Scotland and the United Nations, an unlikely path to independence

There has been some pushback online from Liberation Scotland/Salvo supporters about the comment I made in my previous piece about the UK employing its veto as a permanent member of the UN Security Council in order to block any potential UN resolution demanding the decolonisation of Scotland should Liberation Scotland/Salvo succeed in their bid to have Scotland recognised by the UN as a non self-governing territory. So I thought it might be useful to look more into the issue and to see if it would indeed provide a pathway to independence and by-pass the current constitutional logjam. While any attempt to publicise Scottish independence on the international stage is to be welcomed, the short answer is no, this initiative is unlikely to bring independence any closer.

This is not the first time that attempts have been made to involve the United Nations in the campaign for Scottish independence. In 1980, a group called “Scotland-UN” submitted a “Claim of Right to Self-Determination” to the United Nations, advocating for Scotland’s independence. This claim was rooted in the idea of Scotland’s inherent right to self-governance and the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. In 1981 the group made an attempt to appeal to the United Nations Educational Social and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) to ensure the return of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland. However although members of UNESCO’s special committee to ensure the return of objects of national cultural interest to their home countries expressed considerable sympathy with Scotland-UN’s case, they made it clear that they were not willing to interfere in what they considered an internal UK matter.

None of the many submissions made to the UN on Scotland’s behalf by Scotland-UN over the course of the group’s more than twenty five years of activity proved to be successful. It’s unlikely that Salvo will do any better.

Particular issue was taken with the point I made about the potential use of the UK’s veto. It is indeed true that the UK’s veto cannot be deployed to block the granting of status as a non self-governing territory by the United Nations’ Special Committee on Decolonialisation, the committee operates independently of the Security Council.

However the crucial issue here is that the UN can only take action following the designation of a territory as non self-governing – which in the case of Scotland would presumably entail the UN demanding that the UK to do something about bringing about an independence referendum – by passing a resolution which could then be vetoed or ignored by the UK. Failing such subsequent additional action by the United Nations, the designation of a territory as non self-governing is symbolic, and by itself does nothing to put that territory on a pathway to independence. Some territories have been on the list of non self-governing territories since  the foundation of the UN in 1946, yet are no closer to independence.

It should also be noted that countries can and do ignore UN resolutions, the UN lacks effective means of enforcing its resolutions. Israel has repeatedly ignored UN resolutions related to the conflict with Palestinians, by some counts it’s as many as 91. Israel’s repeated flouting of UN resolutions is a stark warning that the UN does not possess power to force a state to obey. Russia has ignored UN resolutions by procuring weapons from North Korea and Iran to use in Ukraine.

Being recognised by the United Nations as a non self-governing territory is not a magic bullet which would deliver independence or even a pathway to independence to Scotland. In practice nothing would change. It could be argued that Scotland being granted such a status might create political pressure on the UK, but with nothing to back that up, and with the current polling for independence, the UK could easily ignore it. This is Westminster we are talking about, it’s not like it’s susceptible to being shamed. It is not true, as some have argued, that as the colonial power the UK cannot veto a resolution of the General Assembly demanding steps are taken to decolonise.

The UK, the colonial power, vetoed six resolutions on Rhodesia between 1970 and 1973.

In 1976, France – the colonial power, vetoed a UN resolution demanding the decolonisation of the Comoros Islands including the island of Mayotte, where France had held a controversial referendum which resulted in Mayotte voting to become an integral part of France. Mayotte remains a French territory, one of France’s overseas departments.

Being recognised as a non self governing territory by the UN does not by itself do anything to bring about independence. That would require further action by the UN, which could be vetoed or ignored by the UK.

French Polynesia has been listed as a non-self governing territory by the UN since 2013, having previously been de-listed in 1947. No independence referendum has been held and there are no current plans to hold one, despite the existence of an active local independence movement.

The British overseas territory of the Cayman Islands has been recognised as a non-self governing territory since 1946. The territory was administered as a part of the colony of Jamaica but became a colony in its own right in 1959 as Jamaica moved towards independence. There has never been an independence referendum and there are no plans for one.

American Samoa has also been recognised as a non self-governing territory since 1946. There have been periodic proposals for its unification with the former Western Samoa which was a British Trust territory administered by New Zealand until it achieved independence in 1962, however nothing has ever come of these attempts and there remains limited interest in the idea in American Samoa despite its close cultural, historic and linguistic ties with independent Samoa.

The key point is that being listed as a non-self governing territory by the UN does not by itself help the territory to progress to independence.

So what are the chances of Salvo/Liberation Scotland achieving a symbolic and moral victory by having Scotland added to the UN list of non self-governing territories? Unfortunately these do not look promising either.

All the territories currently recognised as non self-governing are geographically far distant from the colonising power and none are integral parts of the colonising state. The UN is relectant to add new territories to the list, even when the argument that the territory is a non self-governing colony is overwhelming and the case is presented by an organisation widely accepted as the main independence organisation in the territory.

An attempt by West Papuan leader Benny Wenda to have West Papua’s case heard by the special committee on decolonisation was rebuffed in 2017. Wenda is a West Papuan independence leader and Chairman of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua, the main pro-independence organisation in West Papua. He currently lives in exile in the United Kingdom. In 2003 he was granted political asylum by the British government following his escape from custody while on trial. Wenda had been arrested and placed on trial in 2002 for leading a procession of people in an independence rally. He was facing a possible sentence of 25 years in jail. Theys Eluay, the previous leader of the West Papuan independence movement, was murdered by the Indonesian military in 2001.

West Papua was a Dutch colony which was annexed by neighbouring Indonesia in 1962 despite Dutch attempts to prepare it for independence in its own right. The population of West Papua is culturally, linguistically, religiously, and racially distinct from the rest of the Indonesian population, having far more in common with the people of the independent state of Papua New Guinea which occupies the eastern half of the massive island of New Guinea.

In 1969 Indonesia organised a ‘referendum’ amongst 1,026 hand picked village elders who were bribed, threatened and cajoled into voting to ratify the Indonesian annexation. Since annexation, Indonesia has exploited West Papua’s natural resources and embarked upon a government organised campaign of resettling hundreds of thousands of people from the over-populated islands of Java and Madura, displacing the native Papuans. West Papua is being colonised by Indonesia in the most literal sense of the term. Political activity amongst the Papuans is severely repressed by the Indonesian government and campaigning for independence carries the risk of arrest, imprisonment, and physical assault or death at the hands of the Indonesian security services. The Indonesian occupation is marked by severe repression and military action against Papuan villages.

West Papua is unarguably a colony if the word is to have any meaning, nevertheless the UN’s special committee on decolonisation refused to hear a petition signed by 1.8 million West Papuans, almost half of the indigenous population – many of whom risked arrest and persecution in order to sign- and smuggled out of the territory. Committee chair Rafael Darío Ramírez Carreño of Venezuela said that the committee could only deal with the 17 territories that had already been identified as non-self-governing territories by the UN.

As West Papua proves, having a strong, even unimpeachable, case for colonial status is no guarantee of recognition by the UN as a non self-governing territory. It and its independence movement are subject to a degree of violence and state repression which are incomparable to Scotland, which enjoys freedom of assembly and the free political expression of the campaign for Scottish independence. Scotland endures nothing like the violent suppression and military campaigns which occur in West Papua.

Given this background, Salvo’s and Liberation Scotland’s chances of success in getting Scotland’s case accepted by the UN seem slight at best. The most likely outcome of Salvo’s appeal to the UN is that the UN will simply refuse to engage with it. We have seen this before with attempts to involve the UN in Scotland’s independence debate.

However, as pointed out above, being recognised as a non self-governing territory by the UN does not in itself assist that territory to progress to independence. Even in the unlikely event that Salvo/Liberation Scotland were successful in their bid, Scottish independence would not be brought any closer. Of the 17 territories referenced by Rafael Ramírez Carreño, no less than 14 have been recognised by the UN as non self-governing since the foundation of the UN in 1946, almost eighty years ago. They are still no nearer to independence. Only one of them, New Caledonia, has an agreed pathway to independence, a pathway which owes little to UN intervention but considerably more to attempts by France to contain continuing political violence and disorder in New Caledonia.

There is no magic legal bullet which will deliver Scottish independence. We are where we are because we live in a country where a desire for independence is not – yet – the settled will of the people. A declaration from the UN that Scotland is a non-self governing territory will not suddenly make those Scots who are uncertain about independence change their minds. It’s not the United Nations which needs to be persuaded of the case for Scottish independence. It’s the people of Scotland themselves.

_________________________________________________

I’ve added a new method to make supporting my work easier, you can now donate via Ko-fi

Or click the following link https://ko-fi.com/weegingerdug

Having abandoned Twitter I will be actively posting on BlueSky from now on. You can find me at https://bsky.app/profile/weegingerdug.bsky.social follow me there and I will generally follow back.

Source