A long-awaited judicial ruling by US Virgin Islands Superior Court Judge Darryl Donohue has opened the way for the resumption of a political process which could lead to the adoption of the first constitution for the US Virgin Islands, one of two US administered dependencies in the Caribbean. The territory is governed pursuant to the Revised Organic Act of 1954 written by the US Congress, rather than a constitution written by the people of the dependency, and is one of sixteen remaining territories worldwide recognised by the United Nations as non self-governing.
This is the fifth attempt by the US Virgin Islands to complete the process of drafting and ratifying a territorial constitution based on the present status. In retrospect, the many attempts at constitutional advancement may have more to say about the efficacy of the present dependency status rather than the commitment of the people to have a constitution, since any enhancements of the status quo must fit within limitations of colonial dependency which vary from territory to territory.
Legal Issues
The legal case on this phase of the constitutional process was filed in the Superior Court of the territory in June, 2009 by Fifth Constitutional Convention President Luz James and Convention Secretary Mary Moorhead questioning whether elected Governor John de Jongh had the authority to hold back the draft constitution from transmission to US President Barak Obama for consideration, as required by the US and territorial laws governing the constitutional process (an earlier ruling of the court had required the two Convention officials to file the case in their personal capacities rather than as Convention officials).
The Governor had decided last June not to submit the draft document to Washington after a legal analysis by territorial Attorney General Vincent Frazer contending that elements of the draft violated certain provisions of the US Constitution, including the equal protection of US citizens (there is no Virgin Islands citizenship to be protected, as no such citizenship exists in the Revised Organic Act). A number of members of the Convention have countered that the provisions in question were consistent with those in constitutions of other US-administered territories in the Caribbean and Pacific where the people of the territories do not have full political rights as other US citizens, and thus have unique provisions in their constitutions to compensate for the democratic deficiencies. The court case was not based on the constitutionality of any provisions, but rather was restricted to the procedural question of whether the law provided a role for the governor other than to submit the document to Washington. The ruling made it clear that no such authority existed, as reflected in the conclusion of the court ruling:
“III. CONCLUSION
The Court finds that Respondent (Governor) has a specific non-discretionary duty required by both (US) Pub.L. No. 94-584 and (Virgin Islands) Act No. 6688 to forward the proposed Constitution to the President of the United States. Respondent's failure to forward the proposed Constitution constitutes a violation of Pub. L. No. 94-584 and Act No. 6688. Within the confines of the language of both statutes, Respondent's duty entails only submitting the proposed Constitution to the President of the United States. The statutes authorize nothing more and nothing less. There is no authority for Respondent to amend, modify, revise, withhold, or take any other action regarding the proposed Constitution beyond his enumerated duty. Consequently, it was not within Respondent's power to take contrary action by not forwarding the proposed Constitution to the President of the United States. Accordingly, mandamus relief is appropriate and Respondent shall be ordered to proceed with his duty pursuant to Pub. L. No. 94-584 and Act No. 6688 and forward the proposed Constitution to the President of the United States within ten (10) business days.”
Budgetary Shortfall
The 30 – member Fifth Constitutional Convention had begun its work in 2007 but suffered from the start because of insufficient resources. The budget of the Convention was never fully funded, and it had to rely on ad hoc appropriations resulting in operational delays and periods of dormancy when there were insufficient funds to convene its public meetings. Several requests to the US Government for financial assistance to the Convention to fill the budgetary gap were denied, leaving the Convention with a significant budgetary shortfall to fully carry out its work. In apparent anticipation of a favourable court decision, the President of the Convention, in testimony before the Fourth Committee of the United Nations (UN) last October, reported on the financial condition of the constitutional process, and requested UN assistance for the upcoming educational programme on the constitution after the document is returned to the people from Washington. The UN has routinely provided such assistance to non self-governing territories in their constitutional advancement process, and it is too early to determine whether the world body would assist the US Virgin Islands in this manner.
The Next Stages
With the court ruling, an in-depth substantive analysis of the draft document will now be undertaken by the US administration, as originally intended, rather than short-circuited at the territorial level. If the territorial government appeals the decision to the Virgin Islands Supreme Court, further delays could be expected. The longer the delays, however, the more likely the constitutional discussions in the territory could take place in the middle of the electoral campaign in 2010 – not an unfavourable outcome for those who seek more substance in the campaign debates, but perhaps an unintended consequence for those who prefer that these issues remain outside of the campaign debate. In any case, the timing could invariably result in the rare opportunity for substantive constitutional and political status issues to be injected into the political campaign.
A number of experts have argued that the constitutionality of the draft Virgin Islands constitution is best examined by the US, rather than by the territory – since it is the US constitution which governs the process, rather than a territorial law, and it is the US Government which is in the best position to determine whether something is consistent or not with its constitution. Any territorial interruption of how US law applies could be well off the mark since the US has the power under the present political status to unilaterally decide which parts of the US Constitution – as well as US laws - apply to the territories, and which do not. Thus, who best to explain this peculiarly inconsistent dependency status than the government which created it, and which has administers it in the case of the US Virgin Islands for over 90 years, and in the case of Puerto Rico and Guam for over one hundred years?
Legal and political scholars are awaiting the contemporary US analysis of the draft Virgin Islands constitution which should be undertaken at some point in 2010. Among the US government agencies which would provide views on the proposed constitutional provisions, the US Justice Department should be the most intriguing I its analysis, as it would provide an assessment on levels of autonomy possible – and not possible - under the unincorporated territory status as it is defined in 2010. The Justice Department assessment of the present commonwealth/territorial status of Puerto Rico essentially served to redefine the limitations of the prevailing dependency status, and an assessment of that department of the draft constitution of the Virgin Islands could also shed similar light on what is deemed possible under the present territorial status. The last time such an analysis was undertaken by the US government was in conjunction with the draft constitution adopted by the Fourth Constitutional Convention in 1980, so a new assessment after thirty years would be useful at the very least.
Conclusion
The clarity which could be brought by a US analysis of the draft constitution could be most revealing, specifically as it relates to the parametres of the territorial status ten years into the 21st century, and at the end of the decade when such colonial arrangements – even as sophisticated as they have become - were supposed to be a thing of the past. Have the parametres of territorial status been expanded sufficiently to accommodate some of the provisions in the draft as adopted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention, as some are hoping? Or do the continual constraints of the dependency political status provide insufficient political space to accommodate what the delegates to the Convention have agreed are necessary adjustments in the political development of the territory?
The anticipated US Congressional hearings on the draft constitution for the US Virgin Islands sometime in 2010 should be most interesting since these questions should be answered. If certain provisions contained in the constitutional draft are outside the parametres of the present territorial status, then the option of choosing a new status which would accommodate new powers and autonomy would have to be seriously considered, sooner rather than later. In any case, the unincorporated territorial status was never meant to be permanent and is an anachronistic relic of an era long past. It was always meant to be an interim stage to a status of political equality, and should have been long relegated to the annals of history, to be replaced by a status of full political equality consistent with international law. The ruling of the Virgin Islands Superior Court permits the process of assessment, public education and political advancement to move ahead, if by only a step.
A forum for critical analysis of international issues and developments of particular relevance to the sustainable political and socio-economic development of Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs).
28 December 2009
21 December 2009
Turks and Caicos Call for UK Withdrawal
From: TCIwatch.com
14th December 2009
As the matter of Gibraltar is sorted out as a territory of the UK, so must the matter of Turks and Caicos. The distinguishing factor is that Turks and Caicos is not a territory, rather a colony since UK invaded the Caribbean islands in August 2009.
As the UN acknowledges, based on its adoption of numerous declarations, colonialism is wrong. Furthermore, most experts agree that Colonialism has no place in world societies and it has never worked. The act of one government entity forcing its values on a weaker population cannot be justified in any way, especially from a different culture. As The UK Activist Stuart Yates pointed out in his writings, the UK's presence in Turks and Caicos is shrouded in secrecy and cannot be described as anything less than a coup. The UK took over governance of these Caribbean islands without any election or consensus from the people living in the islands.
Granted, the former Turks and Caicos government, under the Michael Misick administration, made mistakes; no arguing the point. However, Michael Misick achieved success by converting Turks and Caicos into a high-end celebrity holiday hideaway. Misick said on many occasions that his goal was to turn Turks and Caicos into the "Monte Carlo of the Caribbean". Misick argued that he had to "look the part" in order to woo high-end resort developers to invest in the islands. Certainly,"looking the part" came at cost, a cost that the islands absorbed from the revenue generated by his tourism and business plan, but improper nonetheless said the UK. At the end of the day, Misick was accused of taking for himself and forming improper relationships with foreign businessmen to achieve his personal and business goals. This coming from the UK's Commission of Inquiry Report by Sir Robin Auld of the UK. Misick was forced to resign in March 2009.
With the lessons very fresh in the minds of local officials and citizens of the islands, a new leader was elected and installed in the Turks and Caicos government immediately after Misick, the cabinet of Galmo Williams. In August, nearly six months after Premier Williams was installed, the UK unilaterally took the government of Turks and Caicos and installed a one-man ruler from the UK to conduct all of the islands' business. The governor from UK HE Gordon Wetherell took upon a dictatorship, electing his own judiciary and making sole decisions for the islands. This was the proposed plan for a period of at least two years with new elections in 2011. However, the UK has since announced that it will be installed in the islands indefinitely and certainly past 2011.
The UN has made numerous resolutions declaring the UK's invasion of Turks and Caicos to be improper and it cites authority from the Fourth Committee's resolution for self determination of Turks and Caicos. However, the UN cannot "act" on behalf of the people of Turks and Caicos and can only impose warnings and perhaps sanctions and yes, more resolutions.
The UK claims that it is helping Turks and Caicos. After all, the people of Turks and Caicos have been subjected to a corrupt governmental body dating back 6 years with Michael Misick. Never mind that officials from the UK never reported any financial abuse and warnings were never provided. The UK took drastic measures to clean up government corruption by installing their own government. "Maybe this is a good thing," said some islanders giving the UK a chance to help.
Before the islanders could even welcome the new UK government, major resorts were closing amid charges that these developers had improper relationships with the former premier. Furthermore, the resort developers were kicked off their land as the UK reclaimed it as Crown land. The UK did not make these resort developers whole under Eminent Domain Laws. Rather, the UK told the developers that they relinquished their lands and developments worth millions due to improper behavior. Sure, the resort developers left the islands and good riddens (sic) to them anyway, right? Not quite. These resorts were responsible for employment of thousands of people, they were bringing in revenue, building investor confidence in the islands, attracting more economic growth and encouraging tourism spending. Now these resorts are abandoned on Crown land which now belongs to the Crown entirely. No word on when or if these developers will sue the UK for economic damages.
The next breakdown, which happened quite rapidly upon UK's arrival in the islands, was the firing of islanders within the government replaced by new UK faces. This had islanders feeling uneasy about the leadership and created additional job losses. New hires' salaries from the UK are not disclosed, yet the UK claims that it cannot meet payroll for islanders timely because of the national debt of $135 million. The UK has failed to bring financial aid for this so-called deficit.
Though the islands bring in $600 million per year in tourism revenue and off-shore banking, the UK refuses to infuse any money into the territory and instead it raised taxes, cut benefits and suspended salaries for the locals. There has been no disclosure by the UK as to where the revenue is funneled.
As Adrian Holman reported, the Caribbean slave trade by England in the 1700s are haunting the islands once again. Their right to self determination has been revoked and as such, there is nothing that people can do in the grasp of the strong arm of the UK. A man by the name of Alvin Hegner, a former resident of North Caicos, visited the islands and spoke intimately and openly with islanders on December 10, 11 and 12. Of the hundreds of citizens that he interviewed, not one person was in favor of UK's direct rule and almost all reported financial suffering. Though some claimed to have kept an open mind when the UK first arrived in August, the people are more than convinced now that this was a very bad idea.
14th December 2009
As the matter of Gibraltar is sorted out as a territory of the UK, so must the matter of Turks and Caicos. The distinguishing factor is that Turks and Caicos is not a territory, rather a colony since UK invaded the Caribbean islands in August 2009.
As the UN acknowledges, based on its adoption of numerous declarations, colonialism is wrong. Furthermore, most experts agree that Colonialism has no place in world societies and it has never worked. The act of one government entity forcing its values on a weaker population cannot be justified in any way, especially from a different culture. As The UK Activist Stuart Yates pointed out in his writings, the UK's presence in Turks and Caicos is shrouded in secrecy and cannot be described as anything less than a coup. The UK took over governance of these Caribbean islands without any election or consensus from the people living in the islands.
Granted, the former Turks and Caicos government, under the Michael Misick administration, made mistakes; no arguing the point. However, Michael Misick achieved success by converting Turks and Caicos into a high-end celebrity holiday hideaway. Misick said on many occasions that his goal was to turn Turks and Caicos into the "Monte Carlo of the Caribbean". Misick argued that he had to "look the part" in order to woo high-end resort developers to invest in the islands. Certainly,"looking the part" came at cost, a cost that the islands absorbed from the revenue generated by his tourism and business plan, but improper nonetheless said the UK. At the end of the day, Misick was accused of taking for himself and forming improper relationships with foreign businessmen to achieve his personal and business goals. This coming from the UK's Commission of Inquiry Report by Sir Robin Auld of the UK. Misick was forced to resign in March 2009.
With the lessons very fresh in the minds of local officials and citizens of the islands, a new leader was elected and installed in the Turks and Caicos government immediately after Misick, the cabinet of Galmo Williams. In August, nearly six months after Premier Williams was installed, the UK unilaterally took the government of Turks and Caicos and installed a one-man ruler from the UK to conduct all of the islands' business. The governor from UK HE Gordon Wetherell took upon a dictatorship, electing his own judiciary and making sole decisions for the islands. This was the proposed plan for a period of at least two years with new elections in 2011. However, the UK has since announced that it will be installed in the islands indefinitely and certainly past 2011.
The UN has made numerous resolutions declaring the UK's invasion of Turks and Caicos to be improper and it cites authority from the Fourth Committee's resolution for self determination of Turks and Caicos. However, the UN cannot "act" on behalf of the people of Turks and Caicos and can only impose warnings and perhaps sanctions and yes, more resolutions.
The UK claims that it is helping Turks and Caicos. After all, the people of Turks and Caicos have been subjected to a corrupt governmental body dating back 6 years with Michael Misick. Never mind that officials from the UK never reported any financial abuse and warnings were never provided. The UK took drastic measures to clean up government corruption by installing their own government. "Maybe this is a good thing," said some islanders giving the UK a chance to help.
Before the islanders could even welcome the new UK government, major resorts were closing amid charges that these developers had improper relationships with the former premier. Furthermore, the resort developers were kicked off their land as the UK reclaimed it as Crown land. The UK did not make these resort developers whole under Eminent Domain Laws. Rather, the UK told the developers that they relinquished their lands and developments worth millions due to improper behavior. Sure, the resort developers left the islands and good riddens (sic) to them anyway, right? Not quite. These resorts were responsible for employment of thousands of people, they were bringing in revenue, building investor confidence in the islands, attracting more economic growth and encouraging tourism spending. Now these resorts are abandoned on Crown land which now belongs to the Crown entirely. No word on when or if these developers will sue the UK for economic damages.
The next breakdown, which happened quite rapidly upon UK's arrival in the islands, was the firing of islanders within the government replaced by new UK faces. This had islanders feeling uneasy about the leadership and created additional job losses. New hires' salaries from the UK are not disclosed, yet the UK claims that it cannot meet payroll for islanders timely because of the national debt of $135 million. The UK has failed to bring financial aid for this so-called deficit.
Though the islands bring in $600 million per year in tourism revenue and off-shore banking, the UK refuses to infuse any money into the territory and instead it raised taxes, cut benefits and suspended salaries for the locals. There has been no disclosure by the UK as to where the revenue is funneled.
As Adrian Holman reported, the Caribbean slave trade by England in the 1700s are haunting the islands once again. Their right to self determination has been revoked and as such, there is nothing that people can do in the grasp of the strong arm of the UK. A man by the name of Alvin Hegner, a former resident of North Caicos, visited the islands and spoke intimately and openly with islanders on December 10, 11 and 12. Of the hundreds of citizens that he interviewed, not one person was in favor of UK's direct rule and almost all reported financial suffering. Though some claimed to have kept an open mind when the UK first arrived in August, the people are more than convinced now that this was a very bad idea.
17 December 2009
BVI Premier to UK - "Don´t Treat Us Like Minions"
On December 9, the Overseas Territories Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the United Kingdom Chris Bryant hosted the eleventh meeting of the Overseas Territories Consultative Council (OTCC) in London. The meeting was attended by Premiers, Chief Ministers and other representatives of the UK Overseas Territories - Anguilla, Ascension, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn, St Helena, Tristan da Cunha, Turks and Caicos Islands. . This was the first OTCC meeting hosted by Mr. Bryant, who followed Gillian Merron in the post of Foreign Office Minister. The meeting was preceded on 8th December by a ten-year review of the 1999 Government White Paper “Partnership for Progress and Prosperity - Britain and the Overseas Territories.” No formal statement on the review or Council Meeting was made available. The British Virgin Islands delegation to both sessions was led by Premier Hon. Ralph O'Neal whose interview with the BBC about the meeting was reported by BVI Platinum:
"At times we disagree and I (Premier O'Neal) have disagreed with one action the Governor took and I still disagree with it and I will continue to disagree. So maybe I might be the next one to get the axe, but to treat us like minions...or like children begging their father to give them a piece of bread...I cannot understand that mentality and it makes me think there is the warship diplomacy still in progress."
Those were the words of Premier Hon. Ralph T´ O Neal as he responded to a question posed by Mike Jarvis of BBC Caribbean, on if local Governments do not expect that they will have to accept certain dictate tactics from the administering powers if they remain Overseas Territories.
During the interview which was aired on Monday, the Premier was at the time also speaking on his position on Cabinet´s involvement in determining the awarding of British citizenship in the Territory. Premier O'Neal said it is wrong for the British-appointed Governor alone to naturalise people to stay in the BVI.
"...They can apply for naturalization after they have been there (BVI) for a certain number of years. That is granted under the British Nationality Act which I think is time to get that amended. The Governor deals with that, he doesn´t even inform Cabinet, but I must say he invites me to the ceremony to speak and I go. But I think it´s improper of a Governor to grant nationality without even referring it to the Cabinet or the Premier, even for information."
The Premier was questioned on why the latter was not dealt with during the period of Constitutional Reform and how close are Overseas Territories such as the BVI on the issue of independence.
"The question of the granting of nationality was not a matter discussed at the conference. Independence comes with price. We set up a committee to consider the cost, implications and liabilities of independence," Premier O´ Neal told BBC Caribbean.
BVI Platinum
15th December 2009
"At times we disagree and I (Premier O'Neal) have disagreed with one action the Governor took and I still disagree with it and I will continue to disagree. So maybe I might be the next one to get the axe, but to treat us like minions...or like children begging their father to give them a piece of bread...I cannot understand that mentality and it makes me think there is the warship diplomacy still in progress."
Those were the words of Premier Hon. Ralph T´ O Neal as he responded to a question posed by Mike Jarvis of BBC Caribbean, on if local Governments do not expect that they will have to accept certain dictate tactics from the administering powers if they remain Overseas Territories.
During the interview which was aired on Monday, the Premier was at the time also speaking on his position on Cabinet´s involvement in determining the awarding of British citizenship in the Territory. Premier O'Neal said it is wrong for the British-appointed Governor alone to naturalise people to stay in the BVI.
"...They can apply for naturalization after they have been there (BVI) for a certain number of years. That is granted under the British Nationality Act which I think is time to get that amended. The Governor deals with that, he doesn´t even inform Cabinet, but I must say he invites me to the ceremony to speak and I go. But I think it´s improper of a Governor to grant nationality without even referring it to the Cabinet or the Premier, even for information."
The Premier was questioned on why the latter was not dealt with during the period of Constitutional Reform and how close are Overseas Territories such as the BVI on the issue of independence.
"The question of the granting of nationality was not a matter discussed at the conference. Independence comes with price. We set up a committee to consider the cost, implications and liabilities of independence," Premier O´ Neal told BBC Caribbean.
BVI Platinum
15th December 2009
15 December 2009
The Constitutional Tragedy of Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba in the Caribbean
Summary of a Presentation by Mr. Eugene R. Abdul, LLM
former Governor of St.Eustatius and former Lt.Governor of Bonaire
Seminar on Independence held in Curacao, Netherlands Antilles
27th November 2009
After an analysis of the concepts ‘self-determination’ and ‘people’ in international law, Mr.Abdul briefly describes the constitutional process on the islands of Bonaire, St.Eustatius and Saba (the so-called BES-islands),starting with the constitutional referendums held in 2004/2005. He states that in accordance with international law the right of self-determination is a human right and that only peoples – and not their elected representatives - are holders of the right of self-determination.
He is of the opinion that if the present constitutional process continues unchanged none of the 3 BES-islands will eventually obtain the constitutional status their peoples really opted for in referendums held in 2004 and 2005. He states that during those referendums Bonaire opted for direct links with Holland, St.Eustatius for maintaining the Netherlands Antilles and Saba for becoming a ‘Crown Island’, a constitutional status comparable to Anguilla.In the Final Declaration of October 2006 elected representatives (!) of the 3 Dutch-Antillean islands in an agreement with the Netherlands decided that Bonaire, St.Eustatius and Saba would become ‘public entities’ based on article 134 of the Dutch Constitution, resulting in integration,one of the 3 internationally recognized forms of reaching a ‘full measure of self-government’ described in U.N. Resolution 1541.
Mr.Abdul purports that in the 2004 and 2005 referendums none of the peoples of the 3 islands opted for integration.He is of the opinion that the peoples of the 3 islands should decide explicitly in new referendums whether they want integration with the Netherlands or not. That would be the only way to comply with Principle IX of U.N. Resolution 1541 stating inter alia that ‘the integration should be the result of the freely expressed wishes of the territory’s peoples acting with full knowledge of the changes in their status, their wishes having been expressed through informed and democratic processes, impartially conducted and based on adult suffrage….’.
He argues that ratification of the Final Declaration of October 2006 in the respective Island Councils of the 3 BES-islands based on international law is not sufficient to legitimize integration. Mr.Abdul concludes that dismantling of the Netherlands Antilles should be postponed until the islands Bonaire, St.Eustatius and Saba in a (new) referendum explicitly opt for integration into the Netherlands. He states that the Federal Government of the Netherlands Antilles based on article 43 paragraph 1 of the Charter of the Kingdom of the Netherlands must take care of realization of fundamental rights and liberties, legal security and good governance and that the Federal Government cannot allow the ‘annexation’ of the 3 islands by the Netherlands without complying with international law.
According to Mr.Abdul also the Kingdom Government has an obligation under article 43 paragraph 2 of the same Charter to guarantee due compliance with international law in this matter.
former Governor of St.Eustatius and former Lt.Governor of Bonaire
Seminar on Independence held in Curacao, Netherlands Antilles
27th November 2009
After an analysis of the concepts ‘self-determination’ and ‘people’ in international law, Mr.Abdul briefly describes the constitutional process on the islands of Bonaire, St.Eustatius and Saba (the so-called BES-islands),starting with the constitutional referendums held in 2004/2005. He states that in accordance with international law the right of self-determination is a human right and that only peoples – and not their elected representatives - are holders of the right of self-determination.
He is of the opinion that if the present constitutional process continues unchanged none of the 3 BES-islands will eventually obtain the constitutional status their peoples really opted for in referendums held in 2004 and 2005. He states that during those referendums Bonaire opted for direct links with Holland, St.Eustatius for maintaining the Netherlands Antilles and Saba for becoming a ‘Crown Island’, a constitutional status comparable to Anguilla.In the Final Declaration of October 2006 elected representatives (!) of the 3 Dutch-Antillean islands in an agreement with the Netherlands decided that Bonaire, St.Eustatius and Saba would become ‘public entities’ based on article 134 of the Dutch Constitution, resulting in integration,one of the 3 internationally recognized forms of reaching a ‘full measure of self-government’ described in U.N. Resolution 1541.
Mr.Abdul purports that in the 2004 and 2005 referendums none of the peoples of the 3 islands opted for integration.He is of the opinion that the peoples of the 3 islands should decide explicitly in new referendums whether they want integration with the Netherlands or not. That would be the only way to comply with Principle IX of U.N. Resolution 1541 stating inter alia that ‘the integration should be the result of the freely expressed wishes of the territory’s peoples acting with full knowledge of the changes in their status, their wishes having been expressed through informed and democratic processes, impartially conducted and based on adult suffrage….’.
He argues that ratification of the Final Declaration of October 2006 in the respective Island Councils of the 3 BES-islands based on international law is not sufficient to legitimize integration. Mr.Abdul concludes that dismantling of the Netherlands Antilles should be postponed until the islands Bonaire, St.Eustatius and Saba in a (new) referendum explicitly opt for integration into the Netherlands. He states that the Federal Government of the Netherlands Antilles based on article 43 paragraph 1 of the Charter of the Kingdom of the Netherlands must take care of realization of fundamental rights and liberties, legal security and good governance and that the Federal Government cannot allow the ‘annexation’ of the 3 islands by the Netherlands without complying with international law.
According to Mr.Abdul also the Kingdom Government has an obligation under article 43 paragraph 2 of the same Charter to guarantee due compliance with international law in this matter.
13 December 2009
Self-Determination Legislation - Opportunity for US Administered Territories?
An OTR Editorial
Now that legislation authorizing United States (US) assistance to three territories under its administration has been adopted by the full US House of Representatives (H.R. 3940), the next phase of the process is crucial. The measure, originally introduced by Guam Delegate to Congress Madeleine Z. Bordallo, has now been forwarded to the US Senate for consideration. Delegate Bordallo should be commended for having done her job well in guiding the legislation through the US House.
The original legislation was amended during the House vetting process to include the territories of American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands, as the original bill was specific to Guam. The revised text has also been strategically re-casted to amend a decades-old 1980 US law (P.L. 96-597) meant to "authorize appropriations for certain insular areas of the United States, and for other purposes." This would appear to heighten the opportunity that some dedicated resources would be attached to the measure, although the Congressional Budget Office estimate of $2 million over the period 2010 - 2014 appears rather paltry for one territory, let alone three such jurisdictions. The resources provided must be commensurate with the importance of the initiative as a significant contribution to the long-delayed process of self-determination. Otherwise, it would be mere window-dressing.
In the 7th December 2009 House of Representatives report interpreting the legislation (H.R. Report 111-357), it was emphasised that the political education programme envisaged in the bill would be based on political status alternatives "including, but not limited to" the internationally-recognised options of (US) "statehood, free association (and) independence," along with "maintaining the status quo." The first three alternatives were confirmed by the White House in two White House Reports in 2005 and 2007, respectively, as the “permanent” political status for options for Puerto Rico, and by extension for the other four US-administered territories.
The “not limited to” reference in the House report, however, is problematic as it implies the legitimacy of other options not providing for political equality, and inconsistent with democratic governance. The 1993 political status referendum in the US Virgin Islands is an example where an excessive total of seven options was put before the voters in referendum. These included no less than three different versions of the status quo, in addition to the three permanent options and one autonomous model. Not surprisingly, there was no conclusive referendum result as confusion reigned during the public education process over minute details between virtually indistinguishable dependency options. The options of political equality got “lost in the wash.” Political status for that territory has been considered only intermittently since then, and mostly in unofficial circles. This present Congressional legislation may force the issue to be revisited in earnest.
Such a proliferation of political status choices should be assiduously avoided through the provision of a less complicated process with a clearer and less complicated array of political alternatives. In this regard, the three permanent political status options identified by the White House, with an option for the temporary continuation of the status quo, would be the best approach. This should be done by informing the people of the territory concerned what they should have been advised of all along - that the status quo is not a permanent form of democratic government, nor was it ever meant to be so. Thus, if the people choose to remain as a dependent territory, they should have to be consulted again - sooner or later until they arrive at a permanent solution.
There is a precedent for this enlightened approach – it is the 2009 legislation on the self-determination of Puerto Rico which recognises the primacy of the three options consistent with international law. The legislative measure for Puerto Rico was approved by the US House of Representatives last June, and is also under consideration by the Senate. The Puerto Rico bill provides that the electorate be consulted again (as many times as it takes) if the dependent status of commonwealth is chosen in a referendum, since a permanent status would not have been achieved. The legislation for the other three territories presently has no such requirement. It is clearly understood in most political circles in Puerto Rico – even amongst those who support the status quo - that there are inherent democratic deficiencies in the territorial status which need to be corrected through “enhancements.”
The same democratic deficiencies apply to the territorial status of the other three US – administered territories, as well ( in addition to the Northern Mariana Islands), even as this may not be as readily recognised in these other territories. Thus, it should be made clear in the US Senate that the legislation for American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands refers to the same options of political equality as those offered to Puerto Rico - along with the possibility to temporarily retain the status quo, with the same stipulation that the territories would be periodically consulted until a permanent status is chosen. In fact, the distinction between temporary and permanent options should form an integral part of any public education process in the territories concerned, especially as the status quo itself is not stagnant, but rather allows for erosion of the limited autonomy of the territorial government at any time through unilateral decisions and applicability of legislation. The Northern Mariana Islands is a clear example of how such unilateral applicability of US law has begun to erode their erstwhile autonomous arrangement. The entire political arrangement should be the subject of formal review and reconsideration.
In some territories, the discussion on political evolution has already begun prior to this US legislation. The Governor of American Samoa initiated a promising political status and constitutional development process utilising local resources. That was before the tsunami earlier this year. Understandably, all efforts in that territory are now directed to reconstruction following the disaster, and the issue of political evolution is scheduled to be revisited in 2010. This timetable places the American Samoa process within the framework of the legislation being considered by the US Senate.
In the US Virgin Islands, an elected constitutional convention adopted an ambitious draft constitution last May for consideration by the US Congress which would test the limited parameters of the status quo dependency arrangement as a first step in resuming focus on political and constitutional development after over a decade and a half of dormancy. Whether the draft constitution would formally be considered by Washington, however, remains to be determined by the territorial court which has yet to rule on whether the document will be transmitted to the US Congress over the objection of the current elected governor who has held back the document based on certain provisions within it. Chances are that a US Congressional analysis of the draft constitution could determine that the additional powers sought for the territory contained in the document could only be realised in one of the permanent options – thus, the process could comes full circle, squarely back into the realm of the fundamental need to address the political status question – as one scholar has written, “decolonisation rather than colonial reform.”
The role of civil society in all of this continues to be crucial. Organisations in the US Virgin Islands such as the United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands (UNAVI) have been active for over a decade in providing information on the importance of a legitimate process of self-determination. Non-governmental organisations in Guam have taken a sustained approach over the years through organisations such as the Chamoru Nashion, and the Organisation of Peoples for Indigenous Rights (OPIR), among others. American Samoa’s Political Status Commission did especially important work on political alternatives several years ago, and this should serve as an excellent point of departure as the legislation in Congress shifts to the US Senate. In Puerto Rico, the political parties and the Bar Association, among others, have historically taken the lead in advocacy on the issue.
The introduction of the Bordallo legislation, therefore, was an important step in ‘jump-starting’ the process of self-determination in all of these territories, and has the promise of reviving serious deliberations among the people on their political evolution. Meanwhile, in the territories, media attention to the measure has been uneven. Other than in Guam, the media in the other two territories covered by the bill has been curiously and conspicuously silent as to the very existence of the legislation, and OTR is not aware of any official statements emanating from these territorial capitols on the legislation with the notable exception of Guam whose governor testified before the US Congress in Washington in favour of the measure.
With the appropriate clarifications to the legislation, including the correction of re-focusing on the permanent options, along with a realistic amount of resources for the three territories to wage a serious public campaign, a process of self-determination can yet be realised. The Obama Administration could very well be the first US administration since these territories were acquired at the end of the 19th century and into the 20th century to foster a genuine process of self-determination for the peoples of these territories, and the first to seriously implement its international obligations under the United Nations Charter to bring genuine self-government and full political equality to the territories under its administration.
Now that legislation authorizing United States (US) assistance to three territories under its administration has been adopted by the full US House of Representatives (H.R. 3940), the next phase of the process is crucial. The measure, originally introduced by Guam Delegate to Congress Madeleine Z. Bordallo, has now been forwarded to the US Senate for consideration. Delegate Bordallo should be commended for having done her job well in guiding the legislation through the US House.
The original legislation was amended during the House vetting process to include the territories of American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands, as the original bill was specific to Guam. The revised text has also been strategically re-casted to amend a decades-old 1980 US law (P.L. 96-597) meant to "authorize appropriations for certain insular areas of the United States, and for other purposes." This would appear to heighten the opportunity that some dedicated resources would be attached to the measure, although the Congressional Budget Office estimate of $2 million over the period 2010 - 2014 appears rather paltry for one territory, let alone three such jurisdictions. The resources provided must be commensurate with the importance of the initiative as a significant contribution to the long-delayed process of self-determination. Otherwise, it would be mere window-dressing.
In the 7th December 2009 House of Representatives report interpreting the legislation (H.R. Report 111-357), it was emphasised that the political education programme envisaged in the bill would be based on political status alternatives "including, but not limited to" the internationally-recognised options of (US) "statehood, free association (and) independence," along with "maintaining the status quo." The first three alternatives were confirmed by the White House in two White House Reports in 2005 and 2007, respectively, as the “permanent” political status for options for Puerto Rico, and by extension for the other four US-administered territories.
The “not limited to” reference in the House report, however, is problematic as it implies the legitimacy of other options not providing for political equality, and inconsistent with democratic governance. The 1993 political status referendum in the US Virgin Islands is an example where an excessive total of seven options was put before the voters in referendum. These included no less than three different versions of the status quo, in addition to the three permanent options and one autonomous model. Not surprisingly, there was no conclusive referendum result as confusion reigned during the public education process over minute details between virtually indistinguishable dependency options. The options of political equality got “lost in the wash.” Political status for that territory has been considered only intermittently since then, and mostly in unofficial circles. This present Congressional legislation may force the issue to be revisited in earnest.
Such a proliferation of political status choices should be assiduously avoided through the provision of a less complicated process with a clearer and less complicated array of political alternatives. In this regard, the three permanent political status options identified by the White House, with an option for the temporary continuation of the status quo, would be the best approach. This should be done by informing the people of the territory concerned what they should have been advised of all along - that the status quo is not a permanent form of democratic government, nor was it ever meant to be so. Thus, if the people choose to remain as a dependent territory, they should have to be consulted again - sooner or later until they arrive at a permanent solution.
There is a precedent for this enlightened approach – it is the 2009 legislation on the self-determination of Puerto Rico which recognises the primacy of the three options consistent with international law. The legislative measure for Puerto Rico was approved by the US House of Representatives last June, and is also under consideration by the Senate. The Puerto Rico bill provides that the electorate be consulted again (as many times as it takes) if the dependent status of commonwealth is chosen in a referendum, since a permanent status would not have been achieved. The legislation for the other three territories presently has no such requirement. It is clearly understood in most political circles in Puerto Rico – even amongst those who support the status quo - that there are inherent democratic deficiencies in the territorial status which need to be corrected through “enhancements.”
The same democratic deficiencies apply to the territorial status of the other three US – administered territories, as well ( in addition to the Northern Mariana Islands), even as this may not be as readily recognised in these other territories. Thus, it should be made clear in the US Senate that the legislation for American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands refers to the same options of political equality as those offered to Puerto Rico - along with the possibility to temporarily retain the status quo, with the same stipulation that the territories would be periodically consulted until a permanent status is chosen. In fact, the distinction between temporary and permanent options should form an integral part of any public education process in the territories concerned, especially as the status quo itself is not stagnant, but rather allows for erosion of the limited autonomy of the territorial government at any time through unilateral decisions and applicability of legislation. The Northern Mariana Islands is a clear example of how such unilateral applicability of US law has begun to erode their erstwhile autonomous arrangement. The entire political arrangement should be the subject of formal review and reconsideration.
In some territories, the discussion on political evolution has already begun prior to this US legislation. The Governor of American Samoa initiated a promising political status and constitutional development process utilising local resources. That was before the tsunami earlier this year. Understandably, all efforts in that territory are now directed to reconstruction following the disaster, and the issue of political evolution is scheduled to be revisited in 2010. This timetable places the American Samoa process within the framework of the legislation being considered by the US Senate.
In the US Virgin Islands, an elected constitutional convention adopted an ambitious draft constitution last May for consideration by the US Congress which would test the limited parameters of the status quo dependency arrangement as a first step in resuming focus on political and constitutional development after over a decade and a half of dormancy. Whether the draft constitution would formally be considered by Washington, however, remains to be determined by the territorial court which has yet to rule on whether the document will be transmitted to the US Congress over the objection of the current elected governor who has held back the document based on certain provisions within it. Chances are that a US Congressional analysis of the draft constitution could determine that the additional powers sought for the territory contained in the document could only be realised in one of the permanent options – thus, the process could comes full circle, squarely back into the realm of the fundamental need to address the political status question – as one scholar has written, “decolonisation rather than colonial reform.”
The role of civil society in all of this continues to be crucial. Organisations in the US Virgin Islands such as the United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands (UNAVI) have been active for over a decade in providing information on the importance of a legitimate process of self-determination. Non-governmental organisations in Guam have taken a sustained approach over the years through organisations such as the Chamoru Nashion, and the Organisation of Peoples for Indigenous Rights (OPIR), among others. American Samoa’s Political Status Commission did especially important work on political alternatives several years ago, and this should serve as an excellent point of departure as the legislation in Congress shifts to the US Senate. In Puerto Rico, the political parties and the Bar Association, among others, have historically taken the lead in advocacy on the issue.
The introduction of the Bordallo legislation, therefore, was an important step in ‘jump-starting’ the process of self-determination in all of these territories, and has the promise of reviving serious deliberations among the people on their political evolution. Meanwhile, in the territories, media attention to the measure has been uneven. Other than in Guam, the media in the other two territories covered by the bill has been curiously and conspicuously silent as to the very existence of the legislation, and OTR is not aware of any official statements emanating from these territorial capitols on the legislation with the notable exception of Guam whose governor testified before the US Congress in Washington in favour of the measure.
With the appropriate clarifications to the legislation, including the correction of re-focusing on the permanent options, along with a realistic amount of resources for the three territories to wage a serious public campaign, a process of self-determination can yet be realised. The Obama Administration could very well be the first US administration since these territories were acquired at the end of the 19th century and into the 20th century to foster a genuine process of self-determination for the peoples of these territories, and the first to seriously implement its international obligations under the United Nations Charter to bring genuine self-government and full political equality to the territories under its administration.
09 December 2009
US House Approves Political Status Education Bill
News from Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo
House Passes Political Status Education Bill
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 7, 2009 – Washington, D.C. –
Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo today announced that the U.S. House of Representatives has passed H.R. 3940, a bill that would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend technical assistance grants and other assistance to facilitate a political status public education program on Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. H.R. 3940 today passed on a voice vote one month after Congresswoman Bordallo first introduced the bill and two weeks after it was approved by the House Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 3940 will now be transmitted to the U.S. Senate for consideration in their chamber.
“The passage of H.R. 3940 by the U.S. House of Representatives today advances the issue of political self-determination in the non-self-governing territories by providing federal funding for political status education,” Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo said today. “H.R. 3940 now goes to the Senate for consideration and I hope that they will act on it with the same sense of priority that the House has viewed this issue. This bill is supported by the Obama Administration, elected officials from Guam, and decolonization and indigenous rights advocates on Guam. I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress and with Assistant Secretary Tony Babauta to pass this legislation in the Senate.”
-30-
House Passes Political Status Education Bill
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 7, 2009 – Washington, D.C. –
Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo today announced that the U.S. House of Representatives has passed H.R. 3940, a bill that would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend technical assistance grants and other assistance to facilitate a political status public education program on Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. H.R. 3940 today passed on a voice vote one month after Congresswoman Bordallo first introduced the bill and two weeks after it was approved by the House Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 3940 will now be transmitted to the U.S. Senate for consideration in their chamber.
“The passage of H.R. 3940 by the U.S. House of Representatives today advances the issue of political self-determination in the non-self-governing territories by providing federal funding for political status education,” Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo said today. “H.R. 3940 now goes to the Senate for consideration and I hope that they will act on it with the same sense of priority that the House has viewed this issue. This bill is supported by the Obama Administration, elected officials from Guam, and decolonization and indigenous rights advocates on Guam. I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress and with Assistant Secretary Tony Babauta to pass this legislation in the Senate.”
-30-
08 December 2009
Bonaire Referendum Alternatives Discussed
Bonaire Reporter
29 November 2009
On Saturday, November 28, Dr. Carlyle Corbin, the former minister in charge of foreign relations for the US Virgin Islands and an international advisor on political structure and UN Caribbean and Pacific treaty issues, met with Bonaire government officials to offer his expertise. He discussed alternative choices for Bonaire’s upcoming referendum. He visited at the invitation of the Executive Council.
Following the closed-door meetings he was interviewed by the press in a conference in the Pasangrahan. Representatives from Papiamentu, Dutch and English language newspapers were present.
Dr Corbin talked at length about the differences and similarities between integration of a former colony with the “mother country” and a free association following the release of colonial ties. His said that integration can take several forms as could a free association which is also is a legitimate political status recognized in 1960 by the UN under article 1541. The essence ofthe message he presented in response to questions from the press was "People have a right to be consulted once again (in a referendum)... after they have been given more information."
11/29/2009 UN to Visit
Two advisors from the United Nations (UN) will be arriving on Bonaire next week to consult with Island Government about the upcoming referendum.
On Monday, Mansour Sadeghi and Peter Eicher of the UN’s Electoral Support Department will be speaking with members of the Executive Council, political parties, the referendum committee. A meeting with the press is set for the end of this week.
29 November 2009
On Saturday, November 28, Dr. Carlyle Corbin, the former minister in charge of foreign relations for the US Virgin Islands and an international advisor on political structure and UN Caribbean and Pacific treaty issues, met with Bonaire government officials to offer his expertise. He discussed alternative choices for Bonaire’s upcoming referendum. He visited at the invitation of the Executive Council.
Following the closed-door meetings he was interviewed by the press in a conference in the Pasangrahan. Representatives from Papiamentu, Dutch and English language newspapers were present.
Dr Corbin talked at length about the differences and similarities between integration of a former colony with the “mother country” and a free association following the release of colonial ties. His said that integration can take several forms as could a free association which is also is a legitimate political status recognized in 1960 by the UN under article 1541. The essence ofthe message he presented in response to questions from the press was "People have a right to be consulted once again (in a referendum)... after they have been given more information."
11/29/2009 UN to Visit
Two advisors from the United Nations (UN) will be arriving on Bonaire next week to consult with Island Government about the upcoming referendum.
On Monday, Mansour Sadeghi and Peter Eicher of the UN’s Electoral Support Department will be speaking with members of the Executive Council, political parties, the referendum committee. A meeting with the press is set for the end of this week.
07 December 2009
US Agency Changes Mind on Health Risk in Vieques
Press Release
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR, a federal public health agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, evaluates the human health effects of exposure to hazardous substances.)
Federal Agency to Change its Early Conclusions on Environmental Assessment in Vieques
November 13, 2009
(In English. Spanish version follows )
ATLANTA-The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has signaled its intent to modify some of its earlier conclusions about health risks to residents of the Island of Vieques. The decision was shared during a meeting with scientists from Puerto Rico and followed a thorough review of ATSDR public health assessments finalized in 2003 and other environmental studies of the island conducted in the intervening years. ATSDR’s re-examination of the data comes as part of a "fresh look" the federal public health agency pledged to island residents and Congress.
"A thorough and objective review of the available data is an important step in our commitment to the people of Vieques", said Dr. Howard Frumkin, agency director. "Much has been learned since we first went to Vieques a decade ago, and we have identified gaps in environmental data that could be important in determining health effects." We are committed to using the best technology and scientific expertise to help find answers for the people of Vieques.
"The gaps we found indicate that we cannot state unequivocally that no health hazards exist in Vieques. We have found reason to pose further questions," Frumkin said. As a result of the scientific consultation and its document review, ATSDR expects to:
• change some of its earlier conclusions regarding the safety of environmental exposures on Vieques;
• recommend biomonitoring to determine whether persons living on Vieques have been exposed to harmful chemicals, and, if so, at what levels those chemicals may be in their bodies;
• work with Puerto Rican health officials to conduct more in-depth evaluation of health outcomes;
• work with community members and Puerto Rican health officials to issue science-based, precautionary recommendations to protect public health;
• work with partners in the Puerto Rican health care community to encourage improved access to health care for residents of Vieques; and
• coordinate an inclusive, accountable process featuring participation of Puerto Rican community members and professionals in moving forward.
ATSDR scientists will prepare a summary report of the previous environmental health work done for Vieques, including recommendations developed from the scientific consultation. As part of the scientific process, this report will be peer reviewed by independent experts. Once peer review is completed, ATSDR will provide detailed recommendations about future activities.
"ATSDR greatly appreciates the scientists taking time to travel to Atlanta and share their findings and perspectives. We salute the independent scientists and community leaders for their dedication to the health of the people of Vieques, and we look forward to working with them as we move forward with our fresh look at Vieques," Frumkin said.
________________________________________________________________
(En Español)
Agencia Federal Cambiará sus Primeras Conclusiones en la Evaluación Ambiental de Vieques
Friday, November 13, 2009
ATLANTA-La Agencia para Sustancias Tóxicas y el Registro de Enfermedades (ATSDR por sus siglas en inglés) ha señalado su intento de modificar algunas de sus primeras conclusiones sobre los riesgos de salud de los residentes de la Isla Vieques. La decisión fue compartida durante una reunión con científicos de Puerto Rico después de una revisión comprensiva de las evaluaciones de salud pública que la ATSDR finalizó en el 2003 y otros estudios ambientales de la isla elaborados en los años siguientes. La reexaminación de los datos forma parte de la “mirada fresca” que la agencia de salud pública prometió a los residentes de la isla y al Congreso.
“La revisión comprensiva y objetiva de los datos disponibles es un paso importante en nuestro compromiso a la gente de Vieques,” dijo el Dr. Howard Frumkin, director de la agencia. “Hemos aprendido mucho desde que fuimos la primera vez a Vieques hace una década, y hemos identificado lagunas de información en los datos ambientales que pueden ser importantes al determinar efectos de salud. Estamos comprometidos a usar la mejor tecnología y experiencia científica para ayudar a encontrar respuestas para la gente de Vieques.
“Las lagunas de información que encontramos indican que no podemos establecer sin duda alguna que no existen riesgos de salud en Vieques. Hemos encontrado razones para hacer más preguntas,” dijo Frumkin. Como resultado de la consulta científica y la revisión de los estudios, ATSDR anticipa:
• cambiar algunas de sus primeras conclusiones sobre la seguridad de las exposiciones ambientales en Vieques;
• recomendar monitoreo biológico para determinar si las personas que viven en Vieques han estado expuestas a químicos dañinos, y si es así a que niveles esos químicos se encuentran en el cuerpo;
• trabajar con los oficiales de salud de Puerto Rico para hacer una evaluación más exhaustiva sobre las consecuencias de salud;
• trabajar con miembros de la comunidad y oficiales de salud para elaborar recomendaciones preventivas basadas en conocimiento científico para proteger la salud pública;
• trabajar con nuestros colegas de la comunidad de la salud Puertorriqueña para alentar un mejoramiento en el acceso al cuidado de salud de los residentes de Vieques; y
• coordinar un proceso responsable y exhaustivo distinguiendo la participación de los miembros de la comunidad y profesionales mientras avanzamos.
Los científicos de la ATSDR prepararan un reporte del trabajo ambiental hecho en Vieques, incluyendo las recomendaciones elaboradas en la consulta científica. Como parte del proceso científico, este reporte va a ser revisado por expertos independientes. Cuando se complete esta revisión, ATSDR proveerá recomendaciones detalladas sobre actividades en el futuro.
“ATSDR agradece efusivamente a los científicos por venir a Atlanta y compartir sus hallazgos y perspectivas. Reconocemos a los científicos independientes y los líderes comunitarios por su dedicación a la salud de la gente de Vieques, y anticipamos trabajar con ellos mientras avanzamos con nuestra mirada fresca en Vieques,” dijo Frumkin.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR, a federal public health agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, evaluates the human health effects of exposure to hazardous substances.)
Federal Agency to Change its Early Conclusions on Environmental Assessment in Vieques
November 13, 2009
(In English. Spanish version follows )
ATLANTA-The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has signaled its intent to modify some of its earlier conclusions about health risks to residents of the Island of Vieques. The decision was shared during a meeting with scientists from Puerto Rico and followed a thorough review of ATSDR public health assessments finalized in 2003 and other environmental studies of the island conducted in the intervening years. ATSDR’s re-examination of the data comes as part of a "fresh look" the federal public health agency pledged to island residents and Congress.
"A thorough and objective review of the available data is an important step in our commitment to the people of Vieques", said Dr. Howard Frumkin, agency director. "Much has been learned since we first went to Vieques a decade ago, and we have identified gaps in environmental data that could be important in determining health effects." We are committed to using the best technology and scientific expertise to help find answers for the people of Vieques.
"The gaps we found indicate that we cannot state unequivocally that no health hazards exist in Vieques. We have found reason to pose further questions," Frumkin said. As a result of the scientific consultation and its document review, ATSDR expects to:
• change some of its earlier conclusions regarding the safety of environmental exposures on Vieques;
• recommend biomonitoring to determine whether persons living on Vieques have been exposed to harmful chemicals, and, if so, at what levels those chemicals may be in their bodies;
• work with Puerto Rican health officials to conduct more in-depth evaluation of health outcomes;
• work with community members and Puerto Rican health officials to issue science-based, precautionary recommendations to protect public health;
• work with partners in the Puerto Rican health care community to encourage improved access to health care for residents of Vieques; and
• coordinate an inclusive, accountable process featuring participation of Puerto Rican community members and professionals in moving forward.
ATSDR scientists will prepare a summary report of the previous environmental health work done for Vieques, including recommendations developed from the scientific consultation. As part of the scientific process, this report will be peer reviewed by independent experts. Once peer review is completed, ATSDR will provide detailed recommendations about future activities.
"ATSDR greatly appreciates the scientists taking time to travel to Atlanta and share their findings and perspectives. We salute the independent scientists and community leaders for their dedication to the health of the people of Vieques, and we look forward to working with them as we move forward with our fresh look at Vieques," Frumkin said.
________________________________________________________________
(En Español)
Agencia Federal Cambiará sus Primeras Conclusiones en la Evaluación Ambiental de Vieques
Friday, November 13, 2009
ATLANTA-La Agencia para Sustancias Tóxicas y el Registro de Enfermedades (ATSDR por sus siglas en inglés) ha señalado su intento de modificar algunas de sus primeras conclusiones sobre los riesgos de salud de los residentes de la Isla Vieques. La decisión fue compartida durante una reunión con científicos de Puerto Rico después de una revisión comprensiva de las evaluaciones de salud pública que la ATSDR finalizó en el 2003 y otros estudios ambientales de la isla elaborados en los años siguientes. La reexaminación de los datos forma parte de la “mirada fresca” que la agencia de salud pública prometió a los residentes de la isla y al Congreso.
“La revisión comprensiva y objetiva de los datos disponibles es un paso importante en nuestro compromiso a la gente de Vieques,” dijo el Dr. Howard Frumkin, director de la agencia. “Hemos aprendido mucho desde que fuimos la primera vez a Vieques hace una década, y hemos identificado lagunas de información en los datos ambientales que pueden ser importantes al determinar efectos de salud. Estamos comprometidos a usar la mejor tecnología y experiencia científica para ayudar a encontrar respuestas para la gente de Vieques.
“Las lagunas de información que encontramos indican que no podemos establecer sin duda alguna que no existen riesgos de salud en Vieques. Hemos encontrado razones para hacer más preguntas,” dijo Frumkin. Como resultado de la consulta científica y la revisión de los estudios, ATSDR anticipa:
• cambiar algunas de sus primeras conclusiones sobre la seguridad de las exposiciones ambientales en Vieques;
• recomendar monitoreo biológico para determinar si las personas que viven en Vieques han estado expuestas a químicos dañinos, y si es así a que niveles esos químicos se encuentran en el cuerpo;
• trabajar con los oficiales de salud de Puerto Rico para hacer una evaluación más exhaustiva sobre las consecuencias de salud;
• trabajar con miembros de la comunidad y oficiales de salud para elaborar recomendaciones preventivas basadas en conocimiento científico para proteger la salud pública;
• trabajar con nuestros colegas de la comunidad de la salud Puertorriqueña para alentar un mejoramiento en el acceso al cuidado de salud de los residentes de Vieques; y
• coordinar un proceso responsable y exhaustivo distinguiendo la participación de los miembros de la comunidad y profesionales mientras avanzamos.
Los científicos de la ATSDR prepararan un reporte del trabajo ambiental hecho en Vieques, incluyendo las recomendaciones elaboradas en la consulta científica. Como parte del proceso científico, este reporte va a ser revisado por expertos independientes. Cuando se complete esta revisión, ATSDR proveerá recomendaciones detalladas sobre actividades en el futuro.
“ATSDR agradece efusivamente a los científicos por venir a Atlanta y compartir sus hallazgos y perspectivas. Reconocemos a los científicos independientes y los líderes comunitarios por su dedicación a la salud de la gente de Vieques, y anticipamos trabajar con ellos mientras avanzamos con nuestra mirada fresca en Vieques,” dijo Frumkin.
05 December 2009
Cayman Islands Contemplates Political Future
Will Independence ever be the answer?
Editorial
Cayman Net News, Cayman Islands
1st December 2009
Last week’s referendum result in St Vincent and the Grenadines, when the country’s voters decisively rejected a move to adopt a new constitution removing the Queen as head of state and abandoning the UK’s Privy Council in favour of the Caribbean Court of Justice, is unusual in that it appears to go against the flow of regional desires to sever the last bastions of colonial ties.
The issue of independence for the Cayman Islands is one that has been increasingly mooted in recent months, no doubt as a result of Britain’s intransigence in relation to borrowing our way out of financial failure and our economic model generally.
Although the question of independence has not yet been raised with any great fervour, there are people of influence in these islands who support -- at times not so secretly -- the notion and who accordingly promote and support those politicians who may be similarly inclined.
And, granted, we have surely been given cause to re-examine the benefits of our historical ties to Britain in the light of the various events that have taken place during the last couple of years.
However, the prospect of independence has never been a major factor in our political landscape, unlike other British Overseas Territories in the region, notably, Bermuda and the Turks and Caicos Islands, where it has formed from time to time a significant election issue.
Once its former Caribbean colonies began to achieve independence in 1962, Britain’s policy has been to withdraw from individual security, but not economic commitments, to the Commonwealth Caribbean. British interests in the region have been reduced mainly to trade, investment, and limited economic and security assistance.
What arguments are likely to be advanced in favour of independence for the Cayman Islands? One could certainly say that we would not be completely on our own. As a full member of the Commonwealth, we could expect some financial aid in case of need from the larger countries.
But then, who is to say that we will benefit anyway if we remain under British rule, given the independent spirit the Caymanians in dealing with their economic and social affairs, for example, in the wake of Hurricane Ivan. Even Grenada, which is a fully independent nation, got more hurricane relief aid from Britain than Cayman.
Some five years ago – shortly before Ivan struck, in fact – there was something of a fuss when a delegation from Cayman Islands non-governmental organisations (NGOs) addressed the United Nations Special Committee of 24 (C24) on Decolonisation in New York and claimed that there had been “misleading representations” by the British Government dating back to the 1960s regarding its obligations under various UN resolutions dealing with self-determination.
Although the most recent pronouncement by the C24 concerning the Cayman Islands is somewhat anodyne – it merely notes the finalisation of the new constitution and recommends that participate in the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) as a new associate member – it would seem from a contemporaneous statement by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that the C24 may well adopt a more active approach in promoting independence for all 16 remaining non-self-governing territories. In fact, Mr Ban said that the United Nations must step up its decolonisation efforts.
Decolonisation “is an unfinished process that has been with the international community for too long,” he said.
In the last two years of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, Mr Ban called for the acceleration of the UN’s work to “achieve concrete results.” He told the C24 to continue its support of the “legitimate aspirations of the people of non-self-governing territories so they can exercise their right to self-determination.”
So far as we know, Britain will never force us to become independent but the views, activities and resources of world bodies such as the C24 will certainly lend support to any local interests that wish to take up such a cause.
On February 4, 1960, former British Prime Minister and consummate politician of his era, Harold Macmillan, in speaking about the future of Africa, coined the memorable phrase: “The wind of change is blowing through the Continent. Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact.”
At that time, the use of this simple metaphor in relation to the turmoil of African affairs was most apt and may still prove to be relevant to an increasing acceptance of the notion of independence for the Cayman Islands.
Editorial
Cayman Net News, Cayman Islands
1st December 2009
Last week’s referendum result in St Vincent and the Grenadines, when the country’s voters decisively rejected a move to adopt a new constitution removing the Queen as head of state and abandoning the UK’s Privy Council in favour of the Caribbean Court of Justice, is unusual in that it appears to go against the flow of regional desires to sever the last bastions of colonial ties.
The issue of independence for the Cayman Islands is one that has been increasingly mooted in recent months, no doubt as a result of Britain’s intransigence in relation to borrowing our way out of financial failure and our economic model generally.
Although the question of independence has not yet been raised with any great fervour, there are people of influence in these islands who support -- at times not so secretly -- the notion and who accordingly promote and support those politicians who may be similarly inclined.
And, granted, we have surely been given cause to re-examine the benefits of our historical ties to Britain in the light of the various events that have taken place during the last couple of years.
However, the prospect of independence has never been a major factor in our political landscape, unlike other British Overseas Territories in the region, notably, Bermuda and the Turks and Caicos Islands, where it has formed from time to time a significant election issue.
Once its former Caribbean colonies began to achieve independence in 1962, Britain’s policy has been to withdraw from individual security, but not economic commitments, to the Commonwealth Caribbean. British interests in the region have been reduced mainly to trade, investment, and limited economic and security assistance.
What arguments are likely to be advanced in favour of independence for the Cayman Islands? One could certainly say that we would not be completely on our own. As a full member of the Commonwealth, we could expect some financial aid in case of need from the larger countries.
But then, who is to say that we will benefit anyway if we remain under British rule, given the independent spirit the Caymanians in dealing with their economic and social affairs, for example, in the wake of Hurricane Ivan. Even Grenada, which is a fully independent nation, got more hurricane relief aid from Britain than Cayman.
Some five years ago – shortly before Ivan struck, in fact – there was something of a fuss when a delegation from Cayman Islands non-governmental organisations (NGOs) addressed the United Nations Special Committee of 24 (C24) on Decolonisation in New York and claimed that there had been “misleading representations” by the British Government dating back to the 1960s regarding its obligations under various UN resolutions dealing with self-determination.
Although the most recent pronouncement by the C24 concerning the Cayman Islands is somewhat anodyne – it merely notes the finalisation of the new constitution and recommends that participate in the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) as a new associate member – it would seem from a contemporaneous statement by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that the C24 may well adopt a more active approach in promoting independence for all 16 remaining non-self-governing territories. In fact, Mr Ban said that the United Nations must step up its decolonisation efforts.
Decolonisation “is an unfinished process that has been with the international community for too long,” he said.
In the last two years of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, Mr Ban called for the acceleration of the UN’s work to “achieve concrete results.” He told the C24 to continue its support of the “legitimate aspirations of the people of non-self-governing territories so they can exercise their right to self-determination.”
So far as we know, Britain will never force us to become independent but the views, activities and resources of world bodies such as the C24 will certainly lend support to any local interests that wish to take up such a cause.
On February 4, 1960, former British Prime Minister and consummate politician of his era, Harold Macmillan, in speaking about the future of Africa, coined the memorable phrase: “The wind of change is blowing through the Continent. Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact.”
At that time, the use of this simple metaphor in relation to the turmoil of African affairs was most apt and may still prove to be relevant to an increasing acceptance of the notion of independence for the Cayman Islands.
02 December 2009
2010 Ibero-American Summit to Address Malvinas Sovereignty
MercoPress
South Atlantic News Agency
3rd December 2009
Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner said that the sovereignty claim over Malvinas, South Georgia, South Sandwich islands and surrounding maritime spaces, illegitimately held by Britain, will be paramount in next year’s Ibero-American summit declaration. Mar del Plata (Argentina) will be hosting the summit next year (2010).
Mrs. Kirchner was privileged with the closing speech of the two-day 19th summit held in Estoril, Portugal, since Argentina has taken over the pro tempore chair of the meeting and will be hosting the summit next year in Mar del Plata.
The president also thanked summit members for their support to Argentina’s South Atlantic islands claims, as has happened in previous occasions, and underlined the importance that such a support was part of the final Estoril declaration.
“All of us present here are members of the United Nations and we all know the UN has called on Argentina and the United Kingdom to begin sovereignty negotiations over the Malvinas Islands but this has not happened because of Britain’s point blank rejection”, insisted Mrs. Kirchner.
However the issue has been further complicated with the coming into effect December first of the Lisbon Treaty which considers “Malvinas, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands and the Argentine Antarctic sector as associate territories of the European Union”.
“The Malvinas, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands and surrounding maritime spaces are integral part of Argentine territory and are illegitimately occupied by the United Kingdom” said a strongly worded protest released by Argentina with instructions to be presented before all EU 27 members by the Argentine embassies.
Nevertheless Mrs. Kirchner thanked Portuguese Primer Minister Jose Sócrates for his disposition “to take the issue to the European Community”, an important step before “returning the claim to United Nations”.
Argentine Foreign Affairs secretary Jorge Taiana also addressed the issue during the closing press conference in Estoril. Slowly but steadily, “we continue to advance in the creation of conditions to make the United Kingdom sit with us to discuss the Malvinas sovereignty, as has been repeatedly recommended by United Nations”.
“We are satisfied with the support from all heads of state present at the Ibero-American summit to Argentina’s sovereignty claim over the Malvinas”. He also said that Argentina for the “umpteenth time is iterating its protest because the Lisbon Treaty (‘a kind of EU constitution’) includes the Malvinas islands as part of their territory”.
Taiana said that formal protests have been presented before Brussels and the capitals of all EU country members.
Meanwhile...
Malvinas oil ‘to help' British struggling economy, report
Reserves estimated at 60 billion barrels
Buenos Aires Herald
2 Dec. 09
A British newspaper (Telegraph) reported that a North Sea oil and gas exploration rig is on its way from Scotland to the North Malvinas basin to explore oil reserves, which it described as possible source for economic recovery.
According to the report, Scientists believe that the territory could have up to 60 billion barrels of oil underneath its coastal waters. The area, over which both Argentina and Britain claim sovereignity, are being probed by four British companies - Rockhopper Exploration, Desire Petroleum, Falkland Oil and Gas and Borders and Southern Petroleum.
The estimated amount of oil has already led to the British financial sector pouring around half a billion dollars.
South Atlantic News Agency
3rd December 2009
Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner said that the sovereignty claim over Malvinas, South Georgia, South Sandwich islands and surrounding maritime spaces, illegitimately held by Britain, will be paramount in next year’s Ibero-American summit declaration. Mar del Plata (Argentina) will be hosting the summit next year (2010).
Mrs. Kirchner was privileged with the closing speech of the two-day 19th summit held in Estoril, Portugal, since Argentina has taken over the pro tempore chair of the meeting and will be hosting the summit next year in Mar del Plata.
The president also thanked summit members for their support to Argentina’s South Atlantic islands claims, as has happened in previous occasions, and underlined the importance that such a support was part of the final Estoril declaration.
“All of us present here are members of the United Nations and we all know the UN has called on Argentina and the United Kingdom to begin sovereignty negotiations over the Malvinas Islands but this has not happened because of Britain’s point blank rejection”, insisted Mrs. Kirchner.
However the issue has been further complicated with the coming into effect December first of the Lisbon Treaty which considers “Malvinas, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands and the Argentine Antarctic sector as associate territories of the European Union”.
“The Malvinas, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands and surrounding maritime spaces are integral part of Argentine territory and are illegitimately occupied by the United Kingdom” said a strongly worded protest released by Argentina with instructions to be presented before all EU 27 members by the Argentine embassies.
Nevertheless Mrs. Kirchner thanked Portuguese Primer Minister Jose Sócrates for his disposition “to take the issue to the European Community”, an important step before “returning the claim to United Nations”.
Argentine Foreign Affairs secretary Jorge Taiana also addressed the issue during the closing press conference in Estoril. Slowly but steadily, “we continue to advance in the creation of conditions to make the United Kingdom sit with us to discuss the Malvinas sovereignty, as has been repeatedly recommended by United Nations”.
“We are satisfied with the support from all heads of state present at the Ibero-American summit to Argentina’s sovereignty claim over the Malvinas”. He also said that Argentina for the “umpteenth time is iterating its protest because the Lisbon Treaty (‘a kind of EU constitution’) includes the Malvinas islands as part of their territory”.
Taiana said that formal protests have been presented before Brussels and the capitals of all EU country members.
Meanwhile...
Malvinas oil ‘to help' British struggling economy, report
Reserves estimated at 60 billion barrels
Buenos Aires Herald
2 Dec. 09
A British newspaper (Telegraph) reported that a North Sea oil and gas exploration rig is on its way from Scotland to the North Malvinas basin to explore oil reserves, which it described as possible source for economic recovery.
According to the report, Scientists believe that the territory could have up to 60 billion barrels of oil underneath its coastal waters. The area, over which both Argentina and Britain claim sovereignity, are being probed by four British companies - Rockhopper Exploration, Desire Petroleum, Falkland Oil and Gas and Borders and Southern Petroleum.
The estimated amount of oil has already led to the British financial sector pouring around half a billion dollars.
01 December 2009
Second International Decade of Decolonization (to) End Unnoticed
América Latina en Movimiento
by Joyce van Genderen-Naar
30th November 2009
The Second International Decade of Decolonization is ending soon in 2010. The main conclusion is that two decades were not enough to resolve all decolonization issues, in contrary the process of self-determination leading to decolonization has become increasingly complex. Third and even more International Decades will be needed before all Non-Self-Governing Territories have attained self-determination.
The international mandate for decolonisation is a function of the UN Charter and UN resolutions on decolonisation are supported by all of the nations of the world, with regard to the international obligation to develop self-government and to take due account of the political aspirations of the people of their territories (article 73 of the United Nations Charter). But the implementation is politically sensitive and information has been scarce. Decolonization issues stay unnoticed.
The stocktaking took place during the Caribbean Regional Seminar on Decolonization, organized on 12, 13 and 14 May in St. Kitts and Nevis (Caribbean) by the UN Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization (Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples). Recommendations were made to establish a mechanism for dialogue between local authorities in the Territories, administering Powers and the international community to facilitate the decolonization process.
There has to be more interaction and cooperation between the Special Committee and the administering Powers, by creating frameworks for dialogue between the Territories, the administering Powers and the Special Committee. The international community needs to work together and to remain engaged, guided by the political options available to the Non-Self-Governing Territories: free association with other independent States, full integration with political rights, or independence. It is important to focus more on the specific needs of each Territory in terms of their political and economic needs and assistance by the United Nations system.
Education and public outreach are crucial for decolonization, to enable the people concerned to make informed decisions regarding their future political status, to promote maturity and movement towards “appropriation of the own destiny”: “You cannot insist on your rights, unless you understand them.” Decisions on self-determination must be based on full information and education. In a message to the Seminar UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had urged the administering Powers, Non-Self-Governing Territories and the United Nations to continue working together to accelerate the process of eradicating colonialism.
He said that progress in this area will require close cooperation between all three actors. He noted that the right to self-determination must be taken into proper account in exploring how to accelerate the decolonization process for the remaining 16 UN listed non self-governing territories, namely the ten Overseas Countries and Territories of the UK (Anquilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos Islands in the Caribbean Sea; Falklands Islands (Malvinas) and St. Helena in the Atlantic Ocean; Pitcairn Islands in the Pacific; Gibraltar in Europe); New Caledonia, Overseas Country and Territory of France in the Pacific; three territories of the USA: Virgin Island in the Caribbean, American Samoa and Guam in the Pacific; Tokelau, a self-governing dependency of New Zealand in the Pacific; Western Sahara, occupied by Morocco, in Africa.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was counting on the administering Powers in particular to discharge their obligations in a manner that promotes the well-being of the inhabitants of the territories within their responsibility. The interests of the peoples of the Territories have to be at the heart of all efforts.
The UN system will continue to assist the Non-Self-Governing Territories, in areas such as economic and social development, environmental sustainability, healthcare and good governance. Emerging challenges for the Non-Self-Governing Territories on their path towards decolonisation are the impact of climate change, the global economic and financial crisis, the role of regional cooperation, education and public awareness, the role of women, the empowerment of vulnerable people and the capacity for full self-government towards self-determination. Key elements in responding to the challenges of today are political maturity, economic sustainability, enhanced administrative capacity and strengthened regional cooperation.
Regional cooperation and regional arrangements offered important opportunities for many Non-Self-Governing Territories and contributed to the development of a strong regional identity and strengthened concrete functional cooperation in various areas of mutual interest. Important were the role of the United Nations regional commissions, such as the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and bodies like the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), as well as various United Nations specialized agencies.
In response to climate change, which had exposed the vulnerability of many Non-Self-Governing Territories, regional cooperation could play a crucial role in the field of disaster preparedness. The global economic crisis had further highlighted the importance of economic sustainability and diversification of the economic base in the Non-Self-Governing Territories through community-based development, the development of small and medium enterprises, promotion of micro-financing and employment-generating activities, and the empowerment of vulnerable groups.
In his closing statement on behalf of the host country, Delano Frank Bart, Permanent Representative of Saint Kitts and Nevis to the United Nations, characterized the seminar as “the penultimate event” in the course of the Decade. He said that with regard to the energy, food and financial crises, the Territories had been hit as hard as most countries, if not more, but that their concerns were often marginalized. “Our role is to ensure that all needs are met, especially the needs of those of us who are not governing themselves.” Highlighting the impact of climate change, he said that, of the 16 Territories under the Special Committee’s mandate, the majority were islands. Therefore, the concerns of small island developing States within the United Nations system were also the concerns of those Territories. They were among the most vulnerable and needed to be aware of the commitment of the international community to stand by them and “weather the storm together.”
Recalling that his country had recently celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary of independence, he said Saint Kitts and Nevis remembered the concerns of the pre-independence period. One needed the goodwill of all parties to resolve such issues, and the participants should, therefore, take away with them a determination to ensure that the day would come in the not-too-distant future, when the Special Committee’s work would bear fruit, and that the solutions found would be in the best interests of all concerned.
The recommendations of the St. Kitts Seminar have become the most recent chapter of the ever growing legislative authority on the self-determination of the territories. Some of the recommendations were included in the decolonisation resolutions adopted by the UN Fourth Committee in November 2009, and are expected to be approved by the General Assembly in December 2009. Implementation is an entirely separate matter, according to International Advisor on Democratic Governance Dr. Carlyle Corbin
GUAM’s self-determination bill
How important information and education are to the people of the Non-self Governing Territories and how essential to the expression of their political aspirations and self-determination, was shown on November 5, 2009, when the delegate of Guam Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, in the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife Legislative hearing on H.R. 3940, introduced a self-determination bill to support a public education program for the people of Guam regarding various political status options to express their desired political status.
Guam is a territory of the USA in the Pacific, that has been under the United States Flag as an unincorporated territory for over 111 years. Guam, like her sister territory Puerto Rico, was ceded to the United States from Spain upon the signing of the Treaty of Paris settling the Spanish-American War in 1898. Guam is listed by the United Nations as a non-self-governing territory. Despites all efforts towards defining a new political relationship between Guam and the United States, the political aspirations of the people of Guam for such status were never realized. A referendum affording the people of Guam an opportunity to express their views on status was authorized by local law but remains unscheduled. In November the US Congressional Committee approved the self-determination bill and assistance to the territories.
Dr. Corbin explained that there are two separate pieces of legislation - one bill for American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands, and a second different bill for Puerto Rico, which is essentially a referendum bill which had been adopted by the same Committee earlier this year. The Puerto Rico measure does not address public education since they already have a very sophisticated process in place via their political parties. Both bills have been adopted by the substantive committee in one House of the US Congress so far. It still has to be adopted by the full House of Representatives, then by the US Senate and signed by the President. He anticipated that this would happen without too much difficulty since there is no new financial resources associated with either measure.
Dr. Corbin also made clear that the issue is not only between independence or not, but rather to chose one of the three political status option which provides for a full measure of self-government, namely independence, free association and integration. These are so recognised by the UN. Some member states which administer territories, such as the UK, have told its territories that offers neither integration nor free association to them, and the choice is either independence or remaining in a dependency status. This is unlike the Dutch Antilles which had achieved sufficient autonomy to be regarded as fully self-governing. This might change as the dismantling of the five islands will now yield a new less autonomous model for the two islands which have chosen in referendum to become separate countries within the Dutch Kingdom.
by Joyce van Genderen-Naar
30th November 2009
The Second International Decade of Decolonization is ending soon in 2010. The main conclusion is that two decades were not enough to resolve all decolonization issues, in contrary the process of self-determination leading to decolonization has become increasingly complex. Third and even more International Decades will be needed before all Non-Self-Governing Territories have attained self-determination.
The international mandate for decolonisation is a function of the UN Charter and UN resolutions on decolonisation are supported by all of the nations of the world, with regard to the international obligation to develop self-government and to take due account of the political aspirations of the people of their territories (article 73 of the United Nations Charter). But the implementation is politically sensitive and information has been scarce. Decolonization issues stay unnoticed.
The stocktaking took place during the Caribbean Regional Seminar on Decolonization, organized on 12, 13 and 14 May in St. Kitts and Nevis (Caribbean) by the UN Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization (Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples). Recommendations were made to establish a mechanism for dialogue between local authorities in the Territories, administering Powers and the international community to facilitate the decolonization process.
There has to be more interaction and cooperation between the Special Committee and the administering Powers, by creating frameworks for dialogue between the Territories, the administering Powers and the Special Committee. The international community needs to work together and to remain engaged, guided by the political options available to the Non-Self-Governing Territories: free association with other independent States, full integration with political rights, or independence. It is important to focus more on the specific needs of each Territory in terms of their political and economic needs and assistance by the United Nations system.
Education and public outreach are crucial for decolonization, to enable the people concerned to make informed decisions regarding their future political status, to promote maturity and movement towards “appropriation of the own destiny”: “You cannot insist on your rights, unless you understand them.” Decisions on self-determination must be based on full information and education. In a message to the Seminar UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had urged the administering Powers, Non-Self-Governing Territories and the United Nations to continue working together to accelerate the process of eradicating colonialism.
He said that progress in this area will require close cooperation between all three actors. He noted that the right to self-determination must be taken into proper account in exploring how to accelerate the decolonization process for the remaining 16 UN listed non self-governing territories, namely the ten Overseas Countries and Territories of the UK (Anquilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos Islands in the Caribbean Sea; Falklands Islands (Malvinas) and St. Helena in the Atlantic Ocean; Pitcairn Islands in the Pacific; Gibraltar in Europe); New Caledonia, Overseas Country and Territory of France in the Pacific; three territories of the USA: Virgin Island in the Caribbean, American Samoa and Guam in the Pacific; Tokelau, a self-governing dependency of New Zealand in the Pacific; Western Sahara, occupied by Morocco, in Africa.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was counting on the administering Powers in particular to discharge their obligations in a manner that promotes the well-being of the inhabitants of the territories within their responsibility. The interests of the peoples of the Territories have to be at the heart of all efforts.
The UN system will continue to assist the Non-Self-Governing Territories, in areas such as economic and social development, environmental sustainability, healthcare and good governance. Emerging challenges for the Non-Self-Governing Territories on their path towards decolonisation are the impact of climate change, the global economic and financial crisis, the role of regional cooperation, education and public awareness, the role of women, the empowerment of vulnerable people and the capacity for full self-government towards self-determination. Key elements in responding to the challenges of today are political maturity, economic sustainability, enhanced administrative capacity and strengthened regional cooperation.
Regional cooperation and regional arrangements offered important opportunities for many Non-Self-Governing Territories and contributed to the development of a strong regional identity and strengthened concrete functional cooperation in various areas of mutual interest. Important were the role of the United Nations regional commissions, such as the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and bodies like the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), as well as various United Nations specialized agencies.
In response to climate change, which had exposed the vulnerability of many Non-Self-Governing Territories, regional cooperation could play a crucial role in the field of disaster preparedness. The global economic crisis had further highlighted the importance of economic sustainability and diversification of the economic base in the Non-Self-Governing Territories through community-based development, the development of small and medium enterprises, promotion of micro-financing and employment-generating activities, and the empowerment of vulnerable groups.
In his closing statement on behalf of the host country, Delano Frank Bart, Permanent Representative of Saint Kitts and Nevis to the United Nations, characterized the seminar as “the penultimate event” in the course of the Decade. He said that with regard to the energy, food and financial crises, the Territories had been hit as hard as most countries, if not more, but that their concerns were often marginalized. “Our role is to ensure that all needs are met, especially the needs of those of us who are not governing themselves.” Highlighting the impact of climate change, he said that, of the 16 Territories under the Special Committee’s mandate, the majority were islands. Therefore, the concerns of small island developing States within the United Nations system were also the concerns of those Territories. They were among the most vulnerable and needed to be aware of the commitment of the international community to stand by them and “weather the storm together.”
Recalling that his country had recently celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary of independence, he said Saint Kitts and Nevis remembered the concerns of the pre-independence period. One needed the goodwill of all parties to resolve such issues, and the participants should, therefore, take away with them a determination to ensure that the day would come in the not-too-distant future, when the Special Committee’s work would bear fruit, and that the solutions found would be in the best interests of all concerned.
The recommendations of the St. Kitts Seminar have become the most recent chapter of the ever growing legislative authority on the self-determination of the territories. Some of the recommendations were included in the decolonisation resolutions adopted by the UN Fourth Committee in November 2009, and are expected to be approved by the General Assembly in December 2009. Implementation is an entirely separate matter, according to International Advisor on Democratic Governance Dr. Carlyle Corbin
GUAM’s self-determination bill
How important information and education are to the people of the Non-self Governing Territories and how essential to the expression of their political aspirations and self-determination, was shown on November 5, 2009, when the delegate of Guam Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, in the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife Legislative hearing on H.R. 3940, introduced a self-determination bill to support a public education program for the people of Guam regarding various political status options to express their desired political status.
Guam is a territory of the USA in the Pacific, that has been under the United States Flag as an unincorporated territory for over 111 years. Guam, like her sister territory Puerto Rico, was ceded to the United States from Spain upon the signing of the Treaty of Paris settling the Spanish-American War in 1898. Guam is listed by the United Nations as a non-self-governing territory. Despites all efforts towards defining a new political relationship between Guam and the United States, the political aspirations of the people of Guam for such status were never realized. A referendum affording the people of Guam an opportunity to express their views on status was authorized by local law but remains unscheduled. In November the US Congressional Committee approved the self-determination bill and assistance to the territories.
Dr. Corbin explained that there are two separate pieces of legislation - one bill for American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands, and a second different bill for Puerto Rico, which is essentially a referendum bill which had been adopted by the same Committee earlier this year. The Puerto Rico measure does not address public education since they already have a very sophisticated process in place via their political parties. Both bills have been adopted by the substantive committee in one House of the US Congress so far. It still has to be adopted by the full House of Representatives, then by the US Senate and signed by the President. He anticipated that this would happen without too much difficulty since there is no new financial resources associated with either measure.
Dr. Corbin also made clear that the issue is not only between independence or not, but rather to chose one of the three political status option which provides for a full measure of self-government, namely independence, free association and integration. These are so recognised by the UN. Some member states which administer territories, such as the UK, have told its territories that offers neither integration nor free association to them, and the choice is either independence or remaining in a dependency status. This is unlike the Dutch Antilles which had achieved sufficient autonomy to be regarded as fully self-governing. This might change as the dismantling of the five islands will now yield a new less autonomous model for the two islands which have chosen in referendum to become separate countries within the Dutch Kingdom.
22 November 2009
Deposed Premier Condemns Climate of Fear in Turks and Caicos Islands
Premier Gilley calls for Unity
Turks and Caicos Weekly News
13 November 2009
By Rebecca Bird
FORMER Premier Galmo Williams hit out at Governor Gordon Wetherell this week accusing him of setting the country back 50 years. In a fiery press statement the PNP leader called again for a public uprising against the British-led government.
He said that Mr Wetherell has yet to inform the country of his plans for moving the country forward or “how he intends to empower TC Islanders.”
“I always believed and still do today, that the British Government does not have a plan for this country.
“It appears that their main aim is to cripple this country’s economy by stifling development and marginalising Turks and Caicos Islanders.”
Mr Williams claimed that the British have created their own ‘climate of fear’ over the past three months and said that people are afraid to speak out against the Governor’s actions for fear of victimisation.
He added: “I would like to make a final appeal to all Turks and Caicos Islanders, whether you are a PNP or PDM, persons residing in this country, those of you who care about and love this country, to let us come together as one and demand our country back - history has proven that there is strength in unity.”
In Wednesday’s statement Mr Williams also accused the Governer of hypocrisy in his actions. He challenged him to explain the “influx” of British advisors after criticising the former PNP government of appointing their own advisors.
The PNP veteran said that Islanders are being “shoved to the side” and earning “meagre” salaries. “Today I am disheartened at the fact that so many of our Turks and Caicos Islanders are being marginalised and being replaced by persons from the UK whose qualifications and experience still remains a mystery.
“Our PNP Government did not spend $18m dollars annually educating Turks and Caicos Islanders to be placed on the back burners making meagre salaries, whilst persons coming from the UK are in the frontline making huge salaries along with many benefits.
"Turks and Caicos Islanders, those of you who say you love this country, you must speak out. “You must let your voices be heard.”
Mr Williams also accused the Governor and his advisors of trying to “frustrate” TC Islanders into quitting their jobs. He cited former Registrar of Lands Kendle Williams and former Director of Tourism Lindsey Musgrove as examples.
Governor Gordon Wetherell was not available for comment up until press time.
_______________________________________________________________
Editor's Note:
In the wake of the 'colonial coup' undertaken by the British Government in the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) earlier this year with the abolishment of the elected government of the territory and the imposition of direct rule by the London-appointed governor, the United Nations (UN) made but a few minor adjustments to the language of the TCI section of the resolution when the UN Fourth Committee adopted its text. These changes insufficiently reflected the seriousness of the extraordinary development that had taken place, and the political crisis which has been created, and which continues as evidenced by the comments of the deposed Premier (see above article).
A request from activists in the territory for a separate resolution to address the complexities of the issue, similar to the UN resolution in the case of the coup in Honduras, was not heeded. The Honduras resolution, of course, elicited no action on the ground in Honduras, since the coup government remains in place, and the dutifully elected president remains in the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa - but at least the UN stated its position on principle. No such luck for a non self-governing territory such as the Turks and Caicos Islands which has no voice in the political bodies of the UN. Ironically, both coups took place in the Western Hemisphere where democracic governance is a priority.
Since the UN General Assembly meets in early December to complete its work on decolonisation for the year, there is still time for it to express its indignation with what has taken place. The following is a draft of a resolution which the UN might consider:
Draft Resolution on the Suspension of Democratic Governance in the Non Self-Governing Territory of the Turks and Caicos Islands
The General Assembly,
Deeply concerned that in reaction to the findings of a Commission of Inquiry on the administration of the Turks and Caicos Islands, the administering power of the territory has suspended major provisions of the Turks and Caicos Islands constitution, and in the process, has abolished the Premiership, Cabinet and House of Assembly, trial by jury and other provisions of the constitution, and has replaced democratic governance with direct rule by the governor acting on behalf of the administering power,
Noting with interest repeated requests made by the elected Premier, including in his statement to the May 2009 Caribbean regional seminar of the Special Committee on Decolonization held in St. Kitts and Nevis, calling for new elections to resolve the political crisis, and Noting with regret the subsequent rejection of these requests by the Government of the United Kingdom, the territory's administering power;
Taking into account the stated position of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) which emphasized that the imposition of direct rule was a regrettable forced step backward; that the democratic process could not be strengthened by removing representative democracy from the citizens of the territory; and that it would have been far more beneficial, and the results more sustainable, to involve the people of the territory through their elected representatives in the efforts required to strengthen the good governance and public administrative processes in the territory;
Also taking into account the position of the Non Aligned Movement Coordinating Bureau at its 2009 ministerial meeting that called for the urgent restoration of the constitutional government in the territory pursuant to the Constitutional Order of 2006;
Bearing in mind Article 73(b) of the United Nations Charter which recognizes, inter alia, the responsibility of member States which administer non self-governing territories to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions;
Also bearing in mind Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other relevant human rights instruments, which affirm that “all peoples have the right to self-determination (and) by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development;”
Recalling the Inter American Democratic Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS) which, inter alia, "recognizes that representative democracy is indispensable for the stability, peace, and development of the region, and that one of the purposes of the OAS is to promote and consolidate representative democracy,"
Further recalling Article 1 of the Inter American Democratic Charter which states that "Democracy is indispensable for the effective exercise of fundamental freedoms and human rights in their universality, indivisibility and interdependence, embodied in the respective constitutions of states and in inter-American and international human rights instruments,"
Confirming that the unilateral abolishment by the administering power of the elected government of the territory violated recognized principles of democratic governance, and was inconsistent with the international treaty obligations of an administering power as contained in the United Nations Charter and relevant human rights conventions,
1. Calls for the restoration of constitutional government, as a matter of urgency, pursuant to the Turks and Caicos Islands Constitutional Order of 2006 in order to facilitate the conduct of new elections in the territory, and requests the administering power to facilitate relevant electoral assistance to the territory in the conduct of the elections consistent with relevant resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly,
2. Further calls for the creation of a timetable for the self-determination and subsequent decolonization of the territory in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands, and in conformity with the legitimate political status options clearly defined in Resolution 1541 (XV).
3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly in three months on the implementation of the present resolution.
Turks and Caicos Weekly News
13 November 2009
By Rebecca Bird
FORMER Premier Galmo Williams hit out at Governor Gordon Wetherell this week accusing him of setting the country back 50 years. In a fiery press statement the PNP leader called again for a public uprising against the British-led government.
He said that Mr Wetherell has yet to inform the country of his plans for moving the country forward or “how he intends to empower TC Islanders.”
“I always believed and still do today, that the British Government does not have a plan for this country.
“It appears that their main aim is to cripple this country’s economy by stifling development and marginalising Turks and Caicos Islanders.”
Mr Williams claimed that the British have created their own ‘climate of fear’ over the past three months and said that people are afraid to speak out against the Governor’s actions for fear of victimisation.
He added: “I would like to make a final appeal to all Turks and Caicos Islanders, whether you are a PNP or PDM, persons residing in this country, those of you who care about and love this country, to let us come together as one and demand our country back - history has proven that there is strength in unity.”
In Wednesday’s statement Mr Williams also accused the Governer of hypocrisy in his actions. He challenged him to explain the “influx” of British advisors after criticising the former PNP government of appointing their own advisors.
The PNP veteran said that Islanders are being “shoved to the side” and earning “meagre” salaries. “Today I am disheartened at the fact that so many of our Turks and Caicos Islanders are being marginalised and being replaced by persons from the UK whose qualifications and experience still remains a mystery.
“Our PNP Government did not spend $18m dollars annually educating Turks and Caicos Islanders to be placed on the back burners making meagre salaries, whilst persons coming from the UK are in the frontline making huge salaries along with many benefits.
"Turks and Caicos Islanders, those of you who say you love this country, you must speak out. “You must let your voices be heard.”
Mr Williams also accused the Governor and his advisors of trying to “frustrate” TC Islanders into quitting their jobs. He cited former Registrar of Lands Kendle Williams and former Director of Tourism Lindsey Musgrove as examples.
Governor Gordon Wetherell was not available for comment up until press time.
_______________________________________________________________
Editor's Note:
In the wake of the 'colonial coup' undertaken by the British Government in the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) earlier this year with the abolishment of the elected government of the territory and the imposition of direct rule by the London-appointed governor, the United Nations (UN) made but a few minor adjustments to the language of the TCI section of the resolution when the UN Fourth Committee adopted its text. These changes insufficiently reflected the seriousness of the extraordinary development that had taken place, and the political crisis which has been created, and which continues as evidenced by the comments of the deposed Premier (see above article).
A request from activists in the territory for a separate resolution to address the complexities of the issue, similar to the UN resolution in the case of the coup in Honduras, was not heeded. The Honduras resolution, of course, elicited no action on the ground in Honduras, since the coup government remains in place, and the dutifully elected president remains in the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa - but at least the UN stated its position on principle. No such luck for a non self-governing territory such as the Turks and Caicos Islands which has no voice in the political bodies of the UN. Ironically, both coups took place in the Western Hemisphere where democracic governance is a priority.
Since the UN General Assembly meets in early December to complete its work on decolonisation for the year, there is still time for it to express its indignation with what has taken place. The following is a draft of a resolution which the UN might consider:
Draft Resolution on the Suspension of Democratic Governance in the Non Self-Governing Territory of the Turks and Caicos Islands
The General Assembly,
Deeply concerned that in reaction to the findings of a Commission of Inquiry on the administration of the Turks and Caicos Islands, the administering power of the territory has suspended major provisions of the Turks and Caicos Islands constitution, and in the process, has abolished the Premiership, Cabinet and House of Assembly, trial by jury and other provisions of the constitution, and has replaced democratic governance with direct rule by the governor acting on behalf of the administering power,
Noting with interest repeated requests made by the elected Premier, including in his statement to the May 2009 Caribbean regional seminar of the Special Committee on Decolonization held in St. Kitts and Nevis, calling for new elections to resolve the political crisis, and Noting with regret the subsequent rejection of these requests by the Government of the United Kingdom, the territory's administering power;
Taking into account the stated position of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) which emphasized that the imposition of direct rule was a regrettable forced step backward; that the democratic process could not be strengthened by removing representative democracy from the citizens of the territory; and that it would have been far more beneficial, and the results more sustainable, to involve the people of the territory through their elected representatives in the efforts required to strengthen the good governance and public administrative processes in the territory;
Also taking into account the position of the Non Aligned Movement Coordinating Bureau at its 2009 ministerial meeting that called for the urgent restoration of the constitutional government in the territory pursuant to the Constitutional Order of 2006;
Bearing in mind Article 73(b) of the United Nations Charter which recognizes, inter alia, the responsibility of member States which administer non self-governing territories to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions;
Also bearing in mind Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other relevant human rights instruments, which affirm that “all peoples have the right to self-determination (and) by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development;”
Recalling the Inter American Democratic Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS) which, inter alia, "recognizes that representative democracy is indispensable for the stability, peace, and development of the region, and that one of the purposes of the OAS is to promote and consolidate representative democracy,"
Further recalling Article 1 of the Inter American Democratic Charter which states that "Democracy is indispensable for the effective exercise of fundamental freedoms and human rights in their universality, indivisibility and interdependence, embodied in the respective constitutions of states and in inter-American and international human rights instruments,"
Confirming that the unilateral abolishment by the administering power of the elected government of the territory violated recognized principles of democratic governance, and was inconsistent with the international treaty obligations of an administering power as contained in the United Nations Charter and relevant human rights conventions,
1. Calls for the restoration of constitutional government, as a matter of urgency, pursuant to the Turks and Caicos Islands Constitutional Order of 2006 in order to facilitate the conduct of new elections in the territory, and requests the administering power to facilitate relevant electoral assistance to the territory in the conduct of the elections consistent with relevant resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly,
2. Further calls for the creation of a timetable for the self-determination and subsequent decolonization of the territory in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands, and in conformity with the legitimate political status options clearly defined in Resolution 1541 (XV).
3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly in three months on the implementation of the present resolution.
20 November 2009
United Nations Action on Decolonisation Resolutions
OTR has recently completed its analysis of the vote in the United Nations Special Political and Decolonisation Committee (Fourth Committee) which adopted its 2009 resolutions on the remaining 16 non self-governing territories last month. Whilst a number of the resolutions were approved by consensus, the usual vote was required on others, as several of the countries which administer or occupy territories, or those which have sovereignty disputes over territories, vote against or abstain from specific resolutions.
In the case of the United Kingdom (UK), the usual explanation was given for their position, even as the explanation is inconsistent with its responsibilities under the United Nations Charter. France and the United States (US), however, provide no insight at the Fourth Committee on their negative votes.
In the case of the U.S., the vote by the Obama Administration was strikingly similar to that of the Bush Administration – in fact, it was identical. It appears that the policy’ ‘change’ has not yet filtered down to the issue of decolonisation of the remaining territories – an issue which apparently is of a lesser priority. The recent legislation authorizing U.S. support for a self-determination process for the U.S.-administered territories recently adopted by the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources should hopefully serve to stimulate some new thinking on this matter.
OTR offers the following excerpts from the United Nations press release, with substantive commentary in italics.
Draft resolution I, on information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations was approved by a recorded vote of 140 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States).
Explaining his position after the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom said that, as in previous years, his delegation had abstained. The Government did not take issue with the resolution’s main objective, and continued to meet its obligations in that regard. His Government believed, however, that a decision as to whether a Non-Self-Governing Territory had reached a level of self-government was ultimately for the government of the Territory and the administering Power concerned, and not the General Assembly.
Taking up draft resolution II, on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, the Committee approved the text by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions (France, United Kingdom)
Speaking after the vote, the representative of Argentina said the applicability of the resolution in a given Territory depended on whether the right to self-determination was applicable to that Territory. Thus, it was relevant to bear in mind that certain General Assembly resolutions noted that, in cases where there was a sovereignty dispute, such as in the Malvinas Islands, South Sandwich Islands and surrounding maritime areas, a negotiated solution was the only path to resolving the dispute, and not self-determination. The resolution, therefore, was not applicable to the Malvinas Islands and the surrounding archipelagic areas. The situation prevailing in this archipelago, belonging to the national territory of a country, resulted in the unilateral exploitation by the United Kingdom of the natural resources of the Malvinas Islands and surrounding marine areas. That ran counter to the Assembly’s decisions in that field, and was a brazen violation.
The representative of the United Kingdom said that the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands was well-known, as the United Kingdom had expressed in the right of reply in the general debate on decolonization. There was no doubt about that Territory’s sovereignty and there could be no negotiation about those issues unless and until such time as the islanders so wished.
(Editor's Note: The Falklands Islands and the Malvinas are different names for the same island...)
The Committee then approved draft resolution III on implementation of the (Decolonisation) Declaration by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to none against, with 50 abstentions.
Speaking in explanation of vote on behalf of the European Union, Sweden’s representative reaffirmed support for the specialized agencies of the United Nations in their efforts, particularly those in the technical and educational fields. The Union favoured careful compliance with those agencies’ statutes. It had therefore abstained from the vote. The U.S. did not speak on this resolution, but did address the same issue during its consideration by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) last August. Accordingly, OTR reported in August that:
“The objections of the various member states to the resolution on assistance to the territories from the UN system are virtually identical to their objections for over a decade. Thus, the US representative continues to articulate to ECOSOC that any assistance to, or participation in, UN programmes for the non self-governing territories must be confirmed by the UN member State which controls the foreign relations of the territories concerned. This is a but a re-statement of the practice which is already in place, and has always been a requirement of the rules of procedure of any UN agency which provides for assistance or participation for these territories. The resolution, even in its present form, makes this clear.
A second objection by the US representative suggests that the resolution somehow “infringes upon” the internal constitutional arrangements of the United States. Yet, the longstanding US practice provides the delegation of authority to the territories, on a case by case basis, to participate in international organisations and activities.
In virtually all cases, it is only the state which controls the international relations of the territory which can make a request for the affiliation of the territory in any given UN body. If the delegation of authority is freely given by the administering power to the territory to participate in a given international organisation or activity, how can it be, at the same time, an infringement on the administering power’s control?”
The representative of Argentina stressed that the resolution should be in line with the previous resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and the Special Committee on Decolonization.
It was unclear what was meant by this position.
Following that, the Committee took up draft resolution VI, on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands approving it without a vote.
But will the provisions be implemented?
Speaking in explanation after the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom said that his delegation had joined consensus on the last resolution, which reflected its full support for the right to self-determination. However, his delegation regretted the outdated approach of the “Committee of 24” (Special Committee on Decolonization), which failed to take full account of the way that the relationship between the United Kingdom and its Overseas Territories had been modernized in a way acceptable to both parties. The resolution did not fully reflect that modern relationship, he said, and the United Kingdom did not accept the assertion that self-determination did not apply where there existed a sovereignty dispute.
This was a repetition of the statement from previous years.
The representative of Argentina expressed full support for the right of people who were still subjected to colonization, and for the right to self-determination of the 11 Territories in the resolution just adopted. At the same time, as had been expressed in a letter to the Secretary-General distributed on 7 July. the annual resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands, and the considerations contained therein, were strictly related to the Territories referred to in those questions. The question of the Malvinas Islands was subjected to separate treatment in specific resolutions that gave due consideration to the special and particular features inherent in it, which were derived from the existence of a sovereignty dispute between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom.
The Committee next approved draft resolution VII on dissemination of information on decolonization by a recorded vote of 150 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States) with 1 abstention (France).
Speaking in explanation of vote, the United Kingdom’s representative said his delegation had voted against the text because it remained of the view that the obligation it placed on the Secretariat to disseminate information represented an unwarranted drain on the Organization’s resources. As such, the resolution was unacceptable to the United Kingdom.
Really?
The representative of Argentina said his delegation wished to express support for the right of self-determination. Despite that, the text should be interpreted and implemented in keeping with pertinent General Assembly resolutions and the various resolutions and statements of the Special Committee on Decolonization, which recognized the existence of a sovereignty dispute between his country and the United Kingdom over the Malvinas Islands.
(Everything appears to be seen through the prism of the Malvinas sovereignty dispute).
Next, the Committee approved draft resolution VIII on the implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration by a vote of 152 in favour to 3 against (Israel, United Kingdom, United States), with 2 abstentions (Belgium, France).
Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Argentina stressed that, regarding operative paragraph 7, visiting missions proceeded only in cases where self-determination was applicable, specifically those for which there was no sovereignty dispute.
(Everything appears to be seen through the prism of the Malvinas sovereignty dispute).
The representative of the United Kingdom said his delegation had voted “no” because it continued to find some parts of the text unacceptable.
(Which parts, may we ask?)
Nevertheless, the Government of the United Kingdom remained committed to modernizing its relationship with its Overseas Territories, while taking fully into account the views of the peoples of the Territories.
(The usual refrain...).
Following that, the representative of Guinea said that his delegation had intended to vote in favour of draft resolutions I, II and III, and requested that that be duly noted in the record.
Singapore’s representative said that his delegation had wished to vote in favour of the resolutions pertaining to item 35, on information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the United Nations Charter, and on item 36, on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories.
The representatives of Pakistan and Chile said that their delegations had wanted to vote in favour of resolutions concerning item 35, and item 37, on implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations. The representatives of Sierra Leone and Burkina Faso said they had wished to vote in favour of the resolutions concerning item 35.
On 3rd October, OTR wrote that “how the United Nations deals with decolonization has become “a sterile exercise, a game of pretense played to avoid what is meant to be achieved." We indicated that we would “nevertheless… cover the 2009 session of the Fourth Committee, not because we harbor any illusions that the process will change, but rather because our readership demands to be kept abreast.”
In any event, the General Assembly will take the final vote in December. We'll be there...
In the case of the United Kingdom (UK), the usual explanation was given for their position, even as the explanation is inconsistent with its responsibilities under the United Nations Charter. France and the United States (US), however, provide no insight at the Fourth Committee on their negative votes.
In the case of the U.S., the vote by the Obama Administration was strikingly similar to that of the Bush Administration – in fact, it was identical. It appears that the policy’ ‘change’ has not yet filtered down to the issue of decolonisation of the remaining territories – an issue which apparently is of a lesser priority. The recent legislation authorizing U.S. support for a self-determination process for the U.S.-administered territories recently adopted by the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources should hopefully serve to stimulate some new thinking on this matter.
OTR offers the following excerpts from the United Nations press release, with substantive commentary in italics.
Draft resolution I, on information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations was approved by a recorded vote of 140 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States).
Explaining his position after the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom said that, as in previous years, his delegation had abstained. The Government did not take issue with the resolution’s main objective, and continued to meet its obligations in that regard. His Government believed, however, that a decision as to whether a Non-Self-Governing Territory had reached a level of self-government was ultimately for the government of the Territory and the administering Power concerned, and not the General Assembly.
Taking up draft resolution II, on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, the Committee approved the text by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions (France, United Kingdom)
Speaking after the vote, the representative of Argentina said the applicability of the resolution in a given Territory depended on whether the right to self-determination was applicable to that Territory. Thus, it was relevant to bear in mind that certain General Assembly resolutions noted that, in cases where there was a sovereignty dispute, such as in the Malvinas Islands, South Sandwich Islands and surrounding maritime areas, a negotiated solution was the only path to resolving the dispute, and not self-determination. The resolution, therefore, was not applicable to the Malvinas Islands and the surrounding archipelagic areas. The situation prevailing in this archipelago, belonging to the national territory of a country, resulted in the unilateral exploitation by the United Kingdom of the natural resources of the Malvinas Islands and surrounding marine areas. That ran counter to the Assembly’s decisions in that field, and was a brazen violation.
The representative of the United Kingdom said that the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands was well-known, as the United Kingdom had expressed in the right of reply in the general debate on decolonization. There was no doubt about that Territory’s sovereignty and there could be no negotiation about those issues unless and until such time as the islanders so wished.
(Editor's Note: The Falklands Islands and the Malvinas are different names for the same island...)
The Committee then approved draft resolution III on implementation of the (Decolonisation) Declaration by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to none against, with 50 abstentions.
Speaking in explanation of vote on behalf of the European Union, Sweden’s representative reaffirmed support for the specialized agencies of the United Nations in their efforts, particularly those in the technical and educational fields. The Union favoured careful compliance with those agencies’ statutes. It had therefore abstained from the vote. The U.S. did not speak on this resolution, but did address the same issue during its consideration by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) last August. Accordingly, OTR reported in August that:
“The objections of the various member states to the resolution on assistance to the territories from the UN system are virtually identical to their objections for over a decade. Thus, the US representative continues to articulate to ECOSOC that any assistance to, or participation in, UN programmes for the non self-governing territories must be confirmed by the UN member State which controls the foreign relations of the territories concerned. This is a but a re-statement of the practice which is already in place, and has always been a requirement of the rules of procedure of any UN agency which provides for assistance or participation for these territories. The resolution, even in its present form, makes this clear.
A second objection by the US representative suggests that the resolution somehow “infringes upon” the internal constitutional arrangements of the United States. Yet, the longstanding US practice provides the delegation of authority to the territories, on a case by case basis, to participate in international organisations and activities.
In virtually all cases, it is only the state which controls the international relations of the territory which can make a request for the affiliation of the territory in any given UN body. If the delegation of authority is freely given by the administering power to the territory to participate in a given international organisation or activity, how can it be, at the same time, an infringement on the administering power’s control?”
The representative of Argentina stressed that the resolution should be in line with the previous resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and the Special Committee on Decolonization.
It was unclear what was meant by this position.
Following that, the Committee took up draft resolution VI, on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands approving it without a vote.
But will the provisions be implemented?
Speaking in explanation after the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom said that his delegation had joined consensus on the last resolution, which reflected its full support for the right to self-determination. However, his delegation regretted the outdated approach of the “Committee of 24” (Special Committee on Decolonization), which failed to take full account of the way that the relationship between the United Kingdom and its Overseas Territories had been modernized in a way acceptable to both parties. The resolution did not fully reflect that modern relationship, he said, and the United Kingdom did not accept the assertion that self-determination did not apply where there existed a sovereignty dispute.
This was a repetition of the statement from previous years.
The representative of Argentina expressed full support for the right of people who were still subjected to colonization, and for the right to self-determination of the 11 Territories in the resolution just adopted. At the same time, as had been expressed in a letter to the Secretary-General distributed on 7 July. the annual resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands, and the considerations contained therein, were strictly related to the Territories referred to in those questions. The question of the Malvinas Islands was subjected to separate treatment in specific resolutions that gave due consideration to the special and particular features inherent in it, which were derived from the existence of a sovereignty dispute between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom.
The Committee next approved draft resolution VII on dissemination of information on decolonization by a recorded vote of 150 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States) with 1 abstention (France).
Speaking in explanation of vote, the United Kingdom’s representative said his delegation had voted against the text because it remained of the view that the obligation it placed on the Secretariat to disseminate information represented an unwarranted drain on the Organization’s resources. As such, the resolution was unacceptable to the United Kingdom.
Really?
The representative of Argentina said his delegation wished to express support for the right of self-determination. Despite that, the text should be interpreted and implemented in keeping with pertinent General Assembly resolutions and the various resolutions and statements of the Special Committee on Decolonization, which recognized the existence of a sovereignty dispute between his country and the United Kingdom over the Malvinas Islands.
(Everything appears to be seen through the prism of the Malvinas sovereignty dispute).
Next, the Committee approved draft resolution VIII on the implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration by a vote of 152 in favour to 3 against (Israel, United Kingdom, United States), with 2 abstentions (Belgium, France).
Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Argentina stressed that, regarding operative paragraph 7, visiting missions proceeded only in cases where self-determination was applicable, specifically those for which there was no sovereignty dispute.
(Everything appears to be seen through the prism of the Malvinas sovereignty dispute).
The representative of the United Kingdom said his delegation had voted “no” because it continued to find some parts of the text unacceptable.
(Which parts, may we ask?)
Nevertheless, the Government of the United Kingdom remained committed to modernizing its relationship with its Overseas Territories, while taking fully into account the views of the peoples of the Territories.
(The usual refrain...).
Following that, the representative of Guinea said that his delegation had intended to vote in favour of draft resolutions I, II and III, and requested that that be duly noted in the record.
Singapore’s representative said that his delegation had wished to vote in favour of the resolutions pertaining to item 35, on information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the United Nations Charter, and on item 36, on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories.
The representatives of Pakistan and Chile said that their delegations had wanted to vote in favour of resolutions concerning item 35, and item 37, on implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations. The representatives of Sierra Leone and Burkina Faso said they had wished to vote in favour of the resolutions concerning item 35.
On 3rd October, OTR wrote that “how the United Nations deals with decolonization has become “a sterile exercise, a game of pretense played to avoid what is meant to be achieved." We indicated that we would “nevertheless… cover the 2009 session of the Fourth Committee, not because we harbor any illusions that the process will change, but rather because our readership demands to be kept abreast.”
In any event, the General Assembly will take the final vote in December. We'll be there...
18 November 2009
US Congressional Committee Approves Self-Determination Assistance to Territories
Pacific News Center
Guahan (Guam)
19th November 2009
Guam - The House Committee on Natural Resources has approved a bill that would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend technical assistance grants and other assistance to facilitate a political status public education program on Guam. It will now go onto the full house for approval. The bill was sponsored by Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo.
In a release, Bordallo says the full committee approved her amended bill that would allow for Interior to also extend assistance to American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands for their own political status education programs.
The amended version of H.R. 3940 was voted on by unanimous consent.
The mark up of H.R. 3940 comes two weeks after Congresswoman Bordallo chaired a hearing on the bill in the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans, and Wildlife.
H.R. 3940 may be taken up for consideration in the near future.
In a release, “The full committee’s approval of H.R. 3940 signals that political status education for non-self-governing territories is a priority for the committee that has jurisdiction over the territories."
"The amended bill now includes authorization for political status education grants for Guam, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands at the request of Congressman Eni Faleomavaega of American Samoa and Congresswoman Donna Christensen of the U.S. Virgin Islands."
"While each territory may approach this issue in a manner appropriate to their circumstances, we can all agree that there is a federal responsibility to assist the territories in self-determination, and that this process cannot be successful without a robust political status education component."
"I also appreciate the testimony of our local leaders including Governor Felix Camacho, who testified in person at the hearing, and Speaker Judith Won Pat and Senator Ben Pangelinan who provided written testimonies. This bill was also supported by a coalition of ten organizations on Guam that support decolonization. The testimonies provided by our local leaders and our indigenous rights community representatives helped to make the case of the importance of a path to decolonization for the people of the U.S. territories that are still listed by the United Nations as non-self-governing." (emphasis added)
"The Obama Administration’s support for this political status education bill was also encouraging, and I will be requesting Assistant Secretary Tony Babauta’s leadership to help Guam and the other non-self-governing territories with this process. I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress on the issue of political development for our community, and I am hopeful that this bill will help to provide resources to Guam and the other non-self-governing territories for political status education.”
Editor's Note: The Bordallo legislation was also supported by organisations of civil society in Guahan (Guam) which forwarded collective testimony to the US Congress in favour of the measure. Their presentation in support of the bill provides important context to this initiative, and should serve as a guide to the implementation of the measure.
It is to be noted that a number of their recommended amendments have been included in the final version of the bill adopted by consensus in the House Natural Resources Committee, such as the expression of support for the inclusion of the other two US-administered territories presently on the United Nations List of Non Self-Governing Territories, namely American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands. This broader focus is highly commendable, and also has the effect of heightening its importance as the measure proceeds further through the legislative process in Washington. Congress may now recognise that Puerto Rico is not the only US-administered territory in need of a self-determination process.
The active participation of civil society sector in the territories is critical to the successful implementation of this measure to ensure an unbiased and fair process of self-determination based on the legitimate status options of political equality confirmed year after year by the United Nations with United States concurrence. The recent forum held in St. Croix by the United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands last month (October) initiated an important public dialogue in that Caribbean territory - for the first time in over a decade - on the political future of that US-administered territory, and American Samoa's political status commission report completed several years ago and the subsequent initiatives being undertaken by the Governor of that territory, are further illustration.
OTR will shortly publish the relevant excerpts of the United Nations Fourth Committee resolutions concerning the self-determination of the territories adopted as recently as last month (October).
The joint testimony of the Guahan (Guam) civil society follows:
Joint Testimony in Support of H.R. 3940
November 11, 2009On behalf of the following organizations:
Chamorro Studies Association
Chamoru Cultural Development and Research Institute
Commission on Decolonization: Independence Task Force
Famoksaiyan
Guahån Coalition for Peace and Justice
The Guahån Youth
Guam Community College's Center for Civic Engagement
I Nasion Chamoru
National Association of Social Workers: Guam Chapter
Taotaomo’na Native Rights Group
The political and social climate of Guam is changing rapidly, yet the island’s people have yet to determine whether or not this change is the future they desire. With an unresolved political status, the people of Guam have been denied the human right to determine their future. This human right to self-determination can no longer be ignored. Therefore, our non-governmental organizations have come together to support H.R. 3940, which “authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to extend grants and other assistance to facilitate a political status public education program for the people of Guam.” We support this bill for the following reasons:
• As noted by Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo in her remarks introducing this bill, the political status of Guam remains unresolved. Over the course of Guam’s 111-year relationship with the United States, only few significant changes have been made with regards to the island’s political status. These changes, however, have not been sufficient, as Guam remains in an ambiguous political position, without a path to self-determination. Guam is an organized, unincorporated territory – it belongs to the United States, but it is not a part of the nation.
• The people of Guam have expressed their desire for a new political status in the past; however, our aspirations have not been realized despite efforts by Guam’s representatives, the administration and Congress. H.R. 3940 could provide an important catalyst in terms of reinvigorating the process of self-determination on Guam; first by helping to educate its people about the options available to them in their political evolution, and secondly by placing the issue of self-determination itself back on the Federal agenda in Washington D.C.
• To our knowledge this is the first time that a Guam Delegate has sought to clarify the role and responsibility of the Department of Interior to ensure the economic, social and political development of Guam. As Bordallo notes, federal funding for political status education is not without precedent. We support this bill because federal assistance for political status education has never been provided to Guam despite the legal and moral responsibility of the United States, as a signatory to the United Nation’s charter, to support the movement of its non-self-governing territories towards full self-government via a referendum consistent with international standards for decolonization.
• In recent years the United States Federal government has drifted towards disengagement and silence as to its position on territorial self-determination, and has both metaphorically and physically removed itself from its seat of obligation in the United Nations. This bill can be an important step towards helping the United States towards charting a clear and transparent course of action in order to fulfill its legal and moral responsibility as the administering power of a number of non-self-governing territories as mandated by the United Nations.
• To this end, we recommend that the bill be revised so that the Department of Interior may extend such funding and assistance to American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands, whose political status also remains unresolved.
• At present, the Guam initiated Commission on Decolonization for the Implementation and Exercise of Chamorro Self-Determination (1GCA Chapter 21) has yet to undertake its mission due to a lack of funding for a public information program.
• We believe that the unprecedented military buildup which has been initiated in Guam poses a serious threat to the realization of political self-determination. The plans contained in the bilateral agreement signed by the United States and Japan to relocate US Marines from Okinawa to Guam by 2014 makes the need for political status education funding necessary for this purpose, and a realistic time table for a self-determination plebiscite more critical than ever.
• We believe that the exercise of our human right to self-determination can only be achieved through the concerted and coordinated efforts of the people of Guam, our elected leaders, the federal government and the United Nations. To this end, we are mobilized and committed as non-governmental organizations to seek and support such multilevel action.
• While it is the obligation of the United States, as the administering power that placed Guam in its current political status, to fund a political status education program, it is important to note that the materials and parameters of the program must be made and decided by the people of Guam. The U.S. is mandated under international law to monetarily support and respect the self-determination of the peoples of its non-self governing territories; however, the U.S. must not impose its desired path on the people. Instead, we recommend that Congress make funding for this program available to an unbiased institution like the University of Guam, which can design and carry out an effective and relevant education program.
We commend Congresswoman Bordallo for placing this issue on the Congressional agenda at this critical moment in the shared history of the United States and our island.
We also urge Congresswoman Bordallo and all members of the Committee on Natural Resources to take every opportunity to impress upon all members of Congress the essential links between any plan for increased militarization of our island and the unresolved issue of political status.
In his 2008 campaign, President Barack Obama committed to supporting “full self-government and self-determination for the people of Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands, and their right to decide their future status.” While we believe that this bill can be a crucial first step towards realizing this commitment, as the United States moves to increase its military presence in this region of the world, it is imperative that the issue of self-determination and political status remain front and center, not an afterthought.
We believe the success of any plan to position Guam as “The Tip of the Spear” for US forward defense in the region must follow, not precede, resolution of Guam’s political status, and the fulfillment of the United States’ legal and moral obligation to promote the inalienable right to self-determination of the people of Guam. This will ensure that any militarization which takes place in Guam or other territories will be based on the principles of genuine security, and on respect for human needs and rights.
Si Yu’us Ma’åse
Guahan (Guam)
19th November 2009
Guam - The House Committee on Natural Resources has approved a bill that would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend technical assistance grants and other assistance to facilitate a political status public education program on Guam. It will now go onto the full house for approval. The bill was sponsored by Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo.
In a release, Bordallo says the full committee approved her amended bill that would allow for Interior to also extend assistance to American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands for their own political status education programs.
The amended version of H.R. 3940 was voted on by unanimous consent.
The mark up of H.R. 3940 comes two weeks after Congresswoman Bordallo chaired a hearing on the bill in the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans, and Wildlife.
H.R. 3940 may be taken up for consideration in the near future.
In a release, “The full committee’s approval of H.R. 3940 signals that political status education for non-self-governing territories is a priority for the committee that has jurisdiction over the territories."
"The amended bill now includes authorization for political status education grants for Guam, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands at the request of Congressman Eni Faleomavaega of American Samoa and Congresswoman Donna Christensen of the U.S. Virgin Islands."
"While each territory may approach this issue in a manner appropriate to their circumstances, we can all agree that there is a federal responsibility to assist the territories in self-determination, and that this process cannot be successful without a robust political status education component."
"I also appreciate the testimony of our local leaders including Governor Felix Camacho, who testified in person at the hearing, and Speaker Judith Won Pat and Senator Ben Pangelinan who provided written testimonies. This bill was also supported by a coalition of ten organizations on Guam that support decolonization. The testimonies provided by our local leaders and our indigenous rights community representatives helped to make the case of the importance of a path to decolonization for the people of the U.S. territories that are still listed by the United Nations as non-self-governing." (emphasis added)
"The Obama Administration’s support for this political status education bill was also encouraging, and I will be requesting Assistant Secretary Tony Babauta’s leadership to help Guam and the other non-self-governing territories with this process. I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress on the issue of political development for our community, and I am hopeful that this bill will help to provide resources to Guam and the other non-self-governing territories for political status education.”
Editor's Note: The Bordallo legislation was also supported by organisations of civil society in Guahan (Guam) which forwarded collective testimony to the US Congress in favour of the measure. Their presentation in support of the bill provides important context to this initiative, and should serve as a guide to the implementation of the measure.
It is to be noted that a number of their recommended amendments have been included in the final version of the bill adopted by consensus in the House Natural Resources Committee, such as the expression of support for the inclusion of the other two US-administered territories presently on the United Nations List of Non Self-Governing Territories, namely American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands. This broader focus is highly commendable, and also has the effect of heightening its importance as the measure proceeds further through the legislative process in Washington. Congress may now recognise that Puerto Rico is not the only US-administered territory in need of a self-determination process.
The active participation of civil society sector in the territories is critical to the successful implementation of this measure to ensure an unbiased and fair process of self-determination based on the legitimate status options of political equality confirmed year after year by the United Nations with United States concurrence. The recent forum held in St. Croix by the United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands last month (October) initiated an important public dialogue in that Caribbean territory - for the first time in over a decade - on the political future of that US-administered territory, and American Samoa's political status commission report completed several years ago and the subsequent initiatives being undertaken by the Governor of that territory, are further illustration.
OTR will shortly publish the relevant excerpts of the United Nations Fourth Committee resolutions concerning the self-determination of the territories adopted as recently as last month (October).
The joint testimony of the Guahan (Guam) civil society follows:
Joint Testimony in Support of H.R. 3940
November 11, 2009On behalf of the following organizations:
Chamorro Studies Association
Chamoru Cultural Development and Research Institute
Commission on Decolonization: Independence Task Force
Famoksaiyan
Guahån Coalition for Peace and Justice
The Guahån Youth
Guam Community College's Center for Civic Engagement
I Nasion Chamoru
National Association of Social Workers: Guam Chapter
Taotaomo’na Native Rights Group
The political and social climate of Guam is changing rapidly, yet the island’s people have yet to determine whether or not this change is the future they desire. With an unresolved political status, the people of Guam have been denied the human right to determine their future. This human right to self-determination can no longer be ignored. Therefore, our non-governmental organizations have come together to support H.R. 3940, which “authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to extend grants and other assistance to facilitate a political status public education program for the people of Guam.” We support this bill for the following reasons:
• As noted by Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo in her remarks introducing this bill, the political status of Guam remains unresolved. Over the course of Guam’s 111-year relationship with the United States, only few significant changes have been made with regards to the island’s political status. These changes, however, have not been sufficient, as Guam remains in an ambiguous political position, without a path to self-determination. Guam is an organized, unincorporated territory – it belongs to the United States, but it is not a part of the nation.
• The people of Guam have expressed their desire for a new political status in the past; however, our aspirations have not been realized despite efforts by Guam’s representatives, the administration and Congress. H.R. 3940 could provide an important catalyst in terms of reinvigorating the process of self-determination on Guam; first by helping to educate its people about the options available to them in their political evolution, and secondly by placing the issue of self-determination itself back on the Federal agenda in Washington D.C.
• To our knowledge this is the first time that a Guam Delegate has sought to clarify the role and responsibility of the Department of Interior to ensure the economic, social and political development of Guam. As Bordallo notes, federal funding for political status education is not without precedent. We support this bill because federal assistance for political status education has never been provided to Guam despite the legal and moral responsibility of the United States, as a signatory to the United Nation’s charter, to support the movement of its non-self-governing territories towards full self-government via a referendum consistent with international standards for decolonization.
• In recent years the United States Federal government has drifted towards disengagement and silence as to its position on territorial self-determination, and has both metaphorically and physically removed itself from its seat of obligation in the United Nations. This bill can be an important step towards helping the United States towards charting a clear and transparent course of action in order to fulfill its legal and moral responsibility as the administering power of a number of non-self-governing territories as mandated by the United Nations.
• To this end, we recommend that the bill be revised so that the Department of Interior may extend such funding and assistance to American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands, whose political status also remains unresolved.
• At present, the Guam initiated Commission on Decolonization for the Implementation and Exercise of Chamorro Self-Determination (1GCA Chapter 21) has yet to undertake its mission due to a lack of funding for a public information program.
• We believe that the unprecedented military buildup which has been initiated in Guam poses a serious threat to the realization of political self-determination. The plans contained in the bilateral agreement signed by the United States and Japan to relocate US Marines from Okinawa to Guam by 2014 makes the need for political status education funding necessary for this purpose, and a realistic time table for a self-determination plebiscite more critical than ever.
• We believe that the exercise of our human right to self-determination can only be achieved through the concerted and coordinated efforts of the people of Guam, our elected leaders, the federal government and the United Nations. To this end, we are mobilized and committed as non-governmental organizations to seek and support such multilevel action.
• While it is the obligation of the United States, as the administering power that placed Guam in its current political status, to fund a political status education program, it is important to note that the materials and parameters of the program must be made and decided by the people of Guam. The U.S. is mandated under international law to monetarily support and respect the self-determination of the peoples of its non-self governing territories; however, the U.S. must not impose its desired path on the people. Instead, we recommend that Congress make funding for this program available to an unbiased institution like the University of Guam, which can design and carry out an effective and relevant education program.
We commend Congresswoman Bordallo for placing this issue on the Congressional agenda at this critical moment in the shared history of the United States and our island.
We also urge Congresswoman Bordallo and all members of the Committee on Natural Resources to take every opportunity to impress upon all members of Congress the essential links between any plan for increased militarization of our island and the unresolved issue of political status.
In his 2008 campaign, President Barack Obama committed to supporting “full self-government and self-determination for the people of Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands, and their right to decide their future status.” While we believe that this bill can be a crucial first step towards realizing this commitment, as the United States moves to increase its military presence in this region of the world, it is imperative that the issue of self-determination and political status remain front and center, not an afterthought.
We believe the success of any plan to position Guam as “The Tip of the Spear” for US forward defense in the region must follow, not precede, resolution of Guam’s political status, and the fulfillment of the United States’ legal and moral obligation to promote the inalienable right to self-determination of the people of Guam. This will ensure that any militarization which takes place in Guam or other territories will be based on the principles of genuine security, and on respect for human needs and rights.
Si Yu’us Ma’åse