereignty and Obstacles

In the Pacific Islands today, there are twelve independent countries in Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand). Most of these twelve countries were once colonies of various world powers. Through decolonization, they all became independent and are now sovereign countries. Like self-determination, sovereignty is another word that is often used in international politics.

For example, we see the importance of sovereignty brought up in discussing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Former US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken told the Ukrainians that the US would stand by their side until their sovereignty is guaranteed. From Ukraine to Palestine, much blood has been spilled by those seeking to protect the sovereignty of their homeland. What is it about sovereignty that makes people fight to the death?

Traditional sovereignty can be defined as “the ability of a country to have independent freedom of action without external interference,” and “the ability of a country to shape its own destiny within the international arena.” ³ To put it another way, a country has sovereignty when it can make its own laws and rules within its territorial boundaries without external interference. While this is never truly the case, as the world is globalized and different countries are more powerful than others, possessing sovereignty (or having others recognize you as having sovereignty) is important. It helps protect a country’s place in the world and provide obstacles to others exercising unrestrained power over them.

Furthermore, in Indigenous and Pacific Islands studies, sovereignty refers to Indigenous peoples’ ability to govern themselves. Indigenous sovereignty envisions and imagines a different way of living that does not necessarily prioritize becoming one’s own country. Rather, it means having control of their way of life and being able to govern this way of life, free from colonial control.

For example, despite their size difference, a country like China or the US is not supposed to be able to tell other countries how to craft their electoral systems or their education systems. While countries have ways of influencing each other, being recognized as having sovereignty is a buffer against unwanted intrusion. The Pacific Islanders in those twelve countries have exercised their right to self-determination and have become sovereign countries today.

Yet, there are still places in the world, such as the US territories of Guåhan (Guam) and American Sāmoa, that belong to a list of places globally acknowledged as not yet exercising their right to self-determination. According to the United Nations, these kinds of territories are called non-self-governing territories (NSGT). A NSGT can be defined as a territory “whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.” ⁴

In the same year that Resolution 1514 was passed, the UN also passed Resolution 1541, which outlined different methods for a colony to reach a “full measure of self-government.” ⁵ In doing so, the UN provided various paths for decolonization. These three paths were: emergence as a sovereign state (independence), free association with an independent state, or integration with an independent state (for example, a US territory becoming a full US state). All of these paths were deemed as options that would allow countries to have full political equality as long as they were chosen through democratic processes and represent the expressed wishes of the people of the territory.

As of 2025, there are seventeen places left on this list. These non-self-governing territories are controlled by colonial powers, known as “administering powers.” Thus, the remaining countries in the world who the international community recognizes as essentially still having colonies are the US, the United Kingdom, France, and New Zealand.

It is important to note that the places on the list of non-self-governing territories has reduced immensely. While this appears to be a good trend, the problem emerges when one looks at the places that were taken off the NSGT list. For example, in 1960 there were seventy-two NSGTs, by 1970 there were forty-five, and by 1990 there were only roughly eighteen left. From 1990 to the present, only two places have been taken off the list.

Scholars refer to the period from 1990 to the present as the decolonization stagnation period. According to Carlyle Corbin, the present can be defined as the repetition of a process without implementation or accountability, which results in no actions being taken. It is not surprising that most of these remaining seventeen places on the NSGT list are islands located in the Caribbean or the Pacific Islands. Ultimately, this means that the political decolonization process in the Pacific Islands is incomplete. There are multiple reasons for this situation, such as fear of change and geopolitics.

For some NSGTs, there simply is not a coordinated effort or desire to change their political statuses. While many NSGTs will fight for political improvements, not all are united in their quest to become independent, freely associated with, or fully integrated into another country. From worries of economic decline to a lack of belief that they could govern themselves, these territories have what can be called a “dependency legitimation” mindset among some islanders. At the root of this mindset is a fear of change in their status. This will be explored much further in the next module when we talk about decolonization of the mind.

However, for those that desire a change in their political statuses, including active decolonization movements in places like Guåhan, Maohi Nui (French Polynesia), and Kanaky (New Caledonia), efforts are often blocked by colonial powers for multiple reasons. Returning to our last module, geopolitics is a key reason used to halt decolonization efforts.

As historian Stewart Firth once wrote, “Generally, the greater the strategic value of an island territory, the less likely that territory has been able to proceed to sovereign status. The map of Pacific Islands sovereignty has been drawn largely according to the strategic needs of external states.” ⁶ If Guåhan decolonized, then the US would lose its ability to do what it wants without permission on the island. If Kanaky decolonized, then France would lose a place that produces 25 percent of the world’s nickel. Great powers who deem an island to have strategic value will do what they can to hold onto their control of those places.

The sad reality of incomplete decolonization in the Pacific is that there are places that were either taken off the list of NSGTs too early without full political equality or that were never put on the list to begin with (as putting colonies on the NSGT list was a largely voluntary act).

One such example is West Papua, which was taken off the list in the 1960s. It is located on the eastern half of the island of New Guinea, which also consists of the independent country of Papua New Guinea. Once part of the Netherlands along with Indonesia, it remained part of the Netherlands while the rest of Indonesia became independent. The new country wanted to control West Papua and invaded the territory. In the 1962 New York Agreement, Indonesia would gain control of West Papua, and in 1969 there was an “Act of Free Choice” to determine the future of the territory. Indonesia interfered with this vote and chose only 1022 West Papuans to vote on behalf of their 800,000 people, leading to a vote favoring “integration with Indonesia.”

The reality today is that West Papuans are not only continuing to fight for their independence, but they are also facing a genocide, with nearly 500,000 West Papuans believed to have been killed. West Papuans rightfully argue that the “Act of Free Choice” was not an actual exercise of self-determination.

Another example is Maohi Nui. The islands were taken off the list in 1947, as France generally did not want international oversight of their colonies. However, in 2013, the UN passed a resolution to place French Polynesia on the NSGT list. The resolution was largely sponsored by fellow Pacific Islands such as Solomon Islands, Nauru, and Tuvalu. This means that the islands are now recognized as not yet having exercised their right to self-determination and thus can transition to a political status that reaches a full measure of self-government.

Being on this list brings international oversight and international legitimation of a place’s non-self-governing status. As church leaders in Maohi Nui said, “The reinscription of Maohi Nui on this list constitutes one way to protect the people from decisions and initiatives of the French State that are contrary to their interests.” ⁷ Thus, there is now a pathway for Maohi Nui to move forward that is not yet available to West Papua.

Overall, the future of decolonization in the Pacific is hard to predict. There are many obstacles to decolonization that must be faced. One thing that is clear is that completing decolonization will largely require using the political processes outlined in international law. Even if this system is not perfect, it represents a component of political decolonization that cannot be ignored. Despite the flaws of international law, the Pacific Islands strive to use every process and avenue available to them. In Module Five, we will discuss another critical component to complete decolonization: the revitalization of culture and language.