course, even if the political leadership of some territories has acknowledged the inevitability of independence, the territories are still projected as not having indicated an interest in independence. There are also the attempts to further limit the options for the territories to either immediate independence, or continued 'modernized' dependency status. The U.K. , for example, decided around 2003 that it would no longer offer the option of free association. CAR But what's wrong with free association? Didn't the U.K. invent it with the West Indies Associated States in the 1980s? CGC I suppose that the British model was one of the first, if not the first model of free association in modern times, certainly for island dependencies. The British have argued since 2003, however, that free association, as they see it, contains contingent liabilities whereby they would have responsibilities without what they perceive as the necessary administrative controls. CAR That doesn't quite sound like free association to me ---- CGC Indeed. This projection of free association implies that it is simply another form of dependency status. But there are no such 'contingent liabilities' under a true free association model which can be fashioned in a variety of ways as long as it meets the internationally recognized minimum standards of political equality as defined by the U.N. General Assembly in its Resolution 1541 (XV). This obviates any unilateral authority of the larger country which would be in association with a smaller one. Free association is on the basis of political equality,