KUAM.COM
Guam’s News Network
By Ronna Sweeny
(Ken Quintanilla contributed to this report)
With the hope of uniting and educating generations of Guam's indigenous people in our island community towards the movement of Chamoru Self-Determination, several Chamoru professors and students gathered this morning for the Second Chamoru Summit. Entitled "Protecting Our Way of Life and Ensuring Our Survival," the forum brought out over 50 participants today to learn about effective Chamoru leadership and self-determination.
Committee chairperson for the planning of the Summit Lisa Natividad says the intent of the event was twofold: being an educational track to teach younger generations of Chamorus the meaning of self-determination and to create a planning committee.
"The different committees that we've established are specific to educational strategies on Chamoru self-determination, there's a second one on rethinking education for Chamorus, one on a legal committee looking at developing legal strategies for achieving self-determination, there's another one on revitalizing the Chamoru Registry, to get more Chamorus on the Registry, which is absolutely necessary as we move towards the vote," Natividad explained.
One of the organizers of the summit, former senator Hope Cristobal, says committees were broken into task forces to cover decolonization including statehood, free association, and independence. The Summit provided those committees to share new findings and report about their task force. She said, "We decided to do this because there has been no conversation in the public and we also noticed to have seemed to disappear in the discourse and conversation at the local political level and we felt we need to continue the conversation so we can study it a little more and see where we can go where we left off."
Natividad feels this issue has been dead in terms of community involvement and government leadership for many years and hopes the summit helps others understand its importance. "I think in order for Chamorus to be able to accomplish self-determination it's going to require the support of all community members and not just those who self-identify as a Chamoru or those who are legally defined as Chamoru."
With the impending military presence to increase in the near future, it may make it difficult for Chamorus to exercise self-determination. The summit provided planning of concepts and identifying what the next steps are toward the movement. The Committee hopes to hold a summit every six months to present new findings and information to the community.
With the hope of uniting and educating generations of Guam's indigenous people in our island community towards the movement of Chamoru Self-Determination, several Chamoru professors and students gathered this morning for the Second Chamoru Summit. Entitled "Protecting Our Way of Life and Ensuring Our Survival," the forum brought out over 50 participants today to learn about effective Chamoru leadership and self-determination.
Committee chairperson for the planning of the Summit Lisa Natividad says the intent of the event was twofold: being an educational track to teach younger generations of Chamorus the meaning of self-determination and to create a planning committee.
"The different committees that we've established are specific to educational strategies on Chamoru self-determination, there's a second one on rethinking education for Chamorus, one on a legal committee looking at developing legal strategies for achieving self-determination, there's another one on revitalizing the Chamoru Registry, to get more Chamorus on the Registry, which is absolutely necessary as we move towards the vote," Natividad explained.
One of the organizers of the summit, former senator Hope Cristobal, says committees were broken into task forces to cover decolonization including statehood, free association, and independence. The Summit provided those committees to share new findings and report about their task force. She said, "We decided to do this because there has been no conversation in the public and we also noticed to have seemed to disappear in the discourse and conversation at the local political level and we felt we need to continue the conversation so we can study it a little more and see where we can go where we left off."
Natividad feels this issue has been dead in terms of community involvement and government leadership for many years and hopes the summit helps others understand its importance. "I think in order for Chamorus to be able to accomplish self-determination it's going to require the support of all community members and not just those who self-identify as a Chamoru or those who are legally defined as Chamoru."
With the impending military presence to increase in the near future, it may make it difficult for Chamorus to exercise self-determination. The summit provided planning of concepts and identifying what the next steps are toward the movement. The Committee hopes to hold a summit every six months to present new findings and information to the community.
28 October 2008
22 October 2008
France Seeks Referendum in Mayotte despite UN Resolutions
The recent announcement by the government of France that it was preparing to conduct a referendum in March, 2009 among the inhabitants of the Indian Ocean island of Mayotte violates relevant United Nations resolutions which have rejected such an action. The proposed referendum would only offer the political status option of integration with France, with no other choice.
International legal experts have questioned both the legitimacy of such a referendum on a single alternative, as well as the fact that it would be conducted by France which occupies the island rather than by the United Nations or another international body.
The Question of the Comorian Island of Mayotte has been a longstanding item on the agenda of the United Nations, but UN discussions on the future of the territory have been routinely deferred. A decision on whether the UN will examine the issue this year is scheduled for discussion on 23rd October by the UN General Committee which will make its recommendation to the full General Assembly.
Mayotte is located at the northern end of the Mozambique Channel in the Indian Ocean between Madagascar and Mozambique. The territory is part of the Union of Comoros, but is occupied by France which ignored the results of the only legitimate referendum held in 1974 where the people of Mayotte joined its compatriots in overwhelming supporting independence. The Comoros is a member of the African Union.
The Permanent Mission of Comoros has made available an Aide Memoire, (below) which provides an historical perspective on the continued challenges faced by the Union of Comoros on the disposition of Mayotte - an integral part of its national territory.
UNION DES COMORES
Aide memoir on the Question of the Comorian Island of Mayotte
A global referendum for self-determination was organized in the Comoros archipelago on 22 December 1974 in conformity with an Agreement signed earlier by the French and the internal self-government of the Comoros in June 1973. Following the referendum, 96% of Comorian voted for independence. Contrary to the signed Agreement, the French Government wanted to reorganize another referendum island by island. This was not accepted by the Comorian authorities who went by the Agreement which stipulated that the results of the referendum would be counted globally.
On 6 July 1975 Comoros declared its independence following a resolution adopted by the Comoros House of Representatives convened for that purpose. The new Comorian State was unanimously admitted to the United Nations on 12 November 1975 by General Assembly resolution 3385 (XXX) reaffirming the need to respect the unity and territorial integrity of the Comoros composed of the islands of Anjouan, Grand Comore, Mayotte and Moheli. The new State is recognized by all international Organizations namely the Organization of African Unity (now African Union, AU), the Non Aligned Movement, the Organization of Islamic Conference and the League of Arab States.
In February and April, France organized illegal referendums in Mayotte; on October 21 1976 the United Nations adopted resolution A/31/4 condemning those consultations and any other in the future.
Every year from 1976 to 1995, the UN General Assembly adopted resolutions on the Comorian island of Mayotte and placed on its agenda the item entitled “The Question of the Comorian island of Mayotte’’ as requested by its resolution 31/4 of 21 October 1976. Resolution 31/4 of 21 October 1976 condemned the referendums organized on the Comorian island of Mayotte by France on 8 and 11 April 1976 and rejected any kind of referendum or consultation which might be organized on the territory of Mayotte in the future by the French Government.
Since 1995 France requested the Comoros to sit and discuss bilaterally the question of the Comorian island of Mayotte and therefore requested the Comorian government, at the opening of each UN General Assembly not to include the question of Mayotte in the definitive agenda of the UN General Assembly sessions but defer it to the next session. Thus since 1995 the question of Mayotte has always been on the temporary agenda of the United Nations.
The United Nations General Assembly has adopted more than a dozen resolutions on the question entitled “The Question of the Comorian island of Mayotte” in which they condemned the illegal occupation of Mayotte by France and the unity and territorial integrity of the Comoros was every time reaffirmed in those resolutions.
In all those resolutions, the United Nations invited France to respect the Agreement signed by both French and Comorian Governments in 1973, called upon France to implement the wish expressed by the then French President to find a just solution to the problem of Mayotte, ardently requested France to speed up negotiations with the Comorian Government in view of the rapid return of Mayotte to the Comorian Republic.
Efforts to resolve the problem of the illegal occupation of the Comorian island of Mayotte have subsided and lost momentum.
During the Summit of the Organization of the African Union in Port Louis, Mauritius, in July 1976, the Head of States adopted resolution (497 XXVII) as a follow up mechanism of the Question of the Comorian Island of Mayotte. The OAU Ad-hoc Committee on the question of the Comoros Island of Mayotte also known as the Committee of Seven composed of the following countries; Algeria, Cameroon, Comores, Gabon, Maurice, Mozambique, Tanzania has not met since decades. There is a risk that the issue might be forgotten indefinitely.
Despite the eagerness of all the successive Comorian Government, to sit and discuss with the French Government, French authorities have accelerated their actions and political activities by obliterating the Comorianity of Mayotte and imposing French Laws in the Comorian Island of Mayotte, which are mainly against the Comorian culture and religion.
In Mayotte, Comorian from the other islands have been harassed and humiliated before been expelled Manu military. Thousands of Comorian have lost their lives while traveling to Mayotte by improvised and rudimentary boats.
Last year the French government for the first time agreed to create a bilateral Commission Comorian and French. Since than, several meetings have taken place, in France, in the Comoros and last month in Mayotte, yet despite the efforts and willingness of the Comorian government to negotiate with France. Recently the French government has announced that in March 2009 it will organize a referendum in Mayotte with the intention of changing the political status of Mayotte from a “French Territorial Collectivity” to a French Overseas Department. This is in violation of the United Nations Resolution A/31/4 of October 1976.
Taking into consideration the recent decision of the French government, the Comorian government has clearly indicated that it wants the question of the Comorian island of Mayotte to be included in the definitive agenda of the 63rd session of the UN General Assembly. On September 17, 2008 during the opening meeting of the UN General Committee decided to examine the question of Mayotte during its next meeting on which the date has to be fixed soon.
The French colonialism attitude on keeping the Comorian island of Mayotte under its occupation has clearly become aggressive. The recent event of the French government of unilaterally switching the Comorian telephone area code (269) from the Island of Mayotte is the most recent destructive and incomprehensible approach of the French authorities.
After more than 30 years of independence, it is clear that the French irritated the question of the Comorian island of Mayotte. There is therefore a need to act and to act fast. That is why Comorians are unanimous claiming the return of the Comorian island of Mayotte and their hope depends on the International Community and particularly the African Union. They believe that it’s only through a multilateral dialogue with the concerned parties that a road map for the return of the Comorian island of Mayotte to the Comoros could be elaborated in a fair manner.
Chronology of events
December 22, 1974
Consultation of the Comorian for the auto determination for the independence of the Comoros; 96% voted for the independence.
July 06, 1975
Unilateral proclamation for the independence of the Comoros by H.E.Mr Ahmed Abdallah Abderemane, President of the Internal Autonomy.
October 17, 1975
The United Nations Security Council adopt resolution 376 (1975) of 17 October 1975 and recommends the admission of the Comoros to the United Nations.
November 12, 1975
The General Assembly adopted resolution 3385 (XXX) reaffirming the need to respect the unity and territorial integrity of the Comoros composed of the islands of Anjouan, Grand Comore, Mayotte and Moheli, admit the Comoros to membership of the United Nations.
February 08 1976
France organized an illegal referendum on the Comorian Island of Mayotte.
February 11, 1976
France vetoed a resolution on the Question of the Comoros Island of Mayotte.
April 11, 1976
France organized another illegal referendum on the Comorian Island of Mayotte. Which was followed by several others referendums until 2001.
July 06, 1976
During the Summit of the Organization of the African Union in Port Louis, Mauritius, the Head of States adopted resolution CM/946 (XXVII) requested the Africa Group in New York to introduce the Question of Mayotte to the General Assembly and at the same time created the Ad-hoc Committee of (7) Algeria, Cameroon, Comores, Gabon, Maurice, Mozambique, Tanzania as a follow up mechanism of the Question of the Comorian Island of Mayotte.
On it’s (31st) session the General Assembly of the United Nations introduced the Question entitled “ The Question of the Comorian Island of Mayotte” in its agenda and since it has always been on the agenda of the General Assembly.
October 21, 1976
The General Assembly adopted Resolution 31/4 considering that the referendums imposed on the inhabitants of the Comorian island of Mayotte by France on 8 February and April 1976 null and void and constitute a violation of the Sovereignty of the Comorian State and its territorial integrity and that the occupation by France of the Comorian island of Mayotte constitutes a flagrant encroachment on the national unity of the Comorian State a Member of the United Nations. Condemned and considered null and void the referendums of organized by France and rejected any other form of referendum or consultation, which may be organized on the Comorian territory in Mayotte by France, and any foreign legislation purporting to legalize any French colonial presence on Comorian territory in Mayotte.
More than a dozen other resolutions were adopted by the General Assembly until 1995 when the Comorian Government accepted to withdraw the resolutions and decided to discuss with France.
December 1976
Mayotte became a “Collectivite Territorial Francaise” administrated by a “Prefet”.
December 22 1979
A Law was adopted and considered Mayotte belonging to the Republic Francaise.
April 1995
The French Government introduced a Law requiring Comorian entering the Comorian island of Mayotte to have an entrance visa.
October 1995
After a meeting in New York with the members of the OAU Ad-hoc Committee on the question of the Comoros Island of Mayotte also known as the Committee of Seven, the Comorian Government decided to withdraw its resolutions at the United Nations and accepted to sit and negotiate with the French Government. On the contrary, France organized several illegal referendums on the Comorian island of Mayotte.
June 2000
France organized another illegal referendum in Mayotte and changed its status and became “Collectivite Departemantale Francaise.”
March 2005
Comorian and French authorities created a Bilateral Commission; the question of Mayotte was among the major issues, discussed.
September 2005
Both the French and the Comorian Governments decided for the first time to suspend for 2 years to discussion of the “Question of the Comorian Island of Mayotte” in the United Nations General Assembly.
March 2007
The French Government decided unilaterally to switch the Comorian telephone country code (269) of Mayotte and attached it with (262) the one of Reunion Island a French Department in the Indian Ocean.
June 2007
The AU Ad-hoc Committee on the question of the Comoros Island of Mayotte also known as the Committee of Seven met at the Ambassadorial level in New York to discuss on the French Government decision unilaterally on switching the Comorian telephone country code (269) of Mayotte and attached it with are code (262).
September 2008
The French government announced that it will organize a referendum in Mayotte in March 2009.
October 01, 2008
International legal experts have questioned both the legitimacy of such a referendum on a single alternative, as well as the fact that it would be conducted by France which occupies the island rather than by the United Nations or another international body.
The Question of the Comorian Island of Mayotte has been a longstanding item on the agenda of the United Nations, but UN discussions on the future of the territory have been routinely deferred. A decision on whether the UN will examine the issue this year is scheduled for discussion on 23rd October by the UN General Committee which will make its recommendation to the full General Assembly.
Mayotte is located at the northern end of the Mozambique Channel in the Indian Ocean between Madagascar and Mozambique. The territory is part of the Union of Comoros, but is occupied by France which ignored the results of the only legitimate referendum held in 1974 where the people of Mayotte joined its compatriots in overwhelming supporting independence. The Comoros is a member of the African Union.
The Permanent Mission of Comoros has made available an Aide Memoire, (below) which provides an historical perspective on the continued challenges faced by the Union of Comoros on the disposition of Mayotte - an integral part of its national territory.
UNION DES COMORES
Aide memoir on the Question of the Comorian Island of Mayotte
A global referendum for self-determination was organized in the Comoros archipelago on 22 December 1974 in conformity with an Agreement signed earlier by the French and the internal self-government of the Comoros in June 1973. Following the referendum, 96% of Comorian voted for independence. Contrary to the signed Agreement, the French Government wanted to reorganize another referendum island by island. This was not accepted by the Comorian authorities who went by the Agreement which stipulated that the results of the referendum would be counted globally.
On 6 July 1975 Comoros declared its independence following a resolution adopted by the Comoros House of Representatives convened for that purpose. The new Comorian State was unanimously admitted to the United Nations on 12 November 1975 by General Assembly resolution 3385 (XXX) reaffirming the need to respect the unity and territorial integrity of the Comoros composed of the islands of Anjouan, Grand Comore, Mayotte and Moheli. The new State is recognized by all international Organizations namely the Organization of African Unity (now African Union, AU), the Non Aligned Movement, the Organization of Islamic Conference and the League of Arab States.
In February and April, France organized illegal referendums in Mayotte; on October 21 1976 the United Nations adopted resolution A/31/4 condemning those consultations and any other in the future.
Every year from 1976 to 1995, the UN General Assembly adopted resolutions on the Comorian island of Mayotte and placed on its agenda the item entitled “The Question of the Comorian island of Mayotte’’ as requested by its resolution 31/4 of 21 October 1976. Resolution 31/4 of 21 October 1976 condemned the referendums organized on the Comorian island of Mayotte by France on 8 and 11 April 1976 and rejected any kind of referendum or consultation which might be organized on the territory of Mayotte in the future by the French Government.
Since 1995 France requested the Comoros to sit and discuss bilaterally the question of the Comorian island of Mayotte and therefore requested the Comorian government, at the opening of each UN General Assembly not to include the question of Mayotte in the definitive agenda of the UN General Assembly sessions but defer it to the next session. Thus since 1995 the question of Mayotte has always been on the temporary agenda of the United Nations.
The United Nations General Assembly has adopted more than a dozen resolutions on the question entitled “The Question of the Comorian island of Mayotte” in which they condemned the illegal occupation of Mayotte by France and the unity and territorial integrity of the Comoros was every time reaffirmed in those resolutions.
In all those resolutions, the United Nations invited France to respect the Agreement signed by both French and Comorian Governments in 1973, called upon France to implement the wish expressed by the then French President to find a just solution to the problem of Mayotte, ardently requested France to speed up negotiations with the Comorian Government in view of the rapid return of Mayotte to the Comorian Republic.
Efforts to resolve the problem of the illegal occupation of the Comorian island of Mayotte have subsided and lost momentum.
During the Summit of the Organization of the African Union in Port Louis, Mauritius, in July 1976, the Head of States adopted resolution (497 XXVII) as a follow up mechanism of the Question of the Comorian Island of Mayotte. The OAU Ad-hoc Committee on the question of the Comoros Island of Mayotte also known as the Committee of Seven composed of the following countries; Algeria, Cameroon, Comores, Gabon, Maurice, Mozambique, Tanzania has not met since decades. There is a risk that the issue might be forgotten indefinitely.
Despite the eagerness of all the successive Comorian Government, to sit and discuss with the French Government, French authorities have accelerated their actions and political activities by obliterating the Comorianity of Mayotte and imposing French Laws in the Comorian Island of Mayotte, which are mainly against the Comorian culture and religion.
In Mayotte, Comorian from the other islands have been harassed and humiliated before been expelled Manu military. Thousands of Comorian have lost their lives while traveling to Mayotte by improvised and rudimentary boats.
Last year the French government for the first time agreed to create a bilateral Commission Comorian and French. Since than, several meetings have taken place, in France, in the Comoros and last month in Mayotte, yet despite the efforts and willingness of the Comorian government to negotiate with France. Recently the French government has announced that in March 2009 it will organize a referendum in Mayotte with the intention of changing the political status of Mayotte from a “French Territorial Collectivity” to a French Overseas Department. This is in violation of the United Nations Resolution A/31/4 of October 1976.
Taking into consideration the recent decision of the French government, the Comorian government has clearly indicated that it wants the question of the Comorian island of Mayotte to be included in the definitive agenda of the 63rd session of the UN General Assembly. On September 17, 2008 during the opening meeting of the UN General Committee decided to examine the question of Mayotte during its next meeting on which the date has to be fixed soon.
The French colonialism attitude on keeping the Comorian island of Mayotte under its occupation has clearly become aggressive. The recent event of the French government of unilaterally switching the Comorian telephone area code (269) from the Island of Mayotte is the most recent destructive and incomprehensible approach of the French authorities.
After more than 30 years of independence, it is clear that the French irritated the question of the Comorian island of Mayotte. There is therefore a need to act and to act fast. That is why Comorians are unanimous claiming the return of the Comorian island of Mayotte and their hope depends on the International Community and particularly the African Union. They believe that it’s only through a multilateral dialogue with the concerned parties that a road map for the return of the Comorian island of Mayotte to the Comoros could be elaborated in a fair manner.
Chronology of events
December 22, 1974
Consultation of the Comorian for the auto determination for the independence of the Comoros; 96% voted for the independence.
July 06, 1975
Unilateral proclamation for the independence of the Comoros by H.E.Mr Ahmed Abdallah Abderemane, President of the Internal Autonomy.
October 17, 1975
The United Nations Security Council adopt resolution 376 (1975) of 17 October 1975 and recommends the admission of the Comoros to the United Nations.
November 12, 1975
The General Assembly adopted resolution 3385 (XXX) reaffirming the need to respect the unity and territorial integrity of the Comoros composed of the islands of Anjouan, Grand Comore, Mayotte and Moheli, admit the Comoros to membership of the United Nations.
February 08 1976
France organized an illegal referendum on the Comorian Island of Mayotte.
February 11, 1976
France vetoed a resolution on the Question of the Comoros Island of Mayotte.
April 11, 1976
France organized another illegal referendum on the Comorian Island of Mayotte. Which was followed by several others referendums until 2001.
July 06, 1976
During the Summit of the Organization of the African Union in Port Louis, Mauritius, the Head of States adopted resolution CM/946 (XXVII) requested the Africa Group in New York to introduce the Question of Mayotte to the General Assembly and at the same time created the Ad-hoc Committee of (7) Algeria, Cameroon, Comores, Gabon, Maurice, Mozambique, Tanzania as a follow up mechanism of the Question of the Comorian Island of Mayotte.
On it’s (31st) session the General Assembly of the United Nations introduced the Question entitled “ The Question of the Comorian Island of Mayotte” in its agenda and since it has always been on the agenda of the General Assembly.
October 21, 1976
The General Assembly adopted Resolution 31/4 considering that the referendums imposed on the inhabitants of the Comorian island of Mayotte by France on 8 February and April 1976 null and void and constitute a violation of the Sovereignty of the Comorian State and its territorial integrity and that the occupation by France of the Comorian island of Mayotte constitutes a flagrant encroachment on the national unity of the Comorian State a Member of the United Nations. Condemned and considered null and void the referendums of organized by France and rejected any other form of referendum or consultation, which may be organized on the Comorian territory in Mayotte by France, and any foreign legislation purporting to legalize any French colonial presence on Comorian territory in Mayotte.
More than a dozen other resolutions were adopted by the General Assembly until 1995 when the Comorian Government accepted to withdraw the resolutions and decided to discuss with France.
December 1976
Mayotte became a “Collectivite Territorial Francaise” administrated by a “Prefet”.
December 22 1979
A Law was adopted and considered Mayotte belonging to the Republic Francaise.
April 1995
The French Government introduced a Law requiring Comorian entering the Comorian island of Mayotte to have an entrance visa.
October 1995
After a meeting in New York with the members of the OAU Ad-hoc Committee on the question of the Comoros Island of Mayotte also known as the Committee of Seven, the Comorian Government decided to withdraw its resolutions at the United Nations and accepted to sit and negotiate with the French Government. On the contrary, France organized several illegal referendums on the Comorian island of Mayotte.
June 2000
France organized another illegal referendum in Mayotte and changed its status and became “Collectivite Departemantale Francaise.”
March 2005
Comorian and French authorities created a Bilateral Commission; the question of Mayotte was among the major issues, discussed.
September 2005
Both the French and the Comorian Governments decided for the first time to suspend for 2 years to discussion of the “Question of the Comorian Island of Mayotte” in the United Nations General Assembly.
March 2007
The French Government decided unilaterally to switch the Comorian telephone country code (269) of Mayotte and attached it with (262) the one of Reunion Island a French Department in the Indian Ocean.
June 2007
The AU Ad-hoc Committee on the question of the Comoros Island of Mayotte also known as the Committee of Seven met at the Ambassadorial level in New York to discuss on the French Government decision unilaterally on switching the Comorian telephone country code (269) of Mayotte and attached it with are code (262).
September 2008
The French government announced that it will organize a referendum in Mayotte in March 2009.
October 01, 2008
19 October 2008
UN Resolution on Small Territories Delayed by unrelated Sovereignty Issue
Adoption of the annual United Nations (UN) resolution on the decolonisation of eleven Caribbean and Pacific territories has been delayed because of new language limiting self-determination to territories which are not the subject of sovereignty disputes. The new language was contained in the resolution adopted by the Special Committee on Decolonisation last June, without objection by any of the UN member states. As the resolution reached the Fourth Committee, however, the United Kingdom UK) introduced an amendment to delete the text referring to the sovereignty issue.
The UK amendment precipitated an extraordinary discussion among the member States in relation to conditionalities being proposed on the right to self-determination. Concerns were also expressed as to why it took some four months for the UK objection to be raised - and not even at the beginning of the decolonisation debate, but rather at the final moment of the adoption of the resolution.
What is ironic is that there are no sovereignty disputes in relation to the small territories specifically identified by name in the resolution. The territories of Falkland Islands/Malvinas, Western Sahara and Gibraltar are the territories recognised as subject to sovereignty dispute, but the language in question appears nowhere in the resolutions and decisions in relation to these three territories.
Representatives of several small island non self-governing territories expressed dismay that the resolution offering specific prescriptions for their self-determination was being used to fight sovereignty disputes which are totally irrelevant to these small eleven territories.
One potential compromise being considered was to replace the conditionality that the resolution would place on sovereignty-disputed territories with language reaffirming that the resolution applied specifically to the eleven small island territories. However, the limited time allotted by the Fourth Committee Chairman for consultations among member States - over a weekend when opportunities are sparse for such discussions - may not be sufficient to preclude a vote on the resolution.
The relevant portions of the United Nations press release on the deliberations in the Fourth Committee on this matter are reproduced below.
Sixty-third General Assembly
Fourth Committee
11th Meeting (PM)
United Nations Press Release
Sixty-third General Assembly
Fourth Committee
11th Meeting (PM)
17 October 2008
UNABLE TO REACH CONSENSUS, ASSEMBLY’S FOURTH COMMITTEE
POSTPONES ACTION ON DRAFT DECOLONIZATION RESOLUTION
Meeting Suspended After Challenge to Proposed Revision in Text;
United Kingdom Says New Wording is ‘Back-Door’ Effort to Change Principle
The General Assembly’s Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) met this afternoon to take action on one of the two decolonization-related draft texts it had not yet acted on. Unable to reach consensus, the Committee voted to suspend its proceedings, and will return to the issue on Monday, when it will also begin its consideration of questions related to information.
The text before the Committee today -- an omnibus draft resolution on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands, contained in report of the Special Committee on Decolonization (document A/63/23) -- included a new phrase in its second operative paragraph that had proved controversial when the other decolonization drafts were acted on by the Fourth Committee earlier this week.
The United Kingdom had introduced an amendment (document A/C.4/63/L.6) to delete the disputed phrase, “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty”. After a lengthy procedural discussion, the Committee decided to adjourn the meeting by a show of hands vote of 75 in favour to 54 against, with 1 abstention.
The representative of the United Kingdom said the new language qualified the principle of self-determination on issues of decolonization, in a way that caused grave concerns. His delegation, therefore, proposed that the phrase “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty” be removed, and the text returned to the language that had commanded consensus last year. He said self-determination was a fundamental principle enshrined in the United Nations Charter and international law. While the Charter did not elaborate on, nor further define, the principle, or how it was to be enacted, that had been done through various international instruments and practices, particularly in relation to decolonization. None of those legal instruments, resolutions or judgments indicated that the right of self-determination was not applicable in instances where there was a dispute over sovereignty – and had, in some cases, given primacy to that right over other international legal principles.
The Chairman of the Special Committee on Decolonization said that the report which included the omnibus draft resolution had been available to all United Nations Members since June, had been accessible through the United Nations documents system since August, and that any concerns could have been brought to the Committee’s attention “at any time”. None were received, he said. He further emphasized that the language in question had been carefully discussed in the Special Committee, and was consistent with previously adopted resolutions.
Stressing that his legal career had taught him that “bad cases made bad law”, the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines said the case before the Committee was a bad case. His country was not in favour of any introduction of further impediments to the concept of self-determination.
Statements were also made by the representatives of France, Brazil (for the Southern Common Market, MERCOSUR), New Zealand, Guatemala, Morocco, Syria, Uruguay, Argentina, Spain, Iran, Pakistan, Cuba, Sierra Leone, Guinea-Bissau, Chile, Bolivia, Saint Lucia, and Antigua and Barbuda. During the procedural discussion, there were also comments from the representatives of Jamaica, Sudan and Egypt.
The Fourth Committee is expected to resume consideration of the omnibus resolution on Monday, 17 October at 3 p.m. At that time, it is also expected to take action on a draft resolution on the question of Western Sahara (A/C.4/63/L.5) and to begin its consideration of questions relating to information, which was originally scheduled for today, with an address by, and interactive discussion with, the Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information.
Background
The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) met this afternoon to take action on the draft resolution before it on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands, which is contained in report of the Special Committee on Decolonization (document A/63/23, p. 64). (For further details of the text of the draft, see Press Release GA/SPD/400 of 10 October).
The Committee was also expected to act on an amendment to part A operative paragraph 2 of that text (document A/C.4/63/L.6). By the amendment, the words “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty” would be deleted from operative paragraph 2, so that it now reads: “Also reaffirms that, in the process of decolonization, 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.”
Action on Draft Text
The Committee first took up the “omnibus” draft resolution VI on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands, which is contained in the report of the Special Committee on Decolonization (document A/63/23, p. 64), along with the amendment to part A operative paragraph 2 of that text (document A/C.4/63/L.6).
JOHN SAWERS (United Kingdom), making a general statement and drawing the Committee’s attention to part A operative paragraph 2 of draft resolution VI, said the phrase “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty” was new language in that paragraph of this year’s draft. It qualified the principle of self-determination on issues of decolonization in a way that caused grave concerns. His delegation proposed that those words be removed to return the text to the language that had commanded consensus last year.
He said self-determination was a fundamental principle enshrined in the United Nations Charter and international law. The codifying of self-determination as a principle of international affairs dated from the early twentieth century, and, most significantly, from the 1945 Charter. While the Charter did not elaborate on, nor further define, the principle, or how it was to be enacted, that had been done through various international instruments and practices, particularly in relation to decolonization. Among those were: General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960, Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and People; General Assembly resolution 1541 (XV); common Article 1 (1966) of the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970, known as the “Friendly Relations” declaration. The principle of self-determination was also reflected in international practice and jurisprudence, including the International Court of Justice’s 1975 advisory opinion on Western Sahara.
None of those legal instruments, resolutions or judgments, he went on, indicated that the right of self-determination was not applicable in instances where there was a dispute over sovereignty, and in some cases, they had given primacy to the right over other international legal principles. Thus, the Committee should be asking –- at a minimum -– why there was an attempt to restrict and qualify the rights now, and in the context of the resolution. The language was not relevant to the resolution, as there were no sovereignty disputes in any of the eleven Territories that were the subject of the resolution. That fact alone should, he stressed, lead delegations to question why that language was included. He suggested there seemed to be an attempt to introduce that language through a “back door”, in order to gradually broaden the restriction of self-determination to other disputes.
While there were sovereignty issues raised in relation to two of the United Kingdom’s overseas territories –- Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands -- he said his Government’s position was clear: it tried to address the matters bilaterally with Spain and Argentina respectively. A move now to introduce a restriction to the principle of self-determination by the Committee could have wider ramifications. He asked the Committee to consider what implications it might have for the people of Western Sahara, as well as the Palestinian people –- particularly the impact of such a restriction on the latter’s right to self-determination, should Israel make a sovereignty claim to the West Bank and Gaza.
Urging the Committee to go back to the consensus language adopted last year, he said his country was not trying to change the resolution adopted last year. It wanted to maintain consensus and return to that language. He further said that his delegation appreciated the explanation of the procedures of the Special Committee of 24, which had been provided in a letter by that body’s chair earlier this week. That letter did not address the issues his delegation was now raising, however, and it was entirely appropriate to raise concerns about a draft resolution proposed by a subsidiary body to the Fourth Committee in the Fourth Committee itself. His delegation remained open to discussing the consensus with the Special Committee of 24 as a whole.
R.M. MARTY M. NATALEGAWA (Indonesia), Chairman of the Special Committee (of 24)on the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and People, said that the draft -- draft resolution VI -- had been discussed intensively through informal consultations of his Committee during the first week of June 2008, and was then endorsed by consensus. Throughout the process, the Committee had maintained an open approach and was ready to engage all interested parties in the process of dialogue and consultations.
The Special Committee had frequently called on the administering Power to participate in the work of the Committee, including in the process of consultations on the different draft resolutions considered by the Committee. However, such participation had not been at the level of the Committee’s expectations, in the case of some administering Powers. He said the Special Committee “sincerely hoped” that the situation would change, so that all concerns and eventual proposals could be considered at the appropriate time and at the appropriate forum.
The report of the Special Committee, which included the present “omnibus” resolution, was available to all United Nations Members since 30 June 2008, and had been accessible through the United Nations documents system since 8 August 2008. He said that any concerns could have been brought to the Committee’s attention at any time, but none were received.
The Committee emphasized that the content of operative paragraph 2 under section A of the draft resolution was carefully discussed through the aforementioned process, he said. That paragraph was consistent with the many previously adopted by the General Assembly and the Fourth Committee, as well as the final documents in different Regional Seminars on Decolonization. He concluded by saying that all member of the Fourth Committee were invited to take the above mentioned considerations into account, and it was the hope of the Special Committee that the draft resolution would obtain the consensus support of the Committee.
Ms. DE MONTCLAUR ( France) said her delegation supported the amendment proposed by the United Kingdom, which would bring the language of the text back to that which had achieved consensus in the past.
PIRAGIBE DOS SANTOS TARRAGÔ (Brazil), speaking for the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), said the omnibus draft resolution put forward an idea of self-determination that had no limitations. The proposed amendment did not recognize the indispensability of special and particular situations where there were sovereignty disputes. In those circumstances, the States concerned were urged to find a negotiated solution. The United Nations specifically distinguished situations in which there were sovereignty disputes. For that reason, he said the Committee should honour the consensus reached by the special body on the issue, the Committee of 24, which was indicated in its report in the omnibus resolution.
KIRSTY GRAHAM ( New Zealand) said the language pertaining to the right to self-determination was a very important issue, as it was one of the fundamental precepts of the Organization. The declaration was enshrined in the Charter and should not be qualified, and nobody should suggest that just conditions could exist. She said it was unfortunate and unacceptable that the phrase “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty” was inserted into operative paragraph 2, and she asked that that phrase be removed, so that the Committee could return to the consensus text of last year.
MÓNICA BOLAÑOS-PÉREZ (Guatemala), speaking on behalf of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Mexico, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, said her delegation wished to adopt the draft recommended by the Special Committee, and regretted that that was not the consensus view. As had been indicated, the omnibus draft resolution before the Special Committee had been adopted by consensus. Her delegation believed that deleting the phrase at issue would mean mistakenly enshrining the principle of self-determination in reference to all countries under consideration by the Special Committee, including those that had been explicitly defined as “special” because they involved sovereignty disputes. Indeed, [clause 6 of] the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples stated that “any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”.
Further, she added, the current language in draft resolution VI was in keeping with many decisions adopted by the General Assembly and the Fourth Committee, and with the language used in many of the reports of regional seminars held by the Special Committee. For that reason her delegation and those for which it spoke opposed the proposed amendment.
SAADIA EL ALAOUI ( Morocco) said her delegation would not have spoken, were it not for the need to clarify references to the nature of the question of Western Sahara. She said it was a regional issue, and a conflict left over from the days of the cold war. Furthermore, Morocco had completed decolonization of the region in 1975, and the debate today did not in any way involve the matter of Sahara, as the Security Council was calling on the parties to find a mutually agreeable solution.
MANAR TALEB ( Syria) observed, concerning the draft resolution, that the Fourth Committee was based on two principles, the first being self-determination and the second being territorial unity. He said it was, therefore, necessary to define the 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories on that basis. Those principles were referred to in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in resolution 1514, and he said the second operative paragraph of today’s draft had not created any new concepts, but rather underscored the concepts previously adopted by the General Assembly.
He suggested that the language not be deleted, and said that it was important to continue to refer to those two principles whenever possible, so long as no essential or substantive change occurred in the status of the territories. He said the report submitted had been prepared through a long of process of negotiation. It had been possible for any delegation not satisfied with any formulation contained in the report to evoke its preoccupations and concerns, especially since the Fourth Committee had called upon the administering Powers to join in the negotiations, but that had not happened. The report had been available in all six languages for a long time.
GUSTAVO ÁLVAREZ (Uruguay), saying his delegation supported the statement made on behalf of MERCOSUR, underlined the fact that the draft text had been adopted by the Special Committee in June, and was in full keeping with many other resolutions addressing the decolonization issue that elaborated respect for the territorial integrity of States. His delegation, therefore, believed the Committee should consider the text that had been approved by the Special Committee, under whose purview decolonization issues were addressed.
DIEGO LIMERES ( Argentina) stressed that the text had been adopted on 11 June by the Special Committee and included in its report, which had, in turn, been introduced to the Fourth Committee on 6 October. It also repeated previous language that had been used in the past. Further, the drafting of operative paragraph 2 clearly recognized the importance of self-determination in the decolonization process, while also recognizing special cases in which sovereignty disputes -- that were recognized by the international community –- existed. While it did not specifically refer to the question of the Malvinas Islands, the paragraph under consideration contained several principles that should be preserved. The General Assembly had clearly intended to safeguard those special colonial situations involving a sovereignty dispute like the Malvinas Islands, and the Special Committee’s work was to respect and consider those safeguards. He underlined that the case of the Malvinas Islands had been clearly defined by the General Assembly and the Special Committee, as just that kind of case in which negotiations between the two parties –- the United Kingdom and his Government –- should be undertaken, while keeping in mind the desires of the inhabitants themselves.
He said the United Kingdom had failed to comply with all of the provisions involved in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. That was very serious, given the United Kingdom’s status as the administering Power of a number of the remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories. Furthermore, the precepts of the Special Committee should be fulfilled, and the Committee should not give way to the interest of any individual Power.
JUAN ANTONIO YÁÑEZ-BARNUEVO ( Spain) said he recognized and supported the role of the Special Committee on Decolonization. To eradicate colonialism entirely, he supported the principle of self-determination explicitly mentioned in the draft resolution known as the “omnibus” resolution, in particular in section B. Section A, which contained operative paragraph 2, was an example of the very careful consideration that the Special Committee had brought to those subjects. That case-by-case approach kept in mind the diverse nature of situations in Non-Self-Governing Territories, and operative paragraph 2 was in keeping with the previous observations of the General Assembly.
The process of decolonization had become tangled up with sovereignty disputes, he said. In such cases, the principle of territorial integrity applied. As had been indicated by Brazil, Guatemala and others, attempts aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country was incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. He said he supported draft resolution VI in the terms it reflected, without accepting any change or amendment.
AMIR HOSSEIN HOSSEINI ( Iran) said members of the Special Committee had always been open to dialogue related to its mandate. Previous reports of the Committee had indicated that its members had frequently called on the administering Powers to take a more active role and help in drafting of resolutions related to various aspects of the Committee’s work. However, with few exceptions, that Committee had not received a satisfactory response so far. He reaffirmed support to what was endorsed by the Special Committee and expressed the hope that the draft resolution now before the Fourth Committee would be adopted by consensus.
FARUKH AMIL ( Pakistan) said that the important draft resolution had traditionally been approved by consensus, but the addition of new language in this year’s draft unfortunately jeopardized that consensus. The implications of the new language had not been adequately explained, and views were divergent. The Committee should revert back to the agreed-upon language of previous years and if that consensus were achieved, he felt his delegation could go along with it.
RODRIGO MALMIERCA DÍAZ ( Cuba) said his delegation supported the draft in its current form, and hoped the text could be approved by consensus in the Fourth Committee. It had been adopted by consensus in the Special Committee, and there had been plenty of time for its consideration; his delegation believed any resolution or decision from that body should be taken fully into account. Indeed, Cuba was against any attempt to undermine the Special Committee.
One of the fundamental ways the Special Committee considered the Non-Self-Governing Territories was through its regional seminars, he added. Many resolutions of the General Assembly, including 1514 (XV), stated that “any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”. He noted the parties involved in a sovereignty dispute had been consistently called to engage in negotiations to resolve that dispute. He once again called for a negotiated response in those cases. His delegation did not support the amendment, and would vote in favour of the draft text as currently written.
Mr. TURAY ( Sierra Leone) said his delegation supported the amendment proposed by the United Kingdom. If the draft were adopted in its current form, the text would be inconsistent with the United Nations Charter. He stressed that further time should be given for consultations.
CAMILLO GONSALVES ( Saint Vincent and the Grenadines), stressing that his legal career had taught him that “bad cases made bad law”, said the case before the Fourth Committee was a bad case. As a matter of principle -- and due to its former status as a colonial territory and as a member of the Special Committee –- his country was not in favour of any introduction of further impediments to the concept of self-determination. Noting that none of the 11 Territories addressed in the omnibus draft resolution were subject to sovereignty dispute, he said, this was not the time nor the place for this battle to be fought. Nevertheless, he added that he recognized the fears of those countries and Territories who were threatened by other, more powerful States, and said the interest of those countries should be covered by the current resolution.
Acknowledging that he himself feared the Caribbean was becoming the political battleground of certain States, he said that “when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled”. He was also aware of the potential mischief that could result if the resolution was written was approved –- and of the mischief that might result if it was defeated. Thus, he asked that voting be deferred so that the legitimate concerns of both sides could be addressed.
The Chair, noting the proposal to defer action, asked if any delegation wanted to comment on that proposal.
ALFREDO LOPES CABRAL ( Guinea-Bissau) asked if the Chair had invoked rule 116. The Chair confirmed he had. Mr. CABRAL suggested that the rule was incorrect and asked if the proposal had been to suspend the debate or to defer action.
Before the Chair could answer, JORGE TAGLE ( Chile) said his delegation believed that that matter, as had been noted by a number of other speakers, had been discussed not only today, but for a matter of months. He said it was useful for action to be taken now.
Asked if he opposed the proposal by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the chairman said he did not.
HUGO SILES ALVARADO ( Bolivia) said the days and months of work done by the Special Committee had afforded many opportunities for participation by Member States. Thus, Bolivia reaffirmed support for the Special Committee’s decision; it felt that action should be taken, and it opposed the motion by the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
DONATUS KEITH ST. AIMEE ( Saint Lucia) said he supported the proposal by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
TUMASIE BLAIR ( Antigua and Barbuda) moved that the Committee act on the proposal by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
On a point of order, RAYMOND WOLFE ( Jamaica) said that the ambassador of Guinea-Bissau was correct, and rule 116 should not apply in this case. As he had understood it, the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines had moved to defer action, but that should not go to a motion. It was normal that if a number of delegations asked for more time, there was no reason why they should not be given it.
On a point of order, Mr. CABRAL ( Guinea-Bissau) said that, even if the Committee were to agree that article 116 could apply, he would have to call the attention to the fact that the Chairman was wrong in not applying article 116. Should the Committee agree that it was, then in addition to the proposer of the motion two delegates were permitted speak in favour of it and two against, after which the motion should be immediately put to the vote.
The Chair responded that the Committee had no option but to address motions of order when they came up. He indicated that the representative of Guinea-Bissau had not actually asked for the floor, but had made a point of order, which was why the Chair had been obligated to give the floor to him immediately. If the person making the motion and putting forward the proposal had been asked a couple of times whether that was really the motion he was putting forward, the Chair said that he could not change the motion. He said the Chair itself was not able to cancel a proposal once it had been made. There being two in favour and two against, he said he intended to now put the proposal to the vote as to whether to put forward or adjourn the debate. As the vote was now open, he said, the floor would not be given to anyone at that time, according to the rules.
Mr. CABRAL ( Guinea-Bissau) said that rule 127 indicated that a proposal needed to put be forward for a vote in this manner.
Mr. SAWERS ( United Kingdom) asked if the debate was being closed, or if the meeting was being suspended for consideration. He understood that the proposal was for a suspension of the meeting. If so, he said rule 119 should apply, and he asked for clarification.
KHALID M. ALI (Sudan) asked what the Committee was voting on, pointing out that postponing the meeting for further consultation did not fall under rule 116.
The Chair proposed that the Committee be practical, and stressed that he himself had asked for clarification twice on the proposal from the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
Mr. GONSALVES ( Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) said that, having heard the arguments for and against, he had asked, as a member of the Special Committee, that voting be postponed, so that concerns on both sides could be addressed. He acknowledged that he had incorrectly cited rule 116 and apologized. He then asked to suspend the meeting under rule 119.
After a brief adjournment, the Chair said that he had spoken with the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, who, it was agreed, had originally cited rule 116. He noted that after the representative had spoken, it had been suggested by another delegation that rule 119 was being invoked.
Mr. GONSALVES said again that he had requested not to continue the debate, by suspending the meeting. Neither rule 116 nor rule 119 applied. In fact, rule 118 did. If that was done -- and “cooler heads prevailed” -- the Committee could return to the draft text at a later date. He again requested that the meeting be suspended, this time under rule 118.
The Chair, responding to a request to speak, said he could not allow any speakers. He said that as he understood it -- and before the floor was opened to any other delegation -- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines had asked for the meeting to be suspended according to rule 118. In response, Mr. GONSALVES agreed.
The Chair then asked Mr. Cabral of Guinea-Bissau if he had any questions on that point, while stressing he would not give the floor to anyone to make further arguments.
Mr. CABRAL said he took the floor in respect to principles of procedure. He said he was entitled to speak on behalf of the proposal or against it.
The Chair said, however, that “the maker of the proposal was master of the proposal”, and according to rule 118, any speaker could move to suspend the meeting. At such a point, a vote had to be taken and no arguments could be made.
MAGED A. ABDELAZIZ ( Egypt) said that if the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines was moving to strike his proposal under 116 and 119, then rule 122 should apply, and the representative had to be asked if he were withdrawing his proposal under those rules.
The Chair then said that current proposal was under rule 118. He said he had opened the voting on the first proposal under rule 116, and asked if there was consensus that the proposal under 116 be withdrawn. Noting that there was, he asked if the same proposal under rule 119 could be withdrawn by consensus. Noting that it could, he said the Committee had to proceed without debate to vote on the proposal under rule 118.
Action on Proposal to Suspend
Before taking that vote, he said that the Committee was voting on the proposal to suspend the meeting. Those voting in favour would be voting for suspension. Those voting against would be voting for continuation of this “fascinating discussion”.
By a show of hands vote, the Committee then decided to adjourn the debate with 75 in favour to 54 against, with 1 abstention.
The UK amendment precipitated an extraordinary discussion among the member States in relation to conditionalities being proposed on the right to self-determination. Concerns were also expressed as to why it took some four months for the UK objection to be raised - and not even at the beginning of the decolonisation debate, but rather at the final moment of the adoption of the resolution.
What is ironic is that there are no sovereignty disputes in relation to the small territories specifically identified by name in the resolution. The territories of Falkland Islands/Malvinas, Western Sahara and Gibraltar are the territories recognised as subject to sovereignty dispute, but the language in question appears nowhere in the resolutions and decisions in relation to these three territories.
Representatives of several small island non self-governing territories expressed dismay that the resolution offering specific prescriptions for their self-determination was being used to fight sovereignty disputes which are totally irrelevant to these small eleven territories.
One potential compromise being considered was to replace the conditionality that the resolution would place on sovereignty-disputed territories with language reaffirming that the resolution applied specifically to the eleven small island territories. However, the limited time allotted by the Fourth Committee Chairman for consultations among member States - over a weekend when opportunities are sparse for such discussions - may not be sufficient to preclude a vote on the resolution.
The relevant portions of the United Nations press release on the deliberations in the Fourth Committee on this matter are reproduced below.
Sixty-third General Assembly
Fourth Committee
11th Meeting (PM)
United Nations Press Release
Sixty-third General Assembly
Fourth Committee
11th Meeting (PM)
17 October 2008
UNABLE TO REACH CONSENSUS, ASSEMBLY’S FOURTH COMMITTEE
POSTPONES ACTION ON DRAFT DECOLONIZATION RESOLUTION
Meeting Suspended After Challenge to Proposed Revision in Text;
United Kingdom Says New Wording is ‘Back-Door’ Effort to Change Principle
The General Assembly’s Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) met this afternoon to take action on one of the two decolonization-related draft texts it had not yet acted on. Unable to reach consensus, the Committee voted to suspend its proceedings, and will return to the issue on Monday, when it will also begin its consideration of questions related to information.
The text before the Committee today -- an omnibus draft resolution on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands, contained in report of the Special Committee on Decolonization (document A/63/23) -- included a new phrase in its second operative paragraph that had proved controversial when the other decolonization drafts were acted on by the Fourth Committee earlier this week.
The United Kingdom had introduced an amendment (document A/C.4/63/L.6) to delete the disputed phrase, “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty”. After a lengthy procedural discussion, the Committee decided to adjourn the meeting by a show of hands vote of 75 in favour to 54 against, with 1 abstention.
The representative of the United Kingdom said the new language qualified the principle of self-determination on issues of decolonization, in a way that caused grave concerns. His delegation, therefore, proposed that the phrase “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty” be removed, and the text returned to the language that had commanded consensus last year. He said self-determination was a fundamental principle enshrined in the United Nations Charter and international law. While the Charter did not elaborate on, nor further define, the principle, or how it was to be enacted, that had been done through various international instruments and practices, particularly in relation to decolonization. None of those legal instruments, resolutions or judgments indicated that the right of self-determination was not applicable in instances where there was a dispute over sovereignty – and had, in some cases, given primacy to that right over other international legal principles.
The Chairman of the Special Committee on Decolonization said that the report which included the omnibus draft resolution had been available to all United Nations Members since June, had been accessible through the United Nations documents system since August, and that any concerns could have been brought to the Committee’s attention “at any time”. None were received, he said. He further emphasized that the language in question had been carefully discussed in the Special Committee, and was consistent with previously adopted resolutions.
Stressing that his legal career had taught him that “bad cases made bad law”, the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines said the case before the Committee was a bad case. His country was not in favour of any introduction of further impediments to the concept of self-determination.
Statements were also made by the representatives of France, Brazil (for the Southern Common Market, MERCOSUR), New Zealand, Guatemala, Morocco, Syria, Uruguay, Argentina, Spain, Iran, Pakistan, Cuba, Sierra Leone, Guinea-Bissau, Chile, Bolivia, Saint Lucia, and Antigua and Barbuda. During the procedural discussion, there were also comments from the representatives of Jamaica, Sudan and Egypt.
The Fourth Committee is expected to resume consideration of the omnibus resolution on Monday, 17 October at 3 p.m. At that time, it is also expected to take action on a draft resolution on the question of Western Sahara (A/C.4/63/L.5) and to begin its consideration of questions relating to information, which was originally scheduled for today, with an address by, and interactive discussion with, the Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information.
Background
The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) met this afternoon to take action on the draft resolution before it on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands, which is contained in report of the Special Committee on Decolonization (document A/63/23, p. 64). (For further details of the text of the draft, see Press Release GA/SPD/400 of 10 October).
The Committee was also expected to act on an amendment to part A operative paragraph 2 of that text (document A/C.4/63/L.6). By the amendment, the words “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty” would be deleted from operative paragraph 2, so that it now reads: “Also reaffirms that, in the process of decolonization, 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.”
Action on Draft Text
The Committee first took up the “omnibus” draft resolution VI on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands, which is contained in the report of the Special Committee on Decolonization (document A/63/23, p. 64), along with the amendment to part A operative paragraph 2 of that text (document A/C.4/63/L.6).
JOHN SAWERS (United Kingdom), making a general statement and drawing the Committee’s attention to part A operative paragraph 2 of draft resolution VI, said the phrase “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty” was new language in that paragraph of this year’s draft. It qualified the principle of self-determination on issues of decolonization in a way that caused grave concerns. His delegation proposed that those words be removed to return the text to the language that had commanded consensus last year.
He said self-determination was a fundamental principle enshrined in the United Nations Charter and international law. The codifying of self-determination as a principle of international affairs dated from the early twentieth century, and, most significantly, from the 1945 Charter. While the Charter did not elaborate on, nor further define, the principle, or how it was to be enacted, that had been done through various international instruments and practices, particularly in relation to decolonization. Among those were: General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960, Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and People; General Assembly resolution 1541 (XV); common Article 1 (1966) of the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970, known as the “Friendly Relations” declaration. The principle of self-determination was also reflected in international practice and jurisprudence, including the International Court of Justice’s 1975 advisory opinion on Western Sahara.
None of those legal instruments, resolutions or judgments, he went on, indicated that the right of self-determination was not applicable in instances where there was a dispute over sovereignty, and in some cases, they had given primacy to the right over other international legal principles. Thus, the Committee should be asking –- at a minimum -– why there was an attempt to restrict and qualify the rights now, and in the context of the resolution. The language was not relevant to the resolution, as there were no sovereignty disputes in any of the eleven Territories that were the subject of the resolution. That fact alone should, he stressed, lead delegations to question why that language was included. He suggested there seemed to be an attempt to introduce that language through a “back door”, in order to gradually broaden the restriction of self-determination to other disputes.
While there were sovereignty issues raised in relation to two of the United Kingdom’s overseas territories –- Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands -- he said his Government’s position was clear: it tried to address the matters bilaterally with Spain and Argentina respectively. A move now to introduce a restriction to the principle of self-determination by the Committee could have wider ramifications. He asked the Committee to consider what implications it might have for the people of Western Sahara, as well as the Palestinian people –- particularly the impact of such a restriction on the latter’s right to self-determination, should Israel make a sovereignty claim to the West Bank and Gaza.
Urging the Committee to go back to the consensus language adopted last year, he said his country was not trying to change the resolution adopted last year. It wanted to maintain consensus and return to that language. He further said that his delegation appreciated the explanation of the procedures of the Special Committee of 24, which had been provided in a letter by that body’s chair earlier this week. That letter did not address the issues his delegation was now raising, however, and it was entirely appropriate to raise concerns about a draft resolution proposed by a subsidiary body to the Fourth Committee in the Fourth Committee itself. His delegation remained open to discussing the consensus with the Special Committee of 24 as a whole.
R.M. MARTY M. NATALEGAWA (Indonesia), Chairman of the Special Committee (of 24)on the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and People, said that the draft -- draft resolution VI -- had been discussed intensively through informal consultations of his Committee during the first week of June 2008, and was then endorsed by consensus. Throughout the process, the Committee had maintained an open approach and was ready to engage all interested parties in the process of dialogue and consultations.
The Special Committee had frequently called on the administering Power to participate in the work of the Committee, including in the process of consultations on the different draft resolutions considered by the Committee. However, such participation had not been at the level of the Committee’s expectations, in the case of some administering Powers. He said the Special Committee “sincerely hoped” that the situation would change, so that all concerns and eventual proposals could be considered at the appropriate time and at the appropriate forum.
The report of the Special Committee, which included the present “omnibus” resolution, was available to all United Nations Members since 30 June 2008, and had been accessible through the United Nations documents system since 8 August 2008. He said that any concerns could have been brought to the Committee’s attention at any time, but none were received.
The Committee emphasized that the content of operative paragraph 2 under section A of the draft resolution was carefully discussed through the aforementioned process, he said. That paragraph was consistent with the many previously adopted by the General Assembly and the Fourth Committee, as well as the final documents in different Regional Seminars on Decolonization. He concluded by saying that all member of the Fourth Committee were invited to take the above mentioned considerations into account, and it was the hope of the Special Committee that the draft resolution would obtain the consensus support of the Committee.
Ms. DE MONTCLAUR ( France) said her delegation supported the amendment proposed by the United Kingdom, which would bring the language of the text back to that which had achieved consensus in the past.
PIRAGIBE DOS SANTOS TARRAGÔ (Brazil), speaking for the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), said the omnibus draft resolution put forward an idea of self-determination that had no limitations. The proposed amendment did not recognize the indispensability of special and particular situations where there were sovereignty disputes. In those circumstances, the States concerned were urged to find a negotiated solution. The United Nations specifically distinguished situations in which there were sovereignty disputes. For that reason, he said the Committee should honour the consensus reached by the special body on the issue, the Committee of 24, which was indicated in its report in the omnibus resolution.
KIRSTY GRAHAM ( New Zealand) said the language pertaining to the right to self-determination was a very important issue, as it was one of the fundamental precepts of the Organization. The declaration was enshrined in the Charter and should not be qualified, and nobody should suggest that just conditions could exist. She said it was unfortunate and unacceptable that the phrase “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty” was inserted into operative paragraph 2, and she asked that that phrase be removed, so that the Committee could return to the consensus text of last year.
MÓNICA BOLAÑOS-PÉREZ (Guatemala), speaking on behalf of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Mexico, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, said her delegation wished to adopt the draft recommended by the Special Committee, and regretted that that was not the consensus view. As had been indicated, the omnibus draft resolution before the Special Committee had been adopted by consensus. Her delegation believed that deleting the phrase at issue would mean mistakenly enshrining the principle of self-determination in reference to all countries under consideration by the Special Committee, including those that had been explicitly defined as “special” because they involved sovereignty disputes. Indeed, [clause 6 of] the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples stated that “any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”.
Further, she added, the current language in draft resolution VI was in keeping with many decisions adopted by the General Assembly and the Fourth Committee, and with the language used in many of the reports of regional seminars held by the Special Committee. For that reason her delegation and those for which it spoke opposed the proposed amendment.
SAADIA EL ALAOUI ( Morocco) said her delegation would not have spoken, were it not for the need to clarify references to the nature of the question of Western Sahara. She said it was a regional issue, and a conflict left over from the days of the cold war. Furthermore, Morocco had completed decolonization of the region in 1975, and the debate today did not in any way involve the matter of Sahara, as the Security Council was calling on the parties to find a mutually agreeable solution.
MANAR TALEB ( Syria) observed, concerning the draft resolution, that the Fourth Committee was based on two principles, the first being self-determination and the second being territorial unity. He said it was, therefore, necessary to define the 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories on that basis. Those principles were referred to in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in resolution 1514, and he said the second operative paragraph of today’s draft had not created any new concepts, but rather underscored the concepts previously adopted by the General Assembly.
He suggested that the language not be deleted, and said that it was important to continue to refer to those two principles whenever possible, so long as no essential or substantive change occurred in the status of the territories. He said the report submitted had been prepared through a long of process of negotiation. It had been possible for any delegation not satisfied with any formulation contained in the report to evoke its preoccupations and concerns, especially since the Fourth Committee had called upon the administering Powers to join in the negotiations, but that had not happened. The report had been available in all six languages for a long time.
GUSTAVO ÁLVAREZ (Uruguay), saying his delegation supported the statement made on behalf of MERCOSUR, underlined the fact that the draft text had been adopted by the Special Committee in June, and was in full keeping with many other resolutions addressing the decolonization issue that elaborated respect for the territorial integrity of States. His delegation, therefore, believed the Committee should consider the text that had been approved by the Special Committee, under whose purview decolonization issues were addressed.
DIEGO LIMERES ( Argentina) stressed that the text had been adopted on 11 June by the Special Committee and included in its report, which had, in turn, been introduced to the Fourth Committee on 6 October. It also repeated previous language that had been used in the past. Further, the drafting of operative paragraph 2 clearly recognized the importance of self-determination in the decolonization process, while also recognizing special cases in which sovereignty disputes -- that were recognized by the international community –- existed. While it did not specifically refer to the question of the Malvinas Islands, the paragraph under consideration contained several principles that should be preserved. The General Assembly had clearly intended to safeguard those special colonial situations involving a sovereignty dispute like the Malvinas Islands, and the Special Committee’s work was to respect and consider those safeguards. He underlined that the case of the Malvinas Islands had been clearly defined by the General Assembly and the Special Committee, as just that kind of case in which negotiations between the two parties –- the United Kingdom and his Government –- should be undertaken, while keeping in mind the desires of the inhabitants themselves.
He said the United Kingdom had failed to comply with all of the provisions involved in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. That was very serious, given the United Kingdom’s status as the administering Power of a number of the remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories. Furthermore, the precepts of the Special Committee should be fulfilled, and the Committee should not give way to the interest of any individual Power.
JUAN ANTONIO YÁÑEZ-BARNUEVO ( Spain) said he recognized and supported the role of the Special Committee on Decolonization. To eradicate colonialism entirely, he supported the principle of self-determination explicitly mentioned in the draft resolution known as the “omnibus” resolution, in particular in section B. Section A, which contained operative paragraph 2, was an example of the very careful consideration that the Special Committee had brought to those subjects. That case-by-case approach kept in mind the diverse nature of situations in Non-Self-Governing Territories, and operative paragraph 2 was in keeping with the previous observations of the General Assembly.
The process of decolonization had become tangled up with sovereignty disputes, he said. In such cases, the principle of territorial integrity applied. As had been indicated by Brazil, Guatemala and others, attempts aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country was incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. He said he supported draft resolution VI in the terms it reflected, without accepting any change or amendment.
AMIR HOSSEIN HOSSEINI ( Iran) said members of the Special Committee had always been open to dialogue related to its mandate. Previous reports of the Committee had indicated that its members had frequently called on the administering Powers to take a more active role and help in drafting of resolutions related to various aspects of the Committee’s work. However, with few exceptions, that Committee had not received a satisfactory response so far. He reaffirmed support to what was endorsed by the Special Committee and expressed the hope that the draft resolution now before the Fourth Committee would be adopted by consensus.
FARUKH AMIL ( Pakistan) said that the important draft resolution had traditionally been approved by consensus, but the addition of new language in this year’s draft unfortunately jeopardized that consensus. The implications of the new language had not been adequately explained, and views were divergent. The Committee should revert back to the agreed-upon language of previous years and if that consensus were achieved, he felt his delegation could go along with it.
RODRIGO MALMIERCA DÍAZ ( Cuba) said his delegation supported the draft in its current form, and hoped the text could be approved by consensus in the Fourth Committee. It had been adopted by consensus in the Special Committee, and there had been plenty of time for its consideration; his delegation believed any resolution or decision from that body should be taken fully into account. Indeed, Cuba was against any attempt to undermine the Special Committee.
One of the fundamental ways the Special Committee considered the Non-Self-Governing Territories was through its regional seminars, he added. Many resolutions of the General Assembly, including 1514 (XV), stated that “any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”. He noted the parties involved in a sovereignty dispute had been consistently called to engage in negotiations to resolve that dispute. He once again called for a negotiated response in those cases. His delegation did not support the amendment, and would vote in favour of the draft text as currently written.
Mr. TURAY ( Sierra Leone) said his delegation supported the amendment proposed by the United Kingdom. If the draft were adopted in its current form, the text would be inconsistent with the United Nations Charter. He stressed that further time should be given for consultations.
CAMILLO GONSALVES ( Saint Vincent and the Grenadines), stressing that his legal career had taught him that “bad cases made bad law”, said the case before the Fourth Committee was a bad case. As a matter of principle -- and due to its former status as a colonial territory and as a member of the Special Committee –- his country was not in favour of any introduction of further impediments to the concept of self-determination. Noting that none of the 11 Territories addressed in the omnibus draft resolution were subject to sovereignty dispute, he said, this was not the time nor the place for this battle to be fought. Nevertheless, he added that he recognized the fears of those countries and Territories who were threatened by other, more powerful States, and said the interest of those countries should be covered by the current resolution.
Acknowledging that he himself feared the Caribbean was becoming the political battleground of certain States, he said that “when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled”. He was also aware of the potential mischief that could result if the resolution was written was approved –- and of the mischief that might result if it was defeated. Thus, he asked that voting be deferred so that the legitimate concerns of both sides could be addressed.
The Chair, noting the proposal to defer action, asked if any delegation wanted to comment on that proposal.
ALFREDO LOPES CABRAL ( Guinea-Bissau) asked if the Chair had invoked rule 116. The Chair confirmed he had. Mr. CABRAL suggested that the rule was incorrect and asked if the proposal had been to suspend the debate or to defer action.
Before the Chair could answer, JORGE TAGLE ( Chile) said his delegation believed that that matter, as had been noted by a number of other speakers, had been discussed not only today, but for a matter of months. He said it was useful for action to be taken now.
Asked if he opposed the proposal by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the chairman said he did not.
HUGO SILES ALVARADO ( Bolivia) said the days and months of work done by the Special Committee had afforded many opportunities for participation by Member States. Thus, Bolivia reaffirmed support for the Special Committee’s decision; it felt that action should be taken, and it opposed the motion by the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
DONATUS KEITH ST. AIMEE ( Saint Lucia) said he supported the proposal by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
TUMASIE BLAIR ( Antigua and Barbuda) moved that the Committee act on the proposal by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
On a point of order, RAYMOND WOLFE ( Jamaica) said that the ambassador of Guinea-Bissau was correct, and rule 116 should not apply in this case. As he had understood it, the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines had moved to defer action, but that should not go to a motion. It was normal that if a number of delegations asked for more time, there was no reason why they should not be given it.
On a point of order, Mr. CABRAL ( Guinea-Bissau) said that, even if the Committee were to agree that article 116 could apply, he would have to call the attention to the fact that the Chairman was wrong in not applying article 116. Should the Committee agree that it was, then in addition to the proposer of the motion two delegates were permitted speak in favour of it and two against, after which the motion should be immediately put to the vote.
The Chair responded that the Committee had no option but to address motions of order when they came up. He indicated that the representative of Guinea-Bissau had not actually asked for the floor, but had made a point of order, which was why the Chair had been obligated to give the floor to him immediately. If the person making the motion and putting forward the proposal had been asked a couple of times whether that was really the motion he was putting forward, the Chair said that he could not change the motion. He said the Chair itself was not able to cancel a proposal once it had been made. There being two in favour and two against, he said he intended to now put the proposal to the vote as to whether to put forward or adjourn the debate. As the vote was now open, he said, the floor would not be given to anyone at that time, according to the rules.
Mr. CABRAL ( Guinea-Bissau) said that rule 127 indicated that a proposal needed to put be forward for a vote in this manner.
Mr. SAWERS ( United Kingdom) asked if the debate was being closed, or if the meeting was being suspended for consideration. He understood that the proposal was for a suspension of the meeting. If so, he said rule 119 should apply, and he asked for clarification.
KHALID M. ALI (Sudan) asked what the Committee was voting on, pointing out that postponing the meeting for further consultation did not fall under rule 116.
The Chair proposed that the Committee be practical, and stressed that he himself had asked for clarification twice on the proposal from the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
Mr. GONSALVES ( Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) said that, having heard the arguments for and against, he had asked, as a member of the Special Committee, that voting be postponed, so that concerns on both sides could be addressed. He acknowledged that he had incorrectly cited rule 116 and apologized. He then asked to suspend the meeting under rule 119.
After a brief adjournment, the Chair said that he had spoken with the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, who, it was agreed, had originally cited rule 116. He noted that after the representative had spoken, it had been suggested by another delegation that rule 119 was being invoked.
Mr. GONSALVES said again that he had requested not to continue the debate, by suspending the meeting. Neither rule 116 nor rule 119 applied. In fact, rule 118 did. If that was done -- and “cooler heads prevailed” -- the Committee could return to the draft text at a later date. He again requested that the meeting be suspended, this time under rule 118.
The Chair, responding to a request to speak, said he could not allow any speakers. He said that as he understood it -- and before the floor was opened to any other delegation -- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines had asked for the meeting to be suspended according to rule 118. In response, Mr. GONSALVES agreed.
The Chair then asked Mr. Cabral of Guinea-Bissau if he had any questions on that point, while stressing he would not give the floor to anyone to make further arguments.
Mr. CABRAL said he took the floor in respect to principles of procedure. He said he was entitled to speak on behalf of the proposal or against it.
The Chair said, however, that “the maker of the proposal was master of the proposal”, and according to rule 118, any speaker could move to suspend the meeting. At such a point, a vote had to be taken and no arguments could be made.
MAGED A. ABDELAZIZ ( Egypt) said that if the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines was moving to strike his proposal under 116 and 119, then rule 122 should apply, and the representative had to be asked if he were withdrawing his proposal under those rules.
The Chair then said that current proposal was under rule 118. He said he had opened the voting on the first proposal under rule 116, and asked if there was consensus that the proposal under 116 be withdrawn. Noting that there was, he asked if the same proposal under rule 119 could be withdrawn by consensus. Noting that it could, he said the Committee had to proceed without debate to vote on the proposal under rule 118.
Action on Proposal to Suspend
Before taking that vote, he said that the Committee was voting on the proposal to suspend the meeting. Those voting in favour would be voting for suspension. Those voting against would be voting for continuation of this “fascinating discussion”.
By a show of hands vote, the Committee then decided to adjourn the debate with 75 in favour to 54 against, with 1 abstention.
12 October 2008
Caribbean Calls for Implementation of UN Decolonisation Mandate
In a powerful presentation to the United Nations Special Political and Decolonisation (Fourth) Committee on behalf of the fourteen UN member states of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Dominica Ambassador H.E. Crispen Gregoire forcefully called for the UN system to carry out its responsibilities to implement the longstanding decolonisation mandate.
The analytical assessment by CARICOM on the extent of UN performance in fulfilling its decolonisation obligations brought to light the significant deficiencies in implementation of the resolutions adopted annually by UN member states. The CARICOM statement comes seven years into the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. OTR will publish an analysis of the Fourth Committee session upon its conclusion. Meanwhile, the complete text of the CARICOM presentation, reprinted below, is is essential reading.
Statement by H.E. Mr. Crispin S. Gregoire
Permanent Representative of Dominica to the United Nations
on behalf of The Caribbean Community (CARICOM)
to the Special Political and Decolonisation Committee (Fourth Committee)
on the Implementation of the Decolonisation Declaration
63rd Session
United Nations General Assembly
New York
9 October 2008
Mr. Chairman,
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the member States of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and wish to congratulate you and the other members of the Bureau, on your election to lead the work of this Committee for the 63rd Session.
Mr. Chairman,
CARICOM states remain seized on promoting efforts to resolve the stalemate in the decolonisation process. This is especially the case for the small island territories in the Caribbean, as well as in the Pacific. It is disappointing that as we enter the final two years of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, we appear no closer to finding a comprehensive solution to this dilemma. The completion of the “unfinished business” of decolonisation continues to elude us thus far into the 21st Century.
It has been written that “justice delayed, is justice denied.” Yet, there is a clear and inordinate delay in the self-determination process for the people of the small territories who rely on the United Nations Charter, human rights conventions and customary international law as the underpinning for their achievement of a status with full political equality. To this end, annual statements of support are delivered annually in this Committee, and in other U.N. bodies, confirming the applicability of the principles of self-determination and decolonisation to these remaining territories, consistent with the United Nations Charter. It is, however, the lack of implementation of measures adopted by the General Assembly to give substance to these principles that remains the most fundamental impediment to the realisation of decolonisation.
Mr. Chairman,
A number of proposals have been made over the last two decades designed to invigorate the decolonisation process. If they had been implemented, we would be having a very different discussion on this issue today. Such proposals, originating from member States and from the territories themselves, were meant to address the critical need for innovative measures to give effect to decolonisation, as contained in resolutions emerging from this Fourth Committee. A few of these proposed activities are noteworthy:
• A proposal was adopted in decolonisation regional seminars as far back as the 1990s, and into the first half of this decade, for the establishment of an expert group to examine the conditions in the territories. This was not seriously considered.
• The plan of action of the First and Second International Decades for the Eradication of Colonialism required analytical studies on political and constitutional developments on the ground in the territories. This research has been stubbornly resisted for almost two decades, and only basic statistical and other general information is provided to member states upon which to deliberate.
• The General Assembly adopted in Resolution 61/130 a Plan of Implementation of the Decolonisation Mandate (A/60/853) which organized all of the actions already endorsed by the General Assembly to be undertaken by the wider U.N. system. The plan was also to establish Special Mechanisms designed to monitor U.N. system and member State compliance with the decolonisation mandate. Further, it was to present expert analysis on the small territories through an interactive format similar to the procedure used in the Third Committee on human rights issues. The Plan of Implementation was curiously resisted on budgetary grounds even as a PBI was never requested.
• A case-by-case analysis of each territory was adopted by the General Assembly, but has never been full operationalised.
Mr. Chairman,
These are but a sampling of innovative measures proposed over the years but never implemented, either because of lack of cooperation by administering powers or resistance from the United Nations Secretariat. Is it not surprising that the ability of member States to effect real decolonisation is limited to these annual expressions of support for decolonisation principles? This cannot be our only action, and adoption of repetitive resolutions without regard for whether they have been implemented merely serves to give credence to the perception of powerlessness.
In this regard, CARICOM reiterates its endorsement of Special Mechanisms, as contained in the Plan of Implementation, as suitable means to undertake important elements of the substantive work on decolonisation which has gone ignored far too long. We request that the potential budgetary implications of this aspect of the Plan of Implementation, already adopted by the General Assembly, be accurately assessed and the necessary adjustments made accordingly.
CARICOM also endorses the decisions of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at its Seventh Session last May which recommended that an expert seminar be held to examine the impact of the United Nations decolonisation process on indigenous peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories with participation by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Special Committee on Decolonisation and relevant special rapporteurs.
The Permanent Forum also called for the United Nations Human Rights Council to designate a Special Rapporteur on the situation of indigenous peoples of the territories.
Mr. Chairman,
The intensity with which CARICOM regards this issue is precisely because the Caribbean territories are integral to our own wider regional integration process. Six of the seven non self-governing territories in the Caribbean are either associate or full members of CARICOM, and three are similarly a part of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS). They all participate in institutions such as the Caribbean Development Bank, the University of the West Indies (UWI) and the Caribbean Disaster Preparedness Response Agency (CDERA), among others. Several territories also share the Eastern Caribbean currency with independent states of the region. The people of these territories are in and of the Caribbean, and our interest in their political, economic and constitutional evolution is a logical consequence.
Accordingly, CARICOM has always sought to encourage the economic and social advancement of these territories as they proceed through the growing pains of colonial reform to the realisation of real self-government through absolute political equality. To this end, CARICOM has always sought to give substance to their concerns on the pace and nature of their political advancement, as they have expressed at the Special Committee on Decolonisation, the regional decolonisation seminars, the human rights bodies in Geneva and before this Fourth Committee. We take seriously their continued apprehension over the persistence of significant ‘democratic deficiencies’ which characterize the political dependency arrangements impeding them from exercising full self-government, and their concerns regarding the inconsistency of United Nations implementation of the mandates designed to foster their decolonisation.
In this connection, the Twenty-Ninth Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of CARICOM held in Antigua and Barbuda last August “expressed their deep disappointment” for the denial of the request of the Government of Montserrat for an entrustment from its administering power, the United Kingdom, which would enable the territory to participate in the CARICOM Single Market and Economy, and called for reconsideration of that denial.
CARICOM also takes note of the consideration of the Authority of the Organisation Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) which met in St. Lucia last May which considered an expert recommendation that “the most effective solution to the constitutional challenges facing the (Caribbean territories) would be constitutional advancement which would enable them to sign and ratify OECS Treaties on their own without having to depend on that authority being delegated” by the administering power.
CARICOM further takes into account the 46th Meeting of the Authority of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) held in my own country, Dominica, last January which “welcomed the information that approval has now been granted by the United States authorities for the establishment of the OECS Representation Office in Puerto Rico” that will help to advance cooperation in trade and investment, agriculture and fisheries, health, education, sports, tourism, information technology, security, disaster management and the environment.
Mr. Chairman,
Most of the Caribbean and Pacific territories are associate members of the regional economic commissions of the United Nations, and have participated in selected U.N. world conferences and special sessions of the General Assembly. This is a natural evolution of the self-determination process, and serves as a fundamental preparatory process for the attainment of full self-government. To this end, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) have welcomed initiatives to review possible inclusion of these territories in relevant technical programmes of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). CARICOM reiterates its endorsement of this approach, and welcomes the work already undertaken by a regional expert for the Caribbean Subregional Headquarters of ECLAC in identifying the areas of potential participation for these territories in the wider United Nations system.
CARICOM continues to commend the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for its inclusion of most of the Caribbean territories in UNDP regional programmes, and in having providing regional experts to special U.N. missions to several Caribbean territories.
Mr. Chairman,
CARICOM continues to reaffirm its support for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara, which we believe is the only answer for the resolution of the situation in this last colonial territory on the African continent. We are concerned about the growing violations of human rights perpetrated against the Saharawi people and urge the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights(OHCHR) to publish its findings on these human rights violations against the Saharawi people as soon as possible.
CARICOM acknowledges the work of the Secretary General and his Personal Envoy in bringing Morocco and Frente Polisario together for substantive dialogue on the outstanding issues with the aim of finding a just and final settlement. CARICOM strongly supports the Manhasset negotiation process consistent with Security Council Resolution 1754 (2007) and encourages the Secretary-General to continue his efforts to advance the process leading to a political solution which guarantees the right of self-determination for the people of Western Sahara consistent with relevant United Nations resolutions and legal opinions of the International Court of Justice.
In closing, Mr. Chairman,
The Fourth Committee must redouble its efforts to ensure that the United Nations system carries out its responsibilities to implement the decolonisation mandate adopted by the General Assembly to ensure that the fundamental human right of self-determination, and subsequent decolonisation of the remaining territories is expeditiously achieved. The full measure of self-government, continually reaffirmed by the General Assembly as political independence, free association with an independent state, or integration with an independent state, is achievable and verifiable, but only if the political will of this body is carried out in earnest.
This unfinished business of the United Nations has been allowed to stagnate for far too long.
I thank you.
The analytical assessment by CARICOM on the extent of UN performance in fulfilling its decolonisation obligations brought to light the significant deficiencies in implementation of the resolutions adopted annually by UN member states. The CARICOM statement comes seven years into the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. OTR will publish an analysis of the Fourth Committee session upon its conclusion. Meanwhile, the complete text of the CARICOM presentation, reprinted below, is is essential reading.
Statement by H.E. Mr. Crispin S. Gregoire
Permanent Representative of Dominica to the United Nations
on behalf of The Caribbean Community (CARICOM)
to the Special Political and Decolonisation Committee (Fourth Committee)
on the Implementation of the Decolonisation Declaration
63rd Session
United Nations General Assembly
New York
9 October 2008
Mr. Chairman,
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the member States of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and wish to congratulate you and the other members of the Bureau, on your election to lead the work of this Committee for the 63rd Session.
Mr. Chairman,
CARICOM states remain seized on promoting efforts to resolve the stalemate in the decolonisation process. This is especially the case for the small island territories in the Caribbean, as well as in the Pacific. It is disappointing that as we enter the final two years of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, we appear no closer to finding a comprehensive solution to this dilemma. The completion of the “unfinished business” of decolonisation continues to elude us thus far into the 21st Century.
It has been written that “justice delayed, is justice denied.” Yet, there is a clear and inordinate delay in the self-determination process for the people of the small territories who rely on the United Nations Charter, human rights conventions and customary international law as the underpinning for their achievement of a status with full political equality. To this end, annual statements of support are delivered annually in this Committee, and in other U.N. bodies, confirming the applicability of the principles of self-determination and decolonisation to these remaining territories, consistent with the United Nations Charter. It is, however, the lack of implementation of measures adopted by the General Assembly to give substance to these principles that remains the most fundamental impediment to the realisation of decolonisation.
Mr. Chairman,
A number of proposals have been made over the last two decades designed to invigorate the decolonisation process. If they had been implemented, we would be having a very different discussion on this issue today. Such proposals, originating from member States and from the territories themselves, were meant to address the critical need for innovative measures to give effect to decolonisation, as contained in resolutions emerging from this Fourth Committee. A few of these proposed activities are noteworthy:
• A proposal was adopted in decolonisation regional seminars as far back as the 1990s, and into the first half of this decade, for the establishment of an expert group to examine the conditions in the territories. This was not seriously considered.
• The plan of action of the First and Second International Decades for the Eradication of Colonialism required analytical studies on political and constitutional developments on the ground in the territories. This research has been stubbornly resisted for almost two decades, and only basic statistical and other general information is provided to member states upon which to deliberate.
• The General Assembly adopted in Resolution 61/130 a Plan of Implementation of the Decolonisation Mandate (A/60/853) which organized all of the actions already endorsed by the General Assembly to be undertaken by the wider U.N. system. The plan was also to establish Special Mechanisms designed to monitor U.N. system and member State compliance with the decolonisation mandate. Further, it was to present expert analysis on the small territories through an interactive format similar to the procedure used in the Third Committee on human rights issues. The Plan of Implementation was curiously resisted on budgetary grounds even as a PBI was never requested.
• A case-by-case analysis of each territory was adopted by the General Assembly, but has never been full operationalised.
Mr. Chairman,
These are but a sampling of innovative measures proposed over the years but never implemented, either because of lack of cooperation by administering powers or resistance from the United Nations Secretariat. Is it not surprising that the ability of member States to effect real decolonisation is limited to these annual expressions of support for decolonisation principles? This cannot be our only action, and adoption of repetitive resolutions without regard for whether they have been implemented merely serves to give credence to the perception of powerlessness.
In this regard, CARICOM reiterates its endorsement of Special Mechanisms, as contained in the Plan of Implementation, as suitable means to undertake important elements of the substantive work on decolonisation which has gone ignored far too long. We request that the potential budgetary implications of this aspect of the Plan of Implementation, already adopted by the General Assembly, be accurately assessed and the necessary adjustments made accordingly.
CARICOM also endorses the decisions of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at its Seventh Session last May which recommended that an expert seminar be held to examine the impact of the United Nations decolonisation process on indigenous peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories with participation by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Special Committee on Decolonisation and relevant special rapporteurs.
The Permanent Forum also called for the United Nations Human Rights Council to designate a Special Rapporteur on the situation of indigenous peoples of the territories.
Mr. Chairman,
The intensity with which CARICOM regards this issue is precisely because the Caribbean territories are integral to our own wider regional integration process. Six of the seven non self-governing territories in the Caribbean are either associate or full members of CARICOM, and three are similarly a part of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS). They all participate in institutions such as the Caribbean Development Bank, the University of the West Indies (UWI) and the Caribbean Disaster Preparedness Response Agency (CDERA), among others. Several territories also share the Eastern Caribbean currency with independent states of the region. The people of these territories are in and of the Caribbean, and our interest in their political, economic and constitutional evolution is a logical consequence.
Accordingly, CARICOM has always sought to encourage the economic and social advancement of these territories as they proceed through the growing pains of colonial reform to the realisation of real self-government through absolute political equality. To this end, CARICOM has always sought to give substance to their concerns on the pace and nature of their political advancement, as they have expressed at the Special Committee on Decolonisation, the regional decolonisation seminars, the human rights bodies in Geneva and before this Fourth Committee. We take seriously their continued apprehension over the persistence of significant ‘democratic deficiencies’ which characterize the political dependency arrangements impeding them from exercising full self-government, and their concerns regarding the inconsistency of United Nations implementation of the mandates designed to foster their decolonisation.
In this connection, the Twenty-Ninth Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of CARICOM held in Antigua and Barbuda last August “expressed their deep disappointment” for the denial of the request of the Government of Montserrat for an entrustment from its administering power, the United Kingdom, which would enable the territory to participate in the CARICOM Single Market and Economy, and called for reconsideration of that denial.
CARICOM also takes note of the consideration of the Authority of the Organisation Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) which met in St. Lucia last May which considered an expert recommendation that “the most effective solution to the constitutional challenges facing the (Caribbean territories) would be constitutional advancement which would enable them to sign and ratify OECS Treaties on their own without having to depend on that authority being delegated” by the administering power.
CARICOM further takes into account the 46th Meeting of the Authority of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) held in my own country, Dominica, last January which “welcomed the information that approval has now been granted by the United States authorities for the establishment of the OECS Representation Office in Puerto Rico” that will help to advance cooperation in trade and investment, agriculture and fisheries, health, education, sports, tourism, information technology, security, disaster management and the environment.
Mr. Chairman,
Most of the Caribbean and Pacific territories are associate members of the regional economic commissions of the United Nations, and have participated in selected U.N. world conferences and special sessions of the General Assembly. This is a natural evolution of the self-determination process, and serves as a fundamental preparatory process for the attainment of full self-government. To this end, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) have welcomed initiatives to review possible inclusion of these territories in relevant technical programmes of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). CARICOM reiterates its endorsement of this approach, and welcomes the work already undertaken by a regional expert for the Caribbean Subregional Headquarters of ECLAC in identifying the areas of potential participation for these territories in the wider United Nations system.
CARICOM continues to commend the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for its inclusion of most of the Caribbean territories in UNDP regional programmes, and in having providing regional experts to special U.N. missions to several Caribbean territories.
Mr. Chairman,
CARICOM continues to reaffirm its support for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara, which we believe is the only answer for the resolution of the situation in this last colonial territory on the African continent. We are concerned about the growing violations of human rights perpetrated against the Saharawi people and urge the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights(OHCHR) to publish its findings on these human rights violations against the Saharawi people as soon as possible.
CARICOM acknowledges the work of the Secretary General and his Personal Envoy in bringing Morocco and Frente Polisario together for substantive dialogue on the outstanding issues with the aim of finding a just and final settlement. CARICOM strongly supports the Manhasset negotiation process consistent with Security Council Resolution 1754 (2007) and encourages the Secretary-General to continue his efforts to advance the process leading to a political solution which guarantees the right of self-determination for the people of Western Sahara consistent with relevant United Nations resolutions and legal opinions of the International Court of Justice.
In closing, Mr. Chairman,
The Fourth Committee must redouble its efforts to ensure that the United Nations system carries out its responsibilities to implement the decolonisation mandate adopted by the General Assembly to ensure that the fundamental human right of self-determination, and subsequent decolonisation of the remaining territories is expeditiously achieved. The full measure of self-government, continually reaffirmed by the General Assembly as political independence, free association with an independent state, or integration with an independent state, is achievable and verifiable, but only if the political will of this body is carried out in earnest.
This unfinished business of the United Nations has been allowed to stagnate for far too long.
I thank you.
07 October 2008
UN General Assembly Begins Review of Territories - An Analysis
On 6th October 2008, the United Nations (UN) Special Political and Decolonisation Committee - a committee of the whole of the UN General Assembly - began its annual consideration of the political, socio-economic and constitutional developments in the remaining non self-governing territories on 6th October 2008.
The discussions center on the sixteen remaining territories formally listed by the UN as non self-governing. These include the Caribbean and Pacific small island territories of Bermuda, Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, British Virgin Islands, Anguilla and the US Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico is not formally listed, but the Special Committee of 24 on Decolonisation conducts several days of hearings each summer on the decolonisation of Puerto Rico and adopts a resolution related to its self-determination process. Since 2007, the Committee of 24 has requested that the General Assembly itself consider the decolonisation of Puerto Rico.
The General Assembly also is reviewing the listed Pacific territories of American Samoa, Guam, New Caledonia, Tokelau and Pitcairn, as well as St. Helena. Other territories under consideration are those which are the subject of sovereignty disputes, namely the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Gibraltar, and Western Sahara.
The Fourth Committee had earlier held its first organisational session on 2nd October under the leadership of its chairman Jorge Arguello (Argentina), and introduced the other members of the bureau: Vice Chairs Amr Elsherbini (Egypt), Alexandru Cujbi (Moldova), Elmer Cato (Philippines), and Committee Rapporteur Paula Parviainen (Finland).
Participation of Territories in UN Debate
It was announced at the organisational session that some 71 requests had been received thus far from representatives of non-governmental organisations and individuals to address the Fourth Committee on developments in Gibraltar, Guam, New Caledonia, the US Virgin Islands and Western Sahara. It was also announced that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar would make a statement, the only government representative from any of the territories expected to appear.
Increasing the participation of the territorial governments, in particular, at the Fourth Committee has always been a formidable challenge. First, the UN does not advise the territorial governments when the meetings are being held, and many are not aware of the provisions for territorial governments to address the relevant UN committees regarding the nature, scope and extent (if any) of their own process of political development. In some cases over the years, some territories have been sternly dissuaded by their administering powers from appearing at UN Headquarters to address the relevant UN bodies. But who best to provide first-hand information than the representatives of the territories themselves? The UN has provided the political space for their input, but this can only have meaning if their participation is facilitated. In reply to a question as to whether territorial governments should be permitted to address the UN or not, one former Caribbean territorial minister replied, “If not us, then who?”
US-administered territories
Since the 1970s, successive governments of the US Virgin Islands had led the way in sending a representative, at ministerial level, to address both the Committee of 24 and the Fourth Committee, and from 1990 through 2006, at to provide information to the annual UN regional decolonisation seminars. This involvement appears to have ended with the last presentation to the UN by that territory delivered to the Fourth Committee in October, 2006. In the 1990s successive governments of Guam also presented information before the relevant UN committees and UN decolonisation seminars, providing first hand knowledge of the developments in that territory. The participation of the Guam government, however, also appears to have ceased as no governmental statement has been presented for a number of years.
The earlier substantive participation of these two territorial governments is reflected in the depth of the resolutions which were adopted on these territories during that period. But without this direct information and perspective from these governments, the UN resolutions specifically related to these territories have become repetitive, and often outdated. Additionally, important recommendations have been quietly deleted from the resolutions, even as the UN member States are not advised as to whether the actions called for have been carried out. Territorial governments are usually unaware of such sleight-of-hand maneuverings.
Meanwhile, civil society organisations have stepped up to fill the void by making presentations to the UN. The United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands has consistently participated in the regional seminars and at the UN hearings in New York, most recently at the Special Committee in 2008. Representatives of the Chamoru Nation, the Guahan Indigenous Collective and the Guam Famoksaiyan Collective are scheduled to address the Fourth Committee on 7th October on the question of Guam. This steady Guam civil society participation adds to the groundbreaking role played for decades by the Organisation of People for Indigenous Rights (OPIR) which had consistently presented critical information to the world body at UN headquarters, and continues to provide important information at the decolonisation seminars.
UK – Administered Territories
In the case of the British-administered territories, the elected governments generally have not participated in the UN review process at UN headquarters, with the notable exception of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar whose statements to the world body have focused on justifying the dependency relationship, while simultaneously lambasting the UN for what he considers its outdated definition of what constitutes colonialism. The Gibraltar Opposition leader also addresses the UN, and provides balance to what some consider an extremist government position. Other territories, however, are not as comfortable as the Gibraltar government appears to be in relation to the unilateral authority which characterizes the dependency models. It does not appear that they necessarily subscribe to the "colonialism by consent" arguments, as they seek to gain as much autonomy as possible within the confines of the present dependency arrangements, especially given that substantive autonomy is “not on offer.” Their absence from the UN proceedings, often because of misperceptions of the role of the UN in their decolonisation process, fuels the argument that they are pleased with the status quo dependency arrangements. The UN, in turn, is deprived of a real discussion on the nuances of the contemporary colonial dynamic.
Quite apart from the absence of engagement by the territorial governments at the UN decolonisation review in New York, the British-administered territories have participated more consistently in the decolonisation regional seminars. This was highlighted by the high level presence at the 2003 Caribbean Regional Seminar on Decolonisation which convened in Anguilla. During that session, discussions were held between with the elected heads of government of Anguilla, the Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands and Montserrat, along with high level officials of the other territories in the region. A most significant expert presentation at that seminar was on the legitimacy of the political status of free association as an alternative to continued dependency and immediate independence. The association models of Cook Islands and Niue with New Zealand; the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau with the United States; and the earlier West Indies Associated state model with the United Kingdom were outlined and discussed at length.
At that seminar, the applicability of free association as a viable political model was confirmed by all of the conference participants, including the representatives of the administering powers in attendance. Upon reflection, however, the British later announced that they no longer offered free association to the territories under its administration, nor did they offer political integration. Thus, present discussions between the territories and the UK on constitutional reform are confined to the extent to which some powers can be delegated from an un-elected governor to the elected government and a move towards democratic governance.
Conclusion
These are but some of the salient issues on the ground affecting the political future of the people of the territories. The method of work of the UN bodies dealing with decolonisation, however, continues to impede even a cursory examination of these issues. The annual routine employed by the UN in addressing the complexities of contemporary decolonisation is in dire need of re-structuring, with the aim of providing for a real dialogue and expert examination of the democratic deficiencies which characterise the prevailing dependency arrangements, and the legitimate political options that the international community has agreed are to be made available to the territories.
In short, the dialogue must be on the extent of implementation of those things which the UN has long agreed to do, but has not yet mustered the political will toensure that they are completed. When it comes to decolonisation, it seems that the attention span of the UN system is limited to the adoption of resolutions without regard for whether they are carried out. The resolutions require an annual report on implementation - a report which has never been seen. A real “Report on the implementation of decolonisation resolutions since the first International Decade of Colonialism” would be a good place to start.
The discussions center on the sixteen remaining territories formally listed by the UN as non self-governing. These include the Caribbean and Pacific small island territories of Bermuda, Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, British Virgin Islands, Anguilla and the US Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico is not formally listed, but the Special Committee of 24 on Decolonisation conducts several days of hearings each summer on the decolonisation of Puerto Rico and adopts a resolution related to its self-determination process. Since 2007, the Committee of 24 has requested that the General Assembly itself consider the decolonisation of Puerto Rico.
The General Assembly also is reviewing the listed Pacific territories of American Samoa, Guam, New Caledonia, Tokelau and Pitcairn, as well as St. Helena. Other territories under consideration are those which are the subject of sovereignty disputes, namely the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Gibraltar, and Western Sahara.
The Fourth Committee had earlier held its first organisational session on 2nd October under the leadership of its chairman Jorge Arguello (Argentina), and introduced the other members of the bureau: Vice Chairs Amr Elsherbini (Egypt), Alexandru Cujbi (Moldova), Elmer Cato (Philippines), and Committee Rapporteur Paula Parviainen (Finland).
Participation of Territories in UN Debate
It was announced at the organisational session that some 71 requests had been received thus far from representatives of non-governmental organisations and individuals to address the Fourth Committee on developments in Gibraltar, Guam, New Caledonia, the US Virgin Islands and Western Sahara. It was also announced that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar would make a statement, the only government representative from any of the territories expected to appear.
Increasing the participation of the territorial governments, in particular, at the Fourth Committee has always been a formidable challenge. First, the UN does not advise the territorial governments when the meetings are being held, and many are not aware of the provisions for territorial governments to address the relevant UN committees regarding the nature, scope and extent (if any) of their own process of political development. In some cases over the years, some territories have been sternly dissuaded by their administering powers from appearing at UN Headquarters to address the relevant UN bodies. But who best to provide first-hand information than the representatives of the territories themselves? The UN has provided the political space for their input, but this can only have meaning if their participation is facilitated. In reply to a question as to whether territorial governments should be permitted to address the UN or not, one former Caribbean territorial minister replied, “If not us, then who?”
US-administered territories
Since the 1970s, successive governments of the US Virgin Islands had led the way in sending a representative, at ministerial level, to address both the Committee of 24 and the Fourth Committee, and from 1990 through 2006, at to provide information to the annual UN regional decolonisation seminars. This involvement appears to have ended with the last presentation to the UN by that territory delivered to the Fourth Committee in October, 2006. In the 1990s successive governments of Guam also presented information before the relevant UN committees and UN decolonisation seminars, providing first hand knowledge of the developments in that territory. The participation of the Guam government, however, also appears to have ceased as no governmental statement has been presented for a number of years.
The earlier substantive participation of these two territorial governments is reflected in the depth of the resolutions which were adopted on these territories during that period. But without this direct information and perspective from these governments, the UN resolutions specifically related to these territories have become repetitive, and often outdated. Additionally, important recommendations have been quietly deleted from the resolutions, even as the UN member States are not advised as to whether the actions called for have been carried out. Territorial governments are usually unaware of such sleight-of-hand maneuverings.
Meanwhile, civil society organisations have stepped up to fill the void by making presentations to the UN. The United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands has consistently participated in the regional seminars and at the UN hearings in New York, most recently at the Special Committee in 2008. Representatives of the Chamoru Nation, the Guahan Indigenous Collective and the Guam Famoksaiyan Collective are scheduled to address the Fourth Committee on 7th October on the question of Guam. This steady Guam civil society participation adds to the groundbreaking role played for decades by the Organisation of People for Indigenous Rights (OPIR) which had consistently presented critical information to the world body at UN headquarters, and continues to provide important information at the decolonisation seminars.
UK – Administered Territories
In the case of the British-administered territories, the elected governments generally have not participated in the UN review process at UN headquarters, with the notable exception of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar whose statements to the world body have focused on justifying the dependency relationship, while simultaneously lambasting the UN for what he considers its outdated definition of what constitutes colonialism. The Gibraltar Opposition leader also addresses the UN, and provides balance to what some consider an extremist government position. Other territories, however, are not as comfortable as the Gibraltar government appears to be in relation to the unilateral authority which characterizes the dependency models. It does not appear that they necessarily subscribe to the "colonialism by consent" arguments, as they seek to gain as much autonomy as possible within the confines of the present dependency arrangements, especially given that substantive autonomy is “not on offer.” Their absence from the UN proceedings, often because of misperceptions of the role of the UN in their decolonisation process, fuels the argument that they are pleased with the status quo dependency arrangements. The UN, in turn, is deprived of a real discussion on the nuances of the contemporary colonial dynamic.
Quite apart from the absence of engagement by the territorial governments at the UN decolonisation review in New York, the British-administered territories have participated more consistently in the decolonisation regional seminars. This was highlighted by the high level presence at the 2003 Caribbean Regional Seminar on Decolonisation which convened in Anguilla. During that session, discussions were held between with the elected heads of government of Anguilla, the Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands and Montserrat, along with high level officials of the other territories in the region. A most significant expert presentation at that seminar was on the legitimacy of the political status of free association as an alternative to continued dependency and immediate independence. The association models of Cook Islands and Niue with New Zealand; the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau with the United States; and the earlier West Indies Associated state model with the United Kingdom were outlined and discussed at length.
At that seminar, the applicability of free association as a viable political model was confirmed by all of the conference participants, including the representatives of the administering powers in attendance. Upon reflection, however, the British later announced that they no longer offered free association to the territories under its administration, nor did they offer political integration. Thus, present discussions between the territories and the UK on constitutional reform are confined to the extent to which some powers can be delegated from an un-elected governor to the elected government and a move towards democratic governance.
Conclusion
These are but some of the salient issues on the ground affecting the political future of the people of the territories. The method of work of the UN bodies dealing with decolonisation, however, continues to impede even a cursory examination of these issues. The annual routine employed by the UN in addressing the complexities of contemporary decolonisation is in dire need of re-structuring, with the aim of providing for a real dialogue and expert examination of the democratic deficiencies which characterise the prevailing dependency arrangements, and the legitimate political options that the international community has agreed are to be made available to the territories.
In short, the dialogue must be on the extent of implementation of those things which the UN has long agreed to do, but has not yet mustered the political will toensure that they are completed. When it comes to decolonisation, it seems that the attention span of the UN system is limited to the adoption of resolutions without regard for whether they are carried out. The resolutions require an annual report on implementation - a report which has never been seen. A real “Report on the implementation of decolonisation resolutions since the first International Decade of Colonialism” would be a good place to start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)