Decolonization at the UNGA: Algeria and Puerto Rico

Weeks after comedian Tony Hinchcliffe called Puerto Rico “a floating island of garbage” at Donald Trump’s October 2024 rally,¹ a majority of the island’s voters cast their ballots in favor of becoming a U.S. state in the territory’s seventh status referendum. Voting to join a country whose people insult you and your land during presidential campaign rallies may seem illogical, but it speaks to the complicated political, economic, and social history between Puerto Rico and the United States—a history that has been both influenced by and the subject of United Nations discussions regarding self-determination.

The United Nations formalized self-determination as an international legal norm at its founding in 1945, but to whom self-determination applies and the method by which peoples and nations exercise it is not universal. In the years following World War II, many previous colonies and territories declared independence from their colonial regimes, utilizing self-determination as an all-encompassing force for anticolonialism. In 1960, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted Resolution 1514, “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,” cementing the UN as a top destination for anticolonial leaders to claim their legitimacy. However, major imperial powers at the time abstained from voting on the resolution, including the United States, which abstained at the behest of the United Kingdom despite being expected to support the resolution. This brief essay first looks at the methods used at the UN to support or fight against decolonization movements, using the historical case of Algerian independence. Then, it will discuss the modern case of the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States in the context of self-determination arguments at the UN.

Between 1955 and 1961, the question of Algerian independence from the French empire was discussed extensively at the UNGA, laying groundwork for future anticolonial, anti-imperial movements. Sadia Saeed identifies the discourse surrounding Algerian independence to have fallen along two lines: anticolonial internationalist discourse and metrocentric civilizational discourse.² The former utilizes universalist principles to critique across empires and reject the admissibility and legitimacy of imperialism, while the latter attempts to justify imperial projects as beneficial for societal development. In the Algerian case, many newly established states banded together at the UN to advocate for the Algerian independence movement. By contrast, many established empires and French allies stood up for France when it boycotted UN sessions discussing the Algerian question. The debate over Algerian independence at the UN was also unique as Algeria gained independence despite the French military decisively “crushing” the Algerian opposition, the Front de libération nationale (FLN).³ As such, the UNGA was solidified as a “critical site in the international delegitimization of European colonial empires,” even when the empires were financially and militarily more powerful.⁴ Since Algeria, many other groups have used the UN as a platform to advocate for self-determination, with one of the most visible examples in the United States being the case of Puerto Rico.

Puerto Ricans have been citizens of the United States since 1917 and are permitted to move between the two territories freely. However, unless they live in a U.S. state, they are not permitted to vote in federal elections, despite paying U.S. federal taxes (albeit, not federal personal income tax). The political status of Puerto Rico is a topic of much debate, though previous plebiscites designed to gauge Puerto Rican opinion on their ideal relationship with the United States have seen minimal turnout for a variety of reasons. The 2017 vote—which saw a 23 percent participation rate of eligible voters—was criticized for inconsistent options and allegedly biased ballot language, while the 2020 vote only asked whether Puerto Ricans wanted to seek statehood or not.⁵ Even with a more direct question, only about half of eligible voters participated, making it difficult to assess the implications and legitimacy of the outcome when 52 percent voted for statehood and nearly 48 percent voted against statehood. Most recently, in the November 2024 elections, Puerto Ricans were given the option to vote for statehood, independence, or free association with the United States. 56.8 percent of voters voted for statehood, with the other options receiving 30.9 percent and 12.3 percent of the votes, respectively. While the final numbers have yet to be published, it is estimated that nearly 2 million people were eligible to participate, but according to Puerto Rico’s State Election Commission, less than half of those eligible voted in the plebiscite.⁶ The plebiscites in Puerto Rico serve as one of many steps toward decolonization and self-determination, but it is not the only arena in which Puerto Ricans can express their social, economic, and political ideals.

Since its inception, the UN has served as a forum for discussions and programs regarding colonialism and anticolonialism. The topic of Puerto Rico’s relationship with the United States was central in last year’s meeting of the UN Special Committee on Decolonization, a committee that was created by the UN General Assembly in 1961 to monitor the implementation of Resolution 1514. On June 20, 2023, the Committee approved a draft resolution to be submitted to the UNGA to reaffirm “the inalienable right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination and independence,” and urged the United States to move forward in promoting “a process to those ends.”⁷ The draft resolution also called for removal of U.S. military forces from the territory and points to the excessive control over the economic and political situations in Puerto Rico. Similar to the transnational support for Algerian independence, many states spoke in favor of the resolution: representatives from Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Syria, Iran, and Azerbaijan all rose in support of Puerto Rico’s right to self-determination and sovereign decision-making. Each state called for the end of U.S. colonial measures in Puerto Rico, noting that social and economic conditions in the territory were breaking down and that the U.S. was preventing development of Puerto Rican society.

In addition to the explicit discussion of Puerto Rico’s case in 2023, the UN Special Political and Decolonization Committee recently approved an amendment to Resolution 1654 (originally adopted in 1961, Resolution 1654 discusses the implementation of Resolution 1514). On October 17, 2024, many of the same states that supported the 2023 draft resolution on Puerto Rico supported an amendment to Resolution 1654 that replaces “all others that may be or may have been affected by colonialism in all its forms and manifestations” with “other territories that have not yet attained independence in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and subsequent United Nations resolutions on decolonization.”⁸ Previously, Resolution 1514 (and therefore 1654 as well) has focused on the Non-Self-Governing Territories—NSGTs, a specific UN category—but this language would expand the reach of the resolutions to any territory “that [has] not yet attained independence.” In parallel with the French attitude toward Algeria in the twentieth century, the United States abstained from the vote because the resolution “opens up for interpretation the status of many locations,” potentially including Puerto Rico, which was removed from the NSGTs list in 1952.⁹ Many U.S. allies also voiced concern over the amendments, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Spain, Portugal, and Australia, all of which either were or are imperial powers in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

As the case of Algeria shows, the UN can serve as an effective site for countries to build alliances and hold discussions to enact change on an international level. What made the Algerian case so strong is the internal alliance on independence; the July 1962 referendum saw 99.72 percent of voters choose independence. As the case for Puerto Rican decolonization—whether it be statehood, independence, or another option—gathers increasing international and domestic attention, the UN should ensure that it creates an open and fair space for discussion, especially seeing that the plebiscites in Puerto Rico are non-binding for the U.S. government (only Congress has the ability to change the political status of Puerto Rico in relation to the United States). In the case of the UN, fair should not equate to equally sized and weighted platforms, as historical power and influence disproportionately favors imperial powers. Moving forward, it is critical that the UN do two things: give Puerto Ricans and their allies a safe platform to voice their perspectives, and pressure the United States to recognize Puerto Ricans’ right to self-determination, as outlined in the UN Charter.

—Eliana Johnson

Eliana Johnson is an MA candidate at The Fletcher School at Tufts University concentrating on human security and international development. Before Fletcher, she worked in Washington, DC researching Russian and Chinese international business. She received her BA in global studies and political science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.