Len,

>Re: Monaco & Vatican; the concept of their not "truly" independent is
>an odd thing for your to write when you are supporting a position that
>former colonies and commonwealth nations of the UK are independent
>even though their independence, too, is qualified by commonwealth ties
>and is often the result of treaties.

France has long considered micro-states, especially those with special
taxation arrangements, to be anomalies. In the case of Monaco, they have
leaned very heavily (rightly or wrongly) on the principality over the
years, and as a result it has signed at least two treaties that give France
significant control over its affairs. One of these treaties threatens its
entire existence as an sovereign state.

Yes, it's true to say that there are many examples of big countries
exerting political and economic influence over smaller countries, but even
the likes of Luxembourg and Iceland are free to choose their own policies
and frequently do. That's of course assuming that they're not invaded, but
I would say that's a different issue!

Going back to the Commonwealth countries, it's worth iterating that they're
totally independent of the UK, although there are of course still many
cultural and sporting connections. Besides the fact that more than half of
the member nations are actually republics or have local monarchs, the ones
with a common head of state (i.e. the Queen) could unilaterally decide to
change this arrangement at any time. The UK does not have to consent to
constitutional change within another Commonwealth country, for example when
Fiji declared itself a republic in the 1980s. I believe the US has similar
arrangements with some of the former UN Trust Territories.

>No nation state is "truly independent" so long as they have sovereign
>neighbors impinging upon their maneuverability.

I would agree that it's a matter of perception, in the same way that you
can approach boundary measurement in different ways ;-)

Regards,

Kevin Meynell