The restriction of future status options to independence was not, however, compatible with freedom of choice. Relevant United Nations resolutions, including General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), expressly identified free association, along with integration and independence, as forms of self-government. Free association might, moreover, serve either as a permanent status or as an interim step to either independence or a closer association. There was no fixed model for free association; it was the nature of that status that in each case the associated States themselves freely defined the nature of the relationship. 16. Free association as defined in the compacts was in fact based upon a very considerable degree of autonomy. The compacts would recoqnize the authority of the Micronesian States with respect to all four criteria normally cited for statehood: a defined territory; a distinct population; a government with substantial control over that population and territory; and the capacity to engage in foreign relations. The freely associated States would thus in fact be sovereign States, although not independent. 17. The United States representative pointed out that the compacts would provide for either unilateral termination or termination by mutual agreement. In the event Of unilateral termination, certain specific provisions regarding defence arrangements and economic assistance would continue for the original life Of the compacts. However, those commitments would not be incompatible with self-government. -3- 18. The representative denied that under the compacts, the United States would retain excessive powers that would undermine the sovereignty of the Micronesian States and conflict with self-government. As far as internal affairs Were concerned, all four Micronesian entities had full and unrestricted power to adopt constitutions of their own choosing and had done exactly that. The compacts contained no provisions restricting that power. The only fiscal right that the 
**Analysis**
The text appears to discuss the political and constitutional aspects of the relationship between the United States and Micronesian States, focusing on the concept of free association and the degree of autonomy it allows. It does not seem to be related to economic development, natural resources, environment, industry, transport, communication, health, education, employment, humanitarian aid, or culture. The mention of "fiscal right" and "economic assistance" could suggest a connection to economics, but the overall focus is on the political and constitutional implications.

**Category**
International relations, Politics