Self-Determination or Annexation? The Case of Bonaire

 

Overseas Territories Report

The authoritative journal on economic, social and political developments in and affecting small island overseas countries, territories and departments

 Vol. IX No. 2                                                                                      February  2010

Self-Determination or Annexation?

The Case of Bonaire

__________________________________________________________________________________

 

by Dr. Carlyle G. Corbin

International Advisor on Governance

Former US Virgin Islands Minister of State for External Affairs

    The recent postponement by the Dutch Government of the 24^th March referendum on the political future of the people of Bonaire, coupled with the continued process of annexation of the island in spite of efforts by the elected government to consult its people on their political status choice, violate the inalienable right of self-determination of the people of Bonaire as guaranteed under international law.

     Bonaire, one of the five island jurisdictions of the Netherlands Antilles off the coast of South America, voted in 2004 for “direct ties” with the Kingdom of the Netherlands. In referenda conducted in the four other islands held between 2000 and 2005, Saba voted for “direct ties” while St. Eustatius accepted that status after first voting to stay within the present unified five-island country. This was not possible, however, since the country in which they agreed to remain would no longer exist as it would have to be dismantled.  The remaining two islands of Curacao and Sint Maarten voted for separate country status, albeit with significantly less autonomy than presently exists.  

 Minimum Standards for Political Integration Unmet

     Since the 2004 Bonaire referenda, however, the meaning of “direct ties” with the Kingdom was increasingly defined by the Dutch political and administrative machinery as a form of “partial integration/annexation,” and apparently not consistent with the understanding of the people of Bonaire. As recent as 2008, there was no elaboration on the meaning of “direct ties” in the Dutch Kingdom’s Report to the Human Rights Committee on its compliance with Article 1 (Right to Self-Determination) under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Report merely stated that “Bonaire, Saba and St Eustatius will become ‘public bodies’ within the Netherlands (and that) the Kingdom of the Netherlands will then consist of the Netherlands (with Bonaire, Saba and St Eustatius as public bodies), Aruba, Curacao and St Maarten.”  [i] 

     Concern for the failure of signatory countries to provide sufficient detail on Article 1 of the ICCPR dealing with self-determination was expressed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights as early as 1984 in General Comment 12. [ii] Indications are that this lack of elaboration persists. Accordingly, the Dutch Kingdom Report was also silent on the nature of the lesser autonomous country status for Curacao and Sint Maarten, respectively without reference to whether this status would meet the minimum standards of autonomous governance according to international norms.

     In this connection, there is a temptation to seek to justify such lesser autonomous arrangements by citing UN Resolution 2625 (XXV) which refers to  “the emergence of any other political status freely determined by the people.” However, the primary intent of that resolution was limited to “recognis(ing) the emergence of differing and flexible self-governing political models, with the understanding that the minimum level of political equality, and the attainment of a full measure of self-government, remained an essential prerequisite, as consistently reaffirmed in the legislative authority contained in General Assembly resolutions to that point.”[iii]

     In other words, it was never the intention of the General Assembly, by Resolution 2625 (XXV), to legitimise political dependency models which did not provide for a full measure of self government, but rather to acknowledge the evolution of such political and constitutional arrangements as positive developments moving towards a full measure of self-government as clearly defined in Resolution 1541 (XV). There is no formal international process to assess the status of countries which have had their autonomy reversed since the need to address such a development was never anticipated.

 Right of the People to be Consulted

     Given the democratic deficits emerging in the proposed ‘public body/public entity’ status, a new Bonaire government in 2009 began to enact procedures for a second referendum to consult its people after a more thorough public education programme on their legitimate political options. In this case, the idea was to give the people of Bonaire the opportunity to determine whether the kind of “direct ties” it wished with the Kingdom should be in the form of the emerging partial political integration, or in the form of an association.

     It is acknowledged that integration with full political rights, independence, and free association are the three legitimate alternatives which constitute the internationally-recognised options of political equality under United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV). Under this international instrument, political integration must be achieved on the basis of “complete political equality (where) the people should have equal status and rights of citizenship and equal guarantees of fundamental rights and freedoms…”[iv] 

     There is the additional requirement, in the context of minimum standards of political equality, that integration must provide for “equal rights and opportunities for representation and effective participation at al levels in the executive, legislative and judicial organs of government.” Direct ties, as envisaged by the Dutch, appears not to conform with these internationally-recognised minimum standards of political integration. A case could be made, therefore, for the listing of Bonaire as a non self-governing territory under the United Nations Charter until integration with full political rights is realised. An independent assessment of this ‘public entity’ status, as well as a review of the lesser autonomous ‘country’ status agreed by Curacao and Sint Maarten, would shed considerable light on whether the relevant minimum standards would be met.

     Other requirements in relation to political integration should also be taken into account, most notably, the requirement that integration should “be the result of the freely expressed wishes of the territory’s peoples acting with full knowledge of the change in their status…”.  Clearly, the insufficiency of information on the details of the “public entity/public body” status did not provide for the “full knowledge” of the people before the 2004 referendum. Thus, the reasons articulated by the Bonaire Government to consult the people in referendum are wholly appropriate.

     The related matter is the international requirement for the “freely expressed wishes of the people.”  Thus far, the people of Bonaire have not yet had the opportunity to endorse the proposed status – as it has evolved - through an informed and democratic process. This decision was made by the political leadership in the Final Declaration of 2006, but was not subsequently approved by the people in referendum in Bonaire, Saba nor St. Eustatius.

 The Dutch Rationale

     It is ironic that the main rationale for the Dutch action to thwart the Bonaire referendum is based on an interpretation that the March 2010 referendum, as planned, “cannot withstand the test of international law.” It is not convincing, however, that the Bonaire Referendum Ordinance violated international law. On the contrary, what appears to be in contravention of international law is not the Ordinance, but rather the denial of the right of the people of Bonaire  to self-determination as required under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and other pertinent  human rights treaties and international instruments.

     Accordingly, it is relevant that General Comment 12 of the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights emphasises the requirement of the ICCPR that “all States parties (to the ICCPR) should take positive action to facilitate realisation of and respect for the right of peoples to self-determination (and that) such action must be consistent with the State’s obligation under the Charter of the United Nations and under international law.” The Dutch annulment of the Bonaire Referendum Ordinance, and  its earlier punitive suspension of aid to that island jurisdiction because of its principled position that the people must be further consulted, are incongruous to the requirement to “facilitate” the self-determination process. These actions are also inconsistent with Article 73 (b) of the United Nations Charter on the requirement of member States to promote self-government.

     Within this broader context, the Dutch rationale in blocking the referendum is twofold: firstly, the lack of clarity of the referendum question, and, secondly, voter eligibility. On the first point, a clear case can be made for greater elaboration of the definitions of the referendum options, and the implications of the proposed choices. One way to accomplish this task is by utilising the definitions of the options of integration and free association, respectively, as clearly defined in United Nations Resolution 1541 (XV), and which conform to the principle of absolute political equality. The United Nations Needs Assessment Mission in its report on its visit to Bonaire in December, 2009 did not address the possibility that the partial integration on offer by the Dutch might not have met international standards of full political integration. This may not have been a part of their mandate.

     The Voter Eligibility Question

 On the second point of voter eligibility, however, the issue is more complex. In this context, a clear distinction must be made between voting in regular elections versus participation in acts of self-determination such as the Bonaire referendum where the people are asked to vote on their political future. Reference to this effect was made in the  2^nd February 2010 editorial in the Daily Herald  that “…in the case of a referendum, it is not unusual to deviate from normal voting rights for elections within the Netherlands Antilles.”  [v]

     In fact, such a deviation is widely used in self-determination referenda which have historically been governed by different voting eligibility criteria than that utilised for general elections. The rationale for this is clear since it is the people with an historic connection with the country/territory who have the distinct right to determine the future of that country or territory. This is evidenced by a number of examples historically, many of which have been endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly, the Security Council and other relevant bodies. The UN Needs Assessment Mission Report was silent on the differentiation between referenda and regular elections. This, too, may not have been part of their mandate.

 Referendum Voter Criteria

     The process in New Caledonia, a French overseas territory in the Pacific, is a case in point where the validity of the electoral franchise for the upcoming referendum – agreed by the French Government - was confirmed by the United Nations Human Rights Committee. This UN body established that  “a differentiation between residents as regards their relationship to the territory, on the basis of length of residence requirement…did not have the purpose or effect of establishing different rights for different ethnic groups or groups distinguished by their national extraction.” [vi]  The European Court of Human Rights concurred with this assessment in its 2005 decision. [vii]  This amounted to a recognition of the legitimacy of a ten-year residency requirement for voting in the self-determination referendum. [viii]  The  UN Human Rights Committee concluded that “the (ten-year voter eligibility) criteria established are reasonable to the extent that they are applied strictly and solely to ballots held in the framework of a self-determination process.”

     The Committee further held that the differentiation in voter eligibility was “based on objective grounds” that were “reasonable” and “not discriminatory.”  The European Court of Human Rights, in its decision, also concurred with the 15 July 2002 Views of the United Nations Human Rights Committee on the New Caledonia residency requirements, which stated, inter alia, that:

“…the criteria governing the right to vote in the referendums have the effect of establishing a restricted electorate and hence a differentiation between (a) persons deprived of the right to vote…and (b) persons permitted to exercise this right owing to their sufficiently strong links with the territory whose institutional development is at issue.” [ix]

     Given this legitimisation of a ten-year requirement for a political status referendum by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, it is difficult to determine the reasonableness behind the relevant recommendations of the United Nations Needs Assessment Mission which termed as “problematic” the five-year requirement originally recommended by the Bonaire Referendum Committee. On the contrary, it is the recommended “reasonable compromise solution” of a six-month residency period put forth by the UN mission that should be deemed unreasonable, as far as the people of Bonaire are concerned. In any case, the Bonaire Referendum Ordinance was later adopted with a  three-year residency requirement – still well within the parameters of  what was determined reasonable by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights, but nevertheless regarded as excessively long by the UN Needs Assessment Mission.

     If this exercise was designed for the purpose of protecting the political rights of European Dutch citizens, rather than the Antillean Dutch citizens, who constitute the people of Bonaire, then there would be some basis for the short voter residency requirement recommended by the United Nations Mission. Of course, the Mission’s equality of rights argument would, then, also be applied to the Antillean Dutch citizens who are hardly equal to their fellow citizens in Europe in terms of political rights within the Kingdom. (This significant inequality of political rights was even recognised by the Dutch Committee on the Democratic Deficit of the Kingdom Government, but  whose recommendation to give voting rights to the people of  the present Netherlands Antilles in parliamentary elections was set aside ).  

     Several other examples of special voter eligibility requirements are worth noting to further illustrate the point, including the 1999 political status referendum in East Timor which limited the franchise to natives and offspring of at least one parent who was born in the territory. No less than the United Nations Security Council, by resolution, “welcome(d) the modalities for the (1999) popular consultation of the East Timorese through a direct ballot.” The United Nations actually conducted the balloting of this restricted franchise.

     The situation in Western Sahara is also instructive because it legitimised a further variation on the distinctiveness of the electoral franchise in an act of self-determination, in this case, based on ethnicity. It is the United Nations which is organising this restrictive voter registration for the long-delayed self-determination referendum there.

     Even the American – administered territories have instituted unique electoral measures on that basis with the adoption by the Guam Legislature of the Chamorro Registry defining voter eligibility in an upcoming referendum on self-determination based on family lineage and descendency. There have been no legal challenges thus far arguing that the rights of “other United States citizens” resident in that territory were being infringed upon – perhaps the quid pro quo is that the people of the US territories have no voting rights in the United States political system. The United Nations has acknowledged these specific eligibility requirements for Guam by General Assembly resolution.

 Conclusion

     Given established precedent, and taking into account the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, and the United Nations Human Rights Committee, respectively, it is difficult to concur with the view that a three-year residency requirement for what amounts to an act of self-determination on the political future of Bonaire violates international law. In fact, the three-year requirement would appear well within the parameters of established international precedent.

     It is to be recognised that the voter eligibility requirements contained in the Bonaire Referendum Ordinance might be seen by some as a “conflict with the public interests of the Kingdom” and may even be seen as counter to what some have suggested is a grand strategy to increase European Dutch presence and political power in the Antilles, and by extension, heighten Dutch influence in the Caribbean. Notwithstanding these perceptions, the voter eligibility requirements were properly designed to protect the interests of the people of Bonaire, and have clear international precedent.

     As the March 2010 timetable approaches for the vote in the Dutch Second Chamber on the package of draft laws for the three islands to be partially integrated, decisions will have to be taken by the elected government of Bonaire in determining the way forward, even as the Dutch continue to exert inordinate political, economic and other pressures on the situation with the apparent aim of bringing the island in line with what some view as a Dutch plan of annexation. In this regard, the Dutch suspension of financial assistance to development projects in Bonaire until the island “falls in line” is disappointingly heavy-handed, as is the disparaging public comments made about the situation by certain Dutch politicians.

     In the final analysis, the rationale used to thwart the Bonaire referendum leans more on the basis of political consideration rather than any convincing interpretation of international law and precedent as far as voter eligibility in referenda is concerned. However, the need for clarification of the referendum question is duly recognised and easily adjusted.

     All parties should be in agreement that the overriding principle is the self-determination of the people of Bonaire. This is an inalienable right, and cannot be dismissed so easily for the sake of an external legislative timetable. In this light, there remains considerable scope for a resumption of discussions leading to a satisfactory resolution with the backing of appropriate international support. The alternative may require taking the issue to the relevant international tribunals where the entire spectrum of  issues could be put on the table for comprehensive examination by the international community.

---

Notes

 [i] Consideration of Reports submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Addendum Antilles, Human Rights Committee. CCPR/C/NET/4/Add.2. 9 June 2008. Original: English.

 [ii] See. General Comment No. 12, The Right to Self-Determination of peoples (Art. 1). 13 April 1984.

 [iii]  Carlyle Corbin, “Criteria for the Cessation of Transmission of Information under Article 73(e)” in “Overseas Territories Report, Vol. V, No. 5. August 2006.  

 [iv]  See Principle VIII of Resolution 1541 (XV) of 15 December 1960.

 [v]  thedailyherald.com, “Editorial – Wrong Message,” 2^nd February 2010.

 [vi]  See “Views of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, dated 15 July 2002” as cited in Py v. France 11 January 2002.

 [vii]  European Court of Human Rights, “Case of Py v. France. pp. 11-12.  11 January 2005.

 [viii]  New Caledonia Institutional Act (no. 99-209). Article 188 (c). 19 March 1999.

 [ix]  7 op. cit., p. 5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overseas Territories Report and Overseas Territories Review are publications of Caribbean Information Services, Ltd.  All Rights Reserved.

UN DECOLONISATION CMT. POLICY ON INFORMATION DISSEMINATION

 2025 Session,

3rd & 4th Meetings (AM & PM)

GA/COL/3389

9 June 2025

Special Decolonization Committee Approves 3 Drafts Aimed at Enhancing Information Dissemination, Facilitating Visiting Missions to Non-Self-Governing Territories

The Special Committee on Decolonization opened the substantive portion of its 2025 session today and approved three draft resolutions relating to territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.

The 29-member Special Committee — formally known as the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples — annually reviews the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, as defined in Chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations, to which the Declaration is applicable and hears statements from their representatives.

Acting without a vote on all three texts, the Special Committee approved its annual draft resolution “Dissemination of information on decolonization” (document A/AC.109/2025/L.3), by which the General Assembly would request the Secretary-General to further enhance the information provided on the United Nations decolonization website.  It would also ask the Department of Global Communications to continue its efforts to update web-based information on the assistance programmes available to the Non-Self-Governing Territories.

By the second resolution, “Information from Non‑Self‑Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73(e) of the Charter of the United Nations” (document A/AC.109/2025/L.4), the Assembly would ask the administering Powers to respect their obligations under the Charter and continue to transmit or regularly to the UN Secretary-General information relating to the economic, social and educational conditions in the Territories.

The third text, “Question of sending visiting and special missions to Territories” (document A/AC.109/2025/L.5), would have the Assembly stress the need to dispatch periodic visiting missions to Non-Self-Governing Territories to facilitate the full, speedy and effective implementation of the Declaration.  It would also call upon the administering Powers to cooperate with the United Nations, if they have not yet done so, or to continue to cooperate by facilitating UN visiting missions to the Territories under their administration.

Throughout the day, the Special Committee examined the questions concerning Tokelau, American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, French Polynesia, Montserrat, New Caledonia, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands and held hearings for some.  Petitioners and officials from various Territories delivered impassioned statements.  While some highlighted constructive relationships, others called out administering Powers for their failure to carry out their obligations under the UN Charter and relevant UN resolutions.

Question of French Polynesia

“Our actions are not just drops in the ocean.  Our actions are the ocean,” underscored Mareva Kitalong, delegate for International, European and Pacific Affairs of French Polynesia, who pointed out that about 40 per cent of France’s exclusive economic zone is in French Polynesia.  Its people’s “sovereign effectiveness” over the strategic resources of its maritime areas must be guaranteed.  She requested that French Polynesia host the decolonization regional seminar in 2027.  Conveying young peoples’ worry about the lack of progress in self-determination, she stressed:  “Development and decolonization of French Polynesia go hand in hand.”

France’s representative said French Polynesia enjoys a very large degree of autonomy and holds jurisdiction over a broad range of matters, including health, education, work and culture.  Moreover, Polynesians, as full French citizens, enjoy the same rights and freedoms as all other French nationals.  French Polynesia’s powers are enhanced by France’s economic and financial support; financial transfers to Polynesia amount to nearly €2 billion each year.  Noting their constant dialogue, he said “there is no process between the French State and the Polynesian Territory that provides a role for the United Nations”.

Richard Tuheiava of the Tāvini Huiraʻatira, a pro-sovereignty political party in French Polynesia, noting the administering Power’s refusal to officially recognize the role of the UN, stressed:  “This stance is a clear violation of the right to self-determination of the Polynesian people.”  He urged the Committee to be more proactive on the question of French Polynesia.

Question of the British Virgin Islands

Natalio D. Wheatley, Premier of the British Virgin Islands, highlighting a key finding of the 2023 UN visiting mission, said the Territory “is ready for a change of political status”.  His Government will act on the mission’s recommendations by establishing a decolonization commission and prioritizing a referendum on political status.  Voicing hope that the United Kingdom “will do the right thing”, he said:  “We will press forward with urgency and haste with the mission of helping to decolonize the Caribbean region.”

The representative of Antigua and Barbuda, a member of the delegation to the last visiting Mission to the British Virgin Islands, stressed that, despite having demonstrated its capacity for self-rule and management of its economy, the Territory “remains shackled and not free to make the ultimate decisions concerning its political aspirations”.

A petitioner for the British Virgin Islands called on the UN to support an education programme on self-determination in the Territory that will not only provide accurate information about political status options, but also address the “psychological dimension” of colonialism — when the colonized people have been persuaded that “they are incapable of ruling themselves”.

UN ADOPTS ANNUAL RESOLUTIONS ON DEPENDENT TERRITORIES

The Question of Anguilla

The Question of American Samoa

The Question of the Turks and Caicos Islands

The Question of Tokelau

The Question of the US Virgin Islands

The Question of New Caledonia

The Question of Montserrat

The Question of Guam

The Question of French Polynesia

The Question of the Cayman Islands

The Question of the British Virgin Islands

The Question of Bermuda

The Question of Western Sahara

The Question of Saint Helena

The Question of Pitcairn

Implementation of the Decolonization Declaration

Implementation of the Decolonization Declaration by the UN Specialized Agencies

Offers by Member States of study and training facilities for inhabitants of Non-Self-Governing Territories

Economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories

Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations

France continues to violate UN Charter on French Polynesia

 

A Decade of Violations of the United Nations Charter by the French Republic with respect to non-compliance of Article 73(e)
of the United Nations Charter (2013-2023)

Article 73

Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:

……..

 

e) to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories to which Chapters XII and XIII app

Dates of non-transmission of information by France under Article 73 e of the United Nations (UN) Charter with respect to  Ma'ohi Nui/French Polynesia

2013 – 2023

 Administering Power         Year                            Transmission of Information

France	2013	No information transmitted
France	2014	No information transmitted
France	2015	No information transmitted
France	2016	No information transmitted
France	2017	No information transmitted
France	2018	No information transmitted
France	2019	No information transmitted
France	2020	No information transmitted
France	2020	No information transmitted
France	2021	No information transmitted
France	2022	No information transmitted
France	2023	No information transmitted

According to its resolution 67/265, the General Assembly recognizes that, in the light of the provision of Chapter XI of the Charter of the UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), French Polynesia remains a Non-Self-Governing Territory within the meaning of the Charter.” (U.N. Document A/78/63  of 11 January 2023).

 

UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS BERMUDA RESOLUTION

  

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly

12 December 2022

77/136.    Question of Bermuda

 

 

         The General Assembly,

         Having considered the question of Bermuda and examined the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples for 2022,[1]

         Taking note of the working paper prepared by the Secretariat on Bermuda[2] and other relevant information,

         Recognizing that all available options for self-determination of the Territory are valid as long as they are in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the people of Bermuda and in conformity with the clearly defined principles contained in General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, 1541 (XV) of 15 December 1960 and other resolutions of the Assembly,

         Expressing concern that, more than 60 years after the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,[3] there still remain 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories, including Bermuda,

         Conscious of the importance of continuing the effective implementation of the Declaration, taking into account the target set by the United Nations to eradicate colonialism by 2030 and the plan of action for the International Decades for the Eradication of Colonialism,[4]

         Recognizing that the specific characteristics and the aspirations of the people of Bermuda require flexible, practical and innovative approaches to the options for self-determination, without any prejudice to territorial size, geographical location, size of population or natural resources,

         Convinced that the wishes and aspirations of the people of the Territory should continue to guide the development of their future political status and that referendums, free and fair elections and other forms of popular consultation play an important role in ascertaining the wishes and aspirations of the people,

         Concerned by the use and exploitation of the natural resources of the Non-Self-Governing Territories by the administering Powers for their benefit, by the use of the Territories as international financial centres to the detriment of the world economy and by the consequences of any economic activities of the administering Powers that are contrary to the interests of the people of the Territories, as well as to resolution 1514 (XV),

         Convinced that any negotiations to determine the status of the Territory must take place with the active involvement and participation of the people of the Territory, under the auspices of the United Nations, on a case-by-case basis, and that the views of the people of Bermuda in respect of their right to self-determination should be ascertained,

         Noting the continued cooperation of the Non-Self-Governing Territories at the local and regional levels, including participation in the work of regional organizations,

         Mindful that, in order for the Special Committee to enhance its understanding of the political status of the people of Bermuda and to fulfil its mandate effectively, it is important for it to be apprised by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as the administering Power and to receive information from other appropriate sources, including the representatives of the Territory, concerning the wishes and aspirations of the people of the Territory,

         Aware of the importance both to Bermuda and to the Special Committee of the participation of elected and appointed representatives of Bermuda in the work of the Committee,

         Recognizing the need for the Special Committee to ensure that the appropriate bodies of the United Nations actively pursue a public awareness campaign aimed at assisting the people of Bermuda with their inalienable right to self-determination and in gaining a better understanding of the options for self-determination, on a case-by-case basis,

         Mindful, in that connection, that the holding of regional seminars in the Caribbean and Pacific regions and at Headquarters, with the active participation of representatives of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, provides a helpful means for the Special Committee to fulfil its mandate and that the regional nature of the seminars, which alternate between the Caribbean and the Pacific, is a crucial element in the context of a United Nations programme for ascertaining the political status of the Territories,

         Welcoming the Pacific regional seminar on the theme “Advancement of the Non‑Self-Governing Territories through the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and beyond”, held by the Special Committee in Castries and hosted by the Government of Saint Lucia from 11 to 13 May 2022, as a significant and forward-looking event, which enabled the participants to assess progress made and address challenges faced in the decolonization process, review the existing working methods of the Committee and renew its commitment to implementing its historic task,

         Recalling the importance of the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the seminar, which are annexed to the report of the Special Committee and which outline the findings of the seminar, including, especially, the way forward for the decolonization process within the context of the proclamation by the General Assembly of the period 2021–2030 as the Fourth International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism,[5]

         Noting with appreciation the contribution to the development of some Territories by the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system, in particular the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, the United Nations Development Programme and the World Food Programme, as well as regional institutions such as the Caribbean Development Bank, the Caribbean Community, the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, the Pacific Islands Forum and the agencies of the Council of Regional Organizations in the Pacific,

         Noting the statement made by a representative of the Government of Bermuda at the 2021 Caribbean regional seminar,[6]

         Recalling the dispatch of the United Nations special mission to Bermuda in 2005, at the request of the territorial Government and with the concurrence of the administering Power, which provided information to the people of the Territory on the role of the United Nations in the process of self-determination, on the legitimate political status options as clearly defined in General Assembly resolution 1541 (XV) and on the experiences of other small States that have achieved a full measure of self-government,

         Stressing the importance of good governance, transparency and accountability in the Territory,

         Stressing also the importance of regional ties for the development of a small island Territory,

         Recalling the extension by the administering Power to Bermuda of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women[7] in March 2017,

         Recalling also the general elections that were held in October 2020,[8]

         Recalling further relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic,

         1.      Reaffirms the inalienable right of the people of Bermuda to self-determination, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples;

         2.      Also reaffirms that, in the process of decolonization of Bermuda, there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which is also a fundamental human right, as recognized under the relevant human rights conventions;

         3.      Further reaffirms that it is ultimately for the people of Bermuda to determine freely their future political status in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter, the Declaration and the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, and in that connection calls upon the administering Power, in cooperation with the territorial Government and appropriate bodies of the United Nations system, to develop political education programmes for the Territory in order to foster an awareness among the people of their right to self-determination in conformity with the legitimate political status options, based on the principles clearly defined in Assembly resolution 1541 (XV) and other relevant resolutions and decisions;

         4.      Stresses the importance of the 2005 report of the Bermuda Independence Commission, which provides a thorough examination of the facts surrounding independence, and continues to regret that the plans for public meetings and the presentation of a Green Paper to the House of Assembly followed by a White Paper outlining the policy proposals for an independent Bermuda have so far not materialized;

         5.      Underlines the need further to strengthen good governance, transparency and accountability in government for the benefit of the Territory;

         6.      Requests the administering Power to assist the Territory by facilitating its work concerning public educational outreach efforts, consistent with Article 73 b of the Charter, and in that regard calls upon the relevant United Nations organizations to provide assistance to the Territory, if requested;

         7.      Welcomes the active participation of the Territory in the work of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean;

         8.      Stresses that the Territory should continue to participate in the activities of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, including regional seminars, in order to provide the Committee with up-to-date information regarding the decolonization process;

         9.      Also stresses the importance of the Special Committee being apprised of the views and wishes of the people of Bermuda and enhancing its understanding of their conditions, including the nature and scope of the existing political and constitutional arrangements between Bermuda and the administering Power;

         10.    Calls upon the administering Power to participate in and cooperate fully with the work of the Special Committee in order to implement the provisions of Article 73 e of the Charter and the Declaration and in order to advise the Committee on the implementation of the provisions under Article 73 b of the Charter on efforts to promote self-government in Bermuda, and encourages the administering Power to facilitate visiting and special missions to the Territory;

         11.     Reaffirms the responsibility of the administering Power under the Charter to promote the economic and social development and to preserve the cultural identity of the Territory, and requests the administering Power to take steps to enlist and make effective use of all possible assistance, on both a bilateral and a multilateral basis, in the strengthening of the economy of the Territory;

         12.    Takes into account the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,[9] including the Sustainable Development Goals, stresses the importance of fostering the economic and social sustainable development of the Territory by promoting sustained, inclusive and equitable economic growth, creating greater opportunities for all, reducing inequalities, raising basic standards of living, fostering equitable social development and inclusion and promoting the integrated and sustainable management of natural resources and ecosystems that supports, inter alia, economic, social and human development, while facilitating ecosystem conservation, regeneration, restoration and resilience in the face of new and emerging challenges, and strongly urges the administering Power to refrain from undertaking any kind of illicit, harmful and unproductive activities, including the use of the Territory as an international financial centre, that are not aligned with the interest of the people of the Territory;

         13.    Requests the Territory and the administering Power to take all measures necessary to protect and conserve the environment of the Territory against any degradation, and once again requests the specialized agencies concerned to monitor environmental conditions in the Territory and to provide assistance to the Territory, consistent with their prevailing rules of procedure;

         14.    Requests the Special Committee to continue to examine the question of Bermuda and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its seventy-eighth session and on the implementation of the present resolution.

 

52nd plenary meeting

12 December 2022

---

      [1]  Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-seventh Session, Supplement No. 23 (A/77/23).

      [2]  A/AC.109/2022/3.

      [3]  Resolution 1514 (XV).

      [4]  A/56/61, annex.

      [5]  See resolution 75/123.

      [6]  Available at www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/c24/regional-seminars/2021.

      [7]  United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1249, No. 20378.

      [8]  See A/AC.109/2021/3, para. 4.

      [9]  Resolution 70/1.