By: Dionísio Babo Soares
When the United Nations Charter was adopted in 1945, the world pledged a new moral and legal order: the end of empire and the affirmation of the right of all peoples to self-determination. That promise reshaped the twentieth century, inspiring liberation movements and the birth of new states. However, eight decades on, the pledge remains incomplete. Ceremonies and declarations mark anniversaries, but too often they mask a persistent gap between rhetoric and reality.
The Unfinished Business of Self-Determination
Following UN General Assembly resolution 80/106, which proclaimed 14 December as the International Day against Colonialism in All Its Forms and Manifestations, honours the commitment made sixty-five years ago. The persistence of non-self-governing territories is not an abstract failure; it is a concrete injustice. Across regions, people remain subject to external administration, occupation, or political arrangements that deny them the whole exercise of their political will. Nevertheless, we are still debating and confronting the fact that many people are denied their rights to self-determination and freedom. The cases of Palestine and Western Sahara are emblematic: both represent long-standing, unresolved claims to self-determination that continue to generate human suffering, displacement, and political instability. Beyond these headline cases, other territories listed by the United Nations still await a definitive and democratic resolution of their status.
This unfinished business exposes a troubling double standard. The language of decolonization is invoked selectively, celebrated when it aligns with strategic interests, ignored when it does not. International law and multilateral institutions are sometimes treated as instruments of convenience rather than as consistent guarantors of rights. The result is a global order that proclaims universal principles while tolerating exceptions that perpetuate inequality.
Why Rhetoric Falls Short?
There are several reasons why the promise of decolonization has stalled for so many, namely geopolitical interest, legal and institutional weaknesses, economic dependence, and selected memory and historical amnesia.
- In terms of geopolitical Interests, the strategic alliances, military considerations, and access to resources can outweigh commitments to self-determination. When powerful states perceive a risk to their interests, international pressure for resolution weakens.
- In terms of Legal and Institutional Weaknesses, International mechanisms for enforcing decolonization are limited. Resolutions and declarations carry moral and political weight but lack consistent enforcement tools, leaving outcomes dependent on political will.
- In terms of the Economic Dependencies, Economic ties, and investment relationships can create incentives to preserve the status quo. External administrations or occupying powers may argue that change would disrupt economic stability, using development as a pretext to delay political resolution.
- There are also Selective Memory and Historical Amnesia symbolised by the narratives of colonial
Governments to justify continued control often rest on selective histories, claims of security, historical ties, or administrative continuity that obscure the rights and aspirations of the governed.
These dynamics combine to produce a pattern: principled language on stage, compromised action behind closed doors.
Timor-Leste as a Moral Benchmark.
Not all outcomes have been failures. The independence of Timor-Leste stands as a reminder that decolonization can be achieved when moral clarity, international solidarity, and political responsibility converge. After decades of struggle, the people of Timor-Leste secured their right to self-determination. In that process, the roles of Portugal and Indonesia, complex and fraught, ultimately included steps toward acknowledging responsibility and facilitating a transition. That challenging but constructive engagement offers a model: former administering powers can, and sometimes do, play a constructive role in resolving colonial legacies when they accept accountability and support genuine, democratic processes.
What True Decolonization Requires?
If the world is to honor the spirit of 1945, decolonization must be more than a mere ceremony. It requires:
- States and international institutions must consistently apply the principle of self-determination uniformly, resisting the temptation to pick and choose based on convenience.
- Former administering powers and occupying authorities should be expected to acknowledge and be accountable for their historical responsibilities, provide reparative measures where appropriate, and facilitate processes that enable free and fair expression of popular will.
- The UN and regional organizations should be empowered to monitor, mediate, and, where necessary, impose consequences to prevent indefinite limbo for people seeking self-determination.
- Decisions about status and future must be driven by the people who live under contested arrangements, not by external actors or geopolitical calculations.
- Civil society, diasporas, and states committed to human rights must maintain pressure and attention until unresolved cases are resolved justly.
A Moral and Practical Imperative
Decolonization is not merely a historical project; it is a continuing test of the international community’s integrity. Allowing exceptions to the principle of self-determination corrodes the legitimacy of international law and fuels cycles of grievance and instability. Conversely, completing the work of decolonization would not only rectify historical wrongs but also strengthen global norms, reduce drivers of conflict, and affirm the dignity of people long denied agency.
The anniversary of the UN Charter should not be an occasion for complacent celebration. It should be a summons to action: to finish the work begun in 1945, to hold accountable those who obstruct it, and to stand with the peoples whose futures remain unresolved. Anything less is not commemoration: it is complicity.
* This opinion is personal and does not bind the institutions the writer is affiliated with.
