Search

This appendix provides summary information and a few key references on the specific territories covered in this book. They are listed under the names of the administering powers in alphabetical order. The information has been compiled from a variety of sources, including the works listed here and in the endnotes, as well as The Europa World Year Book 1996 (London, 1996) and The Statesman's Year-Book (London, 1996). Also of use are the various annual reports issued by territorial governments and other official publications. Bibliographical Note On the British overseas territories, the only comprehensive academic account is George Drower, Britain's Dependent Territories: A Fistful of Islands (Aldershot, 1992); a very readable account of ‘journeys to the surviving relics of the British Empire’ by a journalist is Simon Winchester, Outposts (London, 1985). A more impressionistic account of six Atlantic and Caribbean territories is Harry Ritchie, The Last Pink Bits (London, 1997). On the French possessions, Robert Aldrich and John Connell, France's Overseas Frontier: Départements et Territoires d'Outre-Mer (Cambridge, 1992), is the most comprehensive volume in English; Helen M. Hintjens, Alternatives to Independence (Aldershot, 1995), concentrates on the four overseas départements and places them in a wider context. There are several studies in French. Recent ones include Gérard Belorgey and Geneviève Bertrand, Les DOM-TOM (Paris, 1994); Jean-Luc Mathieu, Les DOM-TOM (Paris, 1988); and Dominique Ghisoni, Wassissi Iopué and Camille Rabin (eds), Ces Iles que l'on dit françaises (Paris, 1988); older, but still important, is J.-C. Guillebaud, Les Confettis de l'empire (Paris, 1976). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The actual liquidation of the remnants of empire will mark the end of an era. It should improve the chances for a more stable and peaceful world. In recent decades various books and numerous articles have examined the political evolution of Britain's colony of Hong Kong, as it moved closer towards reintegration with China in 1997. Several revived themes of the ‘last colony’ and the end of empire. H. A. Turner, in The Last Colony: But Whose?, whilst recognising that a number of British colonies remained, stressed that ‘Hong Kong is by far the most lustrous jewel of the once-Imperial Crown's otherwise residual adornments, and one whose economic light bid fair to outshine its nominal possessor's.’ Beyond Hong Kong, other enduring colonies were regarded as of no political or economic significance, distant and quaint relics of Britain's imperial past. Except when a crisis propelled them to the front page of daily newspapers, as happened when Argentina attacked the Falkland Islands in 1982, they were simply ignored. Whilst the actual political status of ‘colonies’ is subject to dispute, there remain a substantial number of distinct territories – not least Macao, just west of Hong Kong – that are far from being independent, sovereign states. Though the changing status of Hong Kong has intermittently focused attention on surviving outposts of the British empire, other developed nations – the United States, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Australia and New Zealand – also have distant territories that remain, in some way, politically dependent on the metropolitan power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mixed rationales accompanied early colonial endeavours, from the quest for grandeur and a global presence to the profitability that was, for some, the crux of empire. This economic rationale has outweighed other reasons to those who have sought decolonisation and opposed exploitation. Yet in every region, every period, and at every scale, the extent to which the colonies proved profitable has been contentious. Much evidence suggests that contemporary overseas territories have tended to be an economic cost to the colonial powers, most obviously in recent times. Nonetheless, varied geographies – in terms of the size, location of territories and distribution of various natural resources – histories and cultures have made general conclusions over the economic significance of empire difficult. Over time, as colonial powers occupied smaller and more distant places, the economic rationale for empire became exceptionally weak. In the South Pacific, for example, the French bid for New Caledonia in the 1850s was greeted in Australia with uninterest. Australia was a vast continent still to be finally explored and conquered, and such small islands were of little consequence. Britain took over the Gilbert and Ellice Islands (Kiribati and Tuvalu) without competition from other metropolitan powers; colonialism was a matter of duty rather than the acquisition of a valuable area, in either economic or strategic terms. There was little wealth or grandeur in this distant fragment of empire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]