CARICOM Secretary General Calls for Restoration of Elected Government in Turks & Caicos Islands

Press Release 513/2010


CARICOM SG CALLS FOR UK’S RESTORATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT IN TCI

(CARICOM Secretariat, Turkeyen, Greater Georgetown, Guyana) His Excellency Edwin Carrington, Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Secretary-General on Friday sent out a call to the United Kingdom (UK), through its newly accredited Plenipotentiary Representative, His Excellency Paul Brummell, for the restoration of constitutional government in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

Speaking on 10 December from the Georgetown, Guyana Headquarters of the CARICOM Secretariat, Sir Edwin said that the Community saw the UK’s imposition of indefinite direct rule in that Associate Member of the Community as being “totally at odds with the development of good governance, including improved fiscal and administrative management, in the Turks and Caicos Islands.”

“CARICOM contends that those objectives of Her Majesty’s Government cannot be met by the continued effective disenfranchisement of the Turks and Caicos Islanders or by the denial of their inalienable right to shape their own future.”

For this reason, he said that CARICOM looked forward to the restoration by the UK’s new administration of the “islanders’ full franchise.”

The Secretary-General noted that the Community and the UK had benefited over the years, from “frank and open dialogue” and had “co-operated constructively” in defence of common values such as good governance, democracy; respect for the rule of law and for the basic, inalienable rights of all peoples.

“We must strive to remain guardians of these all too fragile and important tenets of modern civilization. It is in all of our interests,” Sir Edwin said.

The CARICOM Secretary-General said that the 7th meeting of the CARICOM-UK Forum due to be held in 2011 in Grenada, the first meeting between CARICOM Foreign Ministers and new Foreign Secretary of the UK, the Honourable William Hague, should be a “most fruitful opportunity” for the strengthening of UK-Caribbean relations.

Netherlands MPs Want More Control over Dutch 'Autonomous' Countries in the Caribbean

Dutch MPs want stricter control of new countries

by The Daily Herald

THE HAGUE - Members of the Dutch Parliament's Second Chamber have presented several motions seeking to force the Dutch government to keep a close watch on countries Curaçao and St. Maarten. The motions were submitted during the handling of the 2011 draft budget for Kingdom Relations last week Thursday.

One motion of the Party for Freedom (PVV), Christian Democratic Party (CDA) and the Liberal Democratic (VVD) party calls for the Dutch cabinet to do everything in its power to guarantee that the Committee for Financial Supervision (CFT) can properly execute its task to monitor the finances of countries Curaçao and St. Maarten. Monitoring should prevent the Netherlands from ever having to pay the debts of the islands again.

Together, PVV, CDA and VVD have a majority in the Dutch Parliament. CDA and VVD together form the cabinet, which is supported by PVV. Several opposition parties may very well support the motion when it comes to voting tomorrow, Tuesday, along with 10 others. Parties have expressed concerns about the financial management of Curaçao and St. Maarten.

Member of Parliament (MP) Hero Brinkman (PVV) stated last week that he was worried about actions by the new countries to "undermine" the financial supervision legislation that was approved in the Second and First Chambers earlier this year.

"This motion explicitly states that this cabinet has to make sure that CFT can do its work in such a way that we never again have to pick up the tab. I want to be informed every six months if debts are created. If a situation looms whereby the islands can't afford the interest on those debts, I want to be informed and I want action taken under the guarantee function," said Brinkman, explaining the reasons for his motion during the budget debate, late Thursday night.

MP Martijn van Dam of the Labour Party PvdA submitted a motion calling for the Dutch cabinet to report on the political and governmental developments in Curaçao and St. Maarten since acquiring country status on October 10 this year. Van Dam wants this report around January 10, 2011.

Dutch Minister of Home Affairs and Kingdom Relations Piet Hein Donner said he was willing to comply with Van Dam's motion if the date of reporting was delayed by two weeks. Donner explained that he would be visiting the islands from January 10 to 15.

Van Dam's motion speaks of a "worrisome" situation in Curaçao and St. Maarten, where principles of good governance were probably being violated. The motion states that the new countries have indicated that they want to get out of the agreements that were made with the Netherlands and that the islands have tried to circumvent the Kingdom Consensus Laws and financial supervision.

MP Ronald van Raak of the Socialist Party (SP) submitted a motion requesting government to draft a position paper on the guarantee function of the Kingdom government as stated in Article 43 of the (Kingdom) Charter. Several other parties, including CDA, VVD and PVV, want this included in a broader position paper on the Kingdom that government will be presented with early next year.

MP Ineke van Gent of the green left party GroenLinks, along with Van Dam, Van Raak and Wassila Hachchi of Democrats D66, submitted a motion to make the Minister of Home Affairs and Kingdom Relations the contact person for the Dutch special municipalities Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba.

Van Gent, Hachchi, Van Dam and Cynthia Ortega-Martijn of the Christian Union (CU) submitted a motion requesting government to draft a plan of approach aimed at developing future perspectives for pregnant, teenage girls and young, single mothers in Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba. Parliament doesn't want pregnant, teenage girls to be dismissed from school on the islands.

Ortega-Martijn, Hachchi, Van Dam, Van Gent, Van Raak and Van Bochove presented a motion calling on government to establish a temporary facility to make it possible to exchange the Antillean guilder in the European part of the Netherlands. Exchange offices and commercial banks in the Netherlands no longer accept the Antillean guilder. Parliament considers it incorrect that citizens weren't informed of this in a timely manner.

China Leases Petroleum Storage Facility in St. Eustatius

China's refinery deal helps Cuba's oil exploration

China.org.cn

It was announced this week that China's National Petroleum Corporation had signed a US$6 billion agreement for an oil refinery important to Cuba's drilling explorations.


The refinery, located in Cienfuegos province, is jointly owned by Cuba and Venezuela. Caribbean analysts see the latest Chinese investment in Cuba as another example of the increasing role China has been playing of late in the search for oil in Latin America and the Caribbean.

In the past two years, Chinese investments have also financed energy projects and formed joint ventures in Venezuela, Brazil and Ecuador.

In addition, China has leased a petroleum storage facility on St Eustatius in the Netherland Antilles,  * the Dutch-speaking Caribbean islands.

There have also been reports in the Caribbean and US press that China's national oil corporation has been having talks with the Texas-based refining giant, Valero, about purchasing its refinery on Aruba, another Dutch island. But these China initiatives are only a few of the many being undertaken in the Caribbean and Latin America by international oil giants and rising oil companies.

In the Dutch Antilles, the US-based Hess Oil Corporation and Venezuela's national oil company Petroven jointly run a major oil facility in Curacao, the main island in the Dutch chain.

In the English-speaking Caribbean, oil-rich Trinidad & Tobago continues to extend and expand its exploration and extraction activities as researchers start to warn that reserves could start dwindling.

Guyana, in South America, has had many exploratory initiatives over the past two decades, including one by Chevron-Texaco, none yielding positive results.

But earlier this month English-speaking Guyana and neighboring Dutch-speaking Suriname – South American mainland-based Caribbean Community (Caricom) member-states that have had battles over rights to oil in waters shared by them – both announced new developments in their respective petroleum sectors.

Guyana announced that a Canadian company, CGX, had teamed up with Spanish oil giant Repsol, to form a consortium to begin exploring for oil this month in the Guyana-Surinam basin.CGX had launched a similar exploration exercise back in 2000, but was chased by sea pirates and bandits.

Surinam announced last week that it will soon start receiving oil from Venezuela as part of its PetroCaribe initiative, through which the oil-rich, Spanish-speaking South American and Caribbean state already delivers petroleum to most Caricom states with preferential prices and treatment.

Meanwhile, with world petroleum prices rising constantly and reserves dwindling in traditional source countries, Latin American and Caribbean nations have been increasing their searches for new sources of oil.

But they are also investing more time, energy and resources in similar searches for alternative sources of energy. In many cases, investment have been made in Caribbean territories in harnessing solar and wind energy, as well as hydroelectricity.

China recently signed a multi-billion-dollar deal to finance a major hydroelectricity project in Guyana.
In St. Lucia, a small US-based company, Qualibou, says it has found more potential power than it earlier thought at the island's active volcanic west coast Sulphur Springs and is now seeking capital to fund exploration. St. Lucia also earlier this year signed an agreement with a small Canada-based entity, Elementa Group and Island Green Energy of Sault Ste. Marie, to generate power from municipal waste.

* Editors Note: The Netherlands Antilles ceased to exist on 10th October 2010 and St. Eustatius has become a partially-integrated 'public entity' of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

U.S. President Endorses UN Indigenous Declaration

Further detail on nature of US support to follow.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release December 16, 2010

Remarks by the President at the White House Tribal Nations Conference

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Everybody please be seated. Thank you.

Thank you, Fawn, for that wonderful introduction. Thanks to all of you. It is wonderful to be with you here today.

I see a lot of friends, a lot of familiar faces in the house. I want to thank all the tribal leaders who have traveled here for this conference. And I also want to recognize all the wonderful members of Congress who are here, as well as members of my Cabinet, including Secretary Salazar, who is doing terrific work here at Interior on behalf of the First Americans and on behalf of all Americans. So thank you very much, everybody. (Applause.)

Yesterday, I had the chance to meet with several tribal leaders at the White House, continuing a conversation that began long before I was President. And while I’m glad to have the opportunity to speak with you this morning, I’m also very eager to see the results of today’s meeting. I want to hear more from you about how we can strengthen the relationship between our governments, whether in education or health care, or in fighting crime or in creating jobs.

And that’s why we’re here today. That’s a promise I’ve made to you. I remember, more than two years ago, in Montana, I visited the Crow Nation -- one of the many times I met with tribal leaders on the campaign trail. You may know that on that trip, I became an adopted Crow Indian. My Crow name is “One Who Helps People Throughout the Land.” (Applause.) And my wife, when I told her about this, she said, “You should be named ‘One Who Isn’t Picking Up His Shoes and His Socks’.” (Laughter.)

Now -- but I like the first name better. And I want you to know that I’m working very hard to live up to that name.

What I said then was that as President I would make sure that you had a voice in the White House. (Applause.) I said that so long as I held this office, never again would Native Americans be forgotten or ignored. (Applause.) And over the past two years, my administration, working hand in hand with many of you, has strived to keep that promise. And you’ve had strong partners in Kim Teehee, my senior advisor for Native American issues, and Jodi Gillette, in our Intergovernmental Affairs office. You can give them a big round of applause. They do outstanding work. (Applause.)

Last year, we held the largest gathering of tribal leaders in our history. And at that conference -- you remember, most of you were there -- I ordered every Cabinet agency to promote more consultation with the tribal nations. Because I don’t believe that the solutions to any of our problems can be dictated solely from Washington. Real change depends on all of us doing our part.

So over the past year my administration has worked hard to strengthen the relationship between our nations. And together, we have developed a comprehensive strategy to help meet the challenges facing Native American communities.

Our strategy begins with the number one concern for all Americans right now -- and that’s improving the economy and creating jobs. We’ve heard time and again from tribal leaders that one of the keys to unlocking economic growth on reservations is investments in roads and high-speed rail and high-speed Internet and the infrastructure that will better connect your communities to the broader economy. That’s essential for drawing capital and creating jobs on tribal lands. So to help spur the economy, we’ve boosted investment in roads throughout the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Reservation Road Program, and we’ve offered new loans to reach reservations with broadband.

And as part of our plan to revive the economy, we’ve also put billions of dollars into pressing needs like renovating schools. We’re devoting resources to job training -- especially for young people in Indian Country who too often have felt like they don’t have a chance to succeed. And we’re working with you to increase the size of tribal homelands in order to help you develop your economies.

I also want to note that I support legislation to make clear -- in the wake of a recent Supreme Court decision -- that the Secretary of Interior can take land into trust for all federally recognized tribes. (Applause.) That’s something that I discussed yesterday with tribal leaders.

We’re also breaking down bureaucratic barriers that have prevented tribal nations from developing clean energy like wind and solar power. It’s essential not just to your prosperity, but to the prosperity of our whole country. And I’ve proposed increasing lending to tribal businesses by supporting community financial institutions so they can finance more loans. It is essential in order to help businesses expand and hire in areas where it can be hard to find credit.

Another important part of our strategy is health care. We know that Native Americans die of illnesses like diabetes, pneumonia, flu -- even tuberculosis -- at far higher rates than the rest of the population. Make no mistake: These disparities represent an ongoing tragedy. They’re cutting lives short, causing untold pain and hardship for Native American families. And closing these gaps is not just a question of policy, it’s a question of our values -- it’s a test of who we are as a nation.

Now, last year, at this conference, tribal leaders talked about the need to improve the health care available to Native Americans, and to make quality insurance affordable to all Americans. And just a few months later, I signed health reform legislation into law, which permanently authorizes the Indian Health Care Improvement Act -- permanently. (Applause.) It’s going to make it possible for Indian tribes and tribal organizations to purchase health care for their employees, while making affordable coverage available to everybody, including those who use the Indian Health Service -- that’s most American Indians and native -- Alaska Natives. So it’s going to make a huge difference.

Of course, there are few steps we can take that will make more of a difference for the future of your communities than improving education on tribal lands. We’ve got to improve the education we provide to our children. That’s the cornerstone on which all of our progress will be built. We know that Native Americans are far more likely to drop out of high school and far less likely to go to college. That not only damages the prospects for tribal economies; it’s a heartbreaking waste of human potential. We cannot afford to squander the promise of our young people. Your communities can’t afford it, and our country can’t afford it. And we are going to start doing something about it. (Applause.)

We’re rebuilding schools on tribal lands while helping to ensure that tribes play a bigger role in determining what their children learn. We’re working to empower parents with more and better options for schools for their kids -- as well as with support programs that actually work with Indian parents to give them a real voice in improving education in your communities.

We’re also working to improve the programs available to students at tribal colleges. Students who study at tribal colleges are much less likely to leave college without a degree and the vast majority end up in careers serving their tribal nation. And these schools are not only helping to educate Native Americans; they’re also helping to preserve rich but often endangered languages and traditions. I’d also like to point out last year I signed historic reforms that are increasing student aid and making college loans more affordable. That’s especially important to Native Americans struggling to pay for a college degree. (Applause.)

Now, all these efforts -- improving health care, education, the economy -- ultimately these efforts will not succeed unless all of our communities are safe places to grow up and attend school and open businesses and where people are not living under the constant threat of violence and crime. And that threat remains real, as crime rates in Indian Country are anywhere from twice to 20 times the national average. That’s a sobering statistics -- represents a cloud over the future of your communities.

So the Justice Department, under the leadership of Eric Holder, is working with you to reform the way justice is done on Indian reservations. And I was proud to sign the Tribal Law and Order Act into law, which is going to help tribes combat drug and alcohol abuse, to have more access to criminal databases, and to gain greater authority to prosecute and punish criminals in Indian Country. That’s important. (Applause.)

We’ve also resolved a number of longstanding disputes about the ways that our government has treated -- or in some cases mistreated -- folks in Indian Country, even in recent years. We’ve settled cases where there were allegations of discrimination against Native American farmers and ranchers by the Department of Agriculture. And after a 14-year battle over the accounting of tribal resources in the Cobell case, we reached a bipartisan agreement, which was part of a law I signed just a week ago. We’re very proud of that and I want to thank all the legislators who helped make that happen. (Applause.)

This will put more land in the hands of tribes to manage or otherwise benefit their members. This law also includes money to settle lawsuits over water rights for seven tribes in Arizona, Montana and New Mexico -- and it creates a scholarship fund so more Native Americans can afford to go to college.

These cases serve as a reminder of the importance of not glossing over the past or ignoring the past, even as we work together to forge a brighter future. That’s why, last year, I signed a resolution, passed by both parties in Congress, finally recognizing the sad and painful chapters in our shared history -- a history too often marred by broken promises and grave injustices against the First Americans. It’s a resolution I fully supported -- recognizing that no statement can undo the damage that was done; what it can do is help reaffirm the principles that should guide our future. It’s only by heeding the lessons of our history that we can move forward.

And as you know, in April, we announced that we were reviewing our position on the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. And today I can announce that the United States is lending its support to this declaration. (Applause.)


The aspirations it affirms -- including the respect for the institutions and rich cultures of Native peoples -- are one we must always seek to fulfill. And we’re releasing a more detailed statement about U.S. support for the declaration and our ongoing work in Indian Country. But I want to be clear: What matters far more than words -- what matters far more than any resolution or declaration -– are actions to match those words. And that’s what this conference is about. (Applause.) That’s what this conference is about. That’s the standard I expect my administration to be held to.

So we’re making progress. We’re moving forward. And what I hope is that we are seeing a turning point in the relationship between our nations. The truth is, for a long time, Native Americans were implicitly told that they had a choice to make. By virtue of the longstanding failure to tackle wrenching problems in Indian Country, it seemed as though you had to either abandon your heritage or accept a lesser lot in life; that there was no way to be a successful part of America and a proud Native American.

But we know this is a false choice. To accept it is to believe that we can’t and won’t do better. And I don’t accept that. I know there is not a single person in this room who accepts that either. We know that, ultimately, this is not just a matter of legislation, not just a matter of policy. It’s a matter of whether we’re going to live up to our basic values. It’s a matter of upholding an ideal that has always defined who we are as Americans. E pluribus unum. Out of many, one.

That’s why we’re here. That’s what we’re called to do. And I’m confident that if we keep up our efforts, that if we continue to work together, that we will live up to the simple motto and we will achieve a brighter future for the First Americans and for all Americans.

So thank you very much. God bless you. Thank you. (Applause.)

New Zealand Government Urges Peace On Rapa Nui (Easter Island)

Voxyco.nz

Voxy News Engine Wednesday,
Wellington,  NZPA

The New Zealand Government has urged those involved in violent clashes over a land dispute on Easter Island in the South Pacific to find a peaceful resolution.

Dozens of people were wounded on the island earlier this month when Chilean police tried to evict the indigenous Polynesian residents of Rapa Nui from the buildings they had been squatting in for several months.

"The New Zealand Government urges the parties to find a peaceful resolution to this matter, and will convey that view to the parties as appropriate," Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully said in Parliament today. About 2200 of the island's 5000 residents are Rapa Nui, and many fear a recent tourism boom on the island will force them out.

Fearing that the Chilean government, which annexed the island in 1888, wanted to turn the land into a sort of tourist attraction, a number of Rapa Nui seized properties in August, saying they were illegally taken from their families generations ago.

Mr McCully, replying to questions from Maori Party MP Hone Harawira, said the Government of Chile took the view that it had acted to try to maintain law and order. "I was delighted to see the statement of President [Sebastian] Pinera in recent days that he hoped the land claim could be settled in a peaceful and harmonious manner, through dialogue," Mr McCully said.

"I understand that sentiment has been reciprocated by some of the protestors, and that some progress, accordingly, is being made."

Pueblo Rapa Nui Denuncia Desalojos Ilegales

Especial a Overseas Terriories Review


Comunicador

Hanga Roa.- Cientos de policías fuertemente armados acordonaron este jueves el centro de Hanga Roa impidiendo el paso a isleños y turistas que no podían entender tamaño despliegue de fuerza. La razón: estaban resguardando las formalizaciones que el fiscal Guillermo Felipe estaba haciendo contra cinco isleños por los supuestos delitos de usurpación de morada. Se trata de Remigio Pakarati Tuki, Yudy Hey Brown, José Figueroa Riroroco, Ramón Gustavo Hey y Juan Tuki Atán, quienes ocupan propiedades –que reclaman como suyas- en el centro cívico de Hanga Roa.

El juez Bernardo Toro decretó, como medida cautelar para los cinco, no aproximarse a 500 metros de las viviendas que ocupan. Esto les imposibilita acercarse a sus moradas y lugares de trabajo que están todas en el centro.

Cuando los policías en compañía del fiscal fueron a la casa de Yudy Hey, esta salió junto a otras tres personas formalizadas, quedando otros miembros de la familia resguardando la propiedad recuperada. Pero Carabineros, excediendo las atribuciones entregadas por la Fiscalía, ingresó por los muros al interior de la propiedad: desalojándola. A pesar de los reclamos de los afectados, la ilegalidad y el abuso se consumó.

Lola Tuki expresó a Prensa Rapa Nui su espanto ante la gran cantidad de policías que invaden la Isla. Dijo que “en la Isla nunca se había visto eso”. Lola cuenta que la Policía “cada veinte metros nos revisa. No nos dejan cruzar la calle por donde queremos”. Nos preguntan que estamos haciendo, que para donde vamos. Esto es mucho peor que la dictadura”.

Carabineros estaba provisto con cámaras de video. E intentaba impedir que se sacaran fotos e hicieran filmaciones de su accionar.

Los jefes de clanes y otras autoridades del Pueblo Rapa Nui, como el Parlamento, se encuentran reunidos con el fin de reaccionar a los abusos cometidos.

Nadie entiende en la isla, en Chile y en el mundo entero cómo se cometen este tipo de atropellos contra un pueblo originario que reclama con justa razón, que los terrenos en los cuales siempre vivieron ellos y sus antesapados, les pertenecen, son sus derechos ancestrales, sentido de pertenenecia y propiedad que el Estado de Chile debiese comprender, promoviendo instancias de diáologo y no de represión y altanería como lo ha estado haciendo.

EL ATENEO Celebrará los 115 años de la Bandera Puertorriqueña

Para mayor gloria de la Patria

ATENEO PUERTORRIQUEÑO
COMUNICADO DE PRENSA

Acto será dedicado al Movimiento Estudiantil.

El nuevo Presidente electo del Ateneo Puertorriqueño, el Dr. José Milton Soltero Ramírez y su Junta de Gobierno, invitan a toda la comunidad puertorriqueña a la celebración de los 115 años de la Bandera Puertorriqueña.

Como es ya tradición en la Docta Casa del Ateneo, el magno acto del izado de la Bandera Nacional se dedica a alguien destacado precisamente en la lucha por su afirmación y su defensa. Es por esta razón que el Ateneo Puertorriqueño dedicará este año sus actos al Movimiento Estudiantil de la Universidad de Puerto Rico.

Para el Ateneo Puertorriqueño, el Movimiento Estudiantil de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, a lo largo de sus más de 80 años de continua defensa de la autonomía universitaria y de la educación pública y gratuita en la Nación, ha demostrado cabalmente ser un fiero defensor de la identidad nacional puertorriqueña y del derecho de todo puertorriqueño a gozar de las libertades y expresiones que ofrece la cultura del intelecto y el libre pensamiento.

El Ateneo Puertorriqueño destaca que en estos momentos, más que nunca, el Movimiento Estudiantil de la Universidad de Puerto Rico ha sabido enfrentar con inteligencia, audacia y valentía, las provocaciones, represiones y persecuciones producto de la intolerancia política, el militarismo, la negación al diálogo democrático y los burdos intereses de privatización.

Como representante histórico del Movimiento Estudiantil, el Ateneo Puertorriqueño ha invitado al Lic. Florencio Merced Rosa, destacado líder estudiantil que fuera combatiente de innumerables luchas de reivindicación universitaria en la década del sesenta, en diversos frentes organizados como lo fue la Federación de Universitarios Pro Independencia, FUPI. Tanto el Nuevo Presidente del Ateneo, el Dr. Soltero, como Florencio Merced, se dirigirán al público presente en palabras de conmemoración de esta importante efeméride nacional. De la misma forma se espera contar con la presencia de los actuales dirigentes de los diversos comités de lucha del actual movimiento estudiantil de la Universidad de Puerto Rico.

Invitamos a todo Puerto Rico a que nos acompañe enarbolando la bandera puertorriqueña en autos, balcones, escritorios, en cualquier lugar visible durante la celebración de los 115 años de nuestra enseña Nacional.

La Bandera Puertorriqueña, será izada al son de la Borinqueña Revolucionaria, el miércoles 22 de diciembre de 2010, en las escalinatas del Ateneo Puertorriqueño a las 12 del medio día.

Inf. 787-721-3877.

Anguilla Chief Minister To Meet With Civil Society on British Territorial Policy

Special to Overseas Territories Review

Chief Minister to meet with various associations and religious ministers in light of UK position on civil service

Chief Minister Hubert Hughes is scheduled to meet with various civil service organisations including the Civil Service Association and Union leaders, Police Welfare Association, Customs and Police Sports Club, Nurses Association, Teachers Association and Union and Church Leaders of various denominations and faiths as representatives of their Churches for discussion on the United
Kingdom (UK) position pertaining to the territory's civil service.

The UK Minister for the Overseas Territories, Henry Bellingham has been insisting that the Anguilla Government commit to further taxation and a cut the size of the civil service workforce by at least 30% and also make further cuts to the civil service salaries.

Chief Minister Hubert Hughes and his Government have taken the position that to comply with those directives at this time will have the adverse effect of plunging Anguilla into further financial difficulties and create previously unimaginable social hardships. In addition, the Chief Minister has also maintained that the portfolio for the Civil Service constitutionally resides in the Governor and that as such it is the Governor and not the Political Directorate who is responsible for any action pertaining to the Civil service,. The Chief Minister emphasized that any decision to do what is being demanded must take the human element into consideration.

Chief Minister Hughes is to meet with these various associations and the church leaders directly to discuss and obtain their views particularly in light of the UK’s position that they may not assent to the Anguilla Budget for 2011 given the non-compliance of these directives and if indeed the budget is assented, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) may not agree to any future borrowing unless those demands are adhered to.

UN Member States Formally Commemorate Decolonisation Achievements, Acknowledge Need for Implementation of Mandate

United Nations Press Release
Sixty-fifth General Assembly
Plenary
65th Meeting (AM)


Decolonization ‘Remarkable but Incomplete’ Chapter in United Nations History, Says
Secretary-General, Spurring Action at Commemoration of Decolonization Declaration


Decolonization was a remarkable but incomplete chapter in the history of the United Nations, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said today as he marked the fiftieth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples by calling on the international community to remain committed to making good on its promise to end colonialism, once and for all.

“The process of decolonization is not complete. There are 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories on the list of the Special Committee on Decolonization,” the Secretary-General said in his opening remarks, underscoring the United Nations commitment to fulfilling the Declaration’s promise. At the same time, he said that finishing the job would require a continuing dialogue among the administering Powers, the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization, and the peoples of those Territories.

He said that heeding the lessons of decolonization’s past could help chart the way forward on “a long road, beset by new challenges”, and urged stakeholders to remember that five decades of success had been achieved because of commitment, persistence, solidarity and an understanding that independence was part and parcel of global interdependence.

“These are qualities we must bring to the consolidation of independence. The building of new politics is just as big a struggle, and must continue in order to forge strong, self-reliant States,” he declared. Calling for new ways of thinking and broad alliances to meet emerging challenges, he said: “Decolonization re-made the world — in our minds and on the ground. It showed the tremendous power we have to shape the world for the better. Let us continue to build on that remarkable achievement, and realize in full, the spirit of the Declaration whose anniversary we mark today.”

Assembly Vice-President Sylvie Lucas (Luxembourg), speaking on behalf of President Joseph Deiss, said that at the dawn of the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, subjecting peoples to alien domination and exploitation was a denial of human rights. Since 1945, more than 80 former colonies had become independent, joining the United Nations as sovereign States, and she extended a special greeting to those nations today. “The Assembly has played a vital role in this historic development,” she said, calling the Declaration’s adoption and the establishment of the Special Committee “decisive steps”.

However, “we have yet to turn the page on colonialism one and for all”, she said, noting that 16 Territories remained on the list and expressing hope that the Third International Decade would mobilize the energy needed to close the chapter. Towards that goal, the Special Committee should continue to promote cooperation with the administering Powers and, in consultation with the peoples of those Territories, develop innovative, tailored approaches to ensure the right to self-determination.

Pedro Núñez Mosquera (Cuba), Vice-Chairman of the Special Committee, said that policy-making body, which also monitors implementation of the Declaration, had been permanently examining the situations in the Territories of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Gibraltar, Guam, Montserrat, New Caledonia, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Tokelau, Turks and Caicos, United States Virgin Islands, and Western Sahara, as well as the question of Puerto Rico.

Several resolutions had been adopted, aimed at the full exercise of the inalienable rights of the inhabitants of those Territories to self-determination. Noting that fewer than 2 million people inhabited those Territories, he said that the Special Committee was of the view that the decolonization process could only be addressed within the context of current realities and a sustainable future.

To that end, he encouraged the international community to find creative ways to resolve the difficulties associated with the process, paying closer attention to the social and economic needs and the interests of the peoples in the Non-Self-Governing Territories. “Each Territory represents a unique set of circumstances, often involving quite complex political issues, the solution of which requires significant international cooperation, including close reliance on neighbouring and long-established relationships,” he added.

Overall, the slow progress was a reflection of a lack of political will, he said, stressing that a constructive relationship with the administering Powers was indispensable for the full implementation of the Declaration. For its part, the Special Committee intended to enhance its cooperation with the administering Powers and consultation with the peoples of the Territories towards developing case-by-case approaches. “I am confident that, together, we will find a way to address the challenges ahead in a most efficient and pragmatic manner, thus expediting the process of decolonization in the years to come,” he said.

Calling the Declaration the “magna carta” of decolonization, Jorge Valero ( Venezuela), on behalf of Latin American and Caribbean States, said that those subject to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation were entitled to be consulted and freely express their opinion about their condition. The Declaration, and all it represented, held particular importance in his region, given its role in movements that had led to achievement of independence by the 14 Caribbean States.

But eight of the remaining 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories were in his region, and he encouraged the Special Committee to work until they were decolonized. In particular, he urged resumed talks between Argentina and the United Kingdom to find a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich islands.

Gérard Araud (France), speaking on behalf of the Western European and Other States, said it was essential for the peoples of the remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories to understand the options for their political status and to exercise their right to freely choose their future. It was important to remember that the world had grown more interdependent and complex in the last 50 years. Addressing political freedom was linked to issues of climate change, sustainable development, poverty eradication and gender equity, among others. Fresh, creative efforts must be undertaken to match individual and collective expectations.

Recalling that many Asian States had co-sponsored the 1960 resolution that contained the Declaration, Singh Puri ( India), on behalf of the Asian States, noted that, today, the majority of the United Nations membership comprised former colonies. “This is clearly a measure of the success of the historic struggle against colonial rule,” he said. It should be a common endeavour to work with the people of the remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories to realize what they perceived to be in their best interest, using a “judicious mix” of urgency and sensitivity.

Milorad Šćepanović (Montenegro), speaking on behalf of the Eastern European States, said the Declaration was not only an expression of overwhelming support for those struggling for liberation in colonial territories, but over the past 50 years, it had become a “dynamic and vigorous tool” that could spur implementation of the Charter’s provisions on Non-Self-Governing Territories.

Indeed, it could be said that decolonization was one of the Organization’s most significant achievements, particularly as many of the current Member States were themselves once Non-Self-Governing Territories, now called on to observe the anniversary of the historic Declaration and acknowledge the urgency of eradicating colonialism once and for all, he said. Today’s commemoration was an opportunity, not only to look back at the Organization’s successes in that area, but to look ahead and reiterate an unwavering commitment to fulfil its objectives.

Editor's Note: Under the United Nations General Assembly rules governing such commemorative sessions, speakers are to include the representatives of the respective regional groups along with the host country. As per established practice, the Chairman of the Decolonisation Committee is also provided the opportunity to address the session on behalf of the Committee. The United States, as the host country, did not address the Assembly to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Decolonisation Declaration even as it administers three territories recognised under international law as non self-governing, namely American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands under Article 73 of the UN Charter , along with 'unlisted' Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands.  France, which administers New Caledonia and 'un-listed' French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna, et al addressed the Assembly on behalf of the Western European and Other States. It is to be noted also that Africa was the only regional group which did not address the Assembly owing to an apparent logistical issue. 

UN General Assembly Approves Third International Decolonisation Decade, To Mull New Plan of Action

Adopts 13 texts in all, seven by recorded vote



Taking up 13 decolonization texts, the 192 member States of the United Nations General Assembly adopted seven by recorded vote, including one related to the Implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration, another to the specialized agencies and international institutions associated with the United Nations, a third on the fiftieth anniversary of the Decolonization Declaration, and a fourth on the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism.

Once again reaching consensus on a draft resolution on the question of Western Sahara, the Assembly welcomed the process of negotiations initiated by Security Council Resolution 1754 (2007), and the commitment of the parties to continue to show political will and work in an atmosphere propitious for dialogue, in order to enter into a more intensive phase of negotiations.

Resolution on Information from Non-Self Governing Territories

The General Assembly adopted a resolution on Information from Non-Self Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73e of the Charter of the United Nations by which the Assembly requests the administering Powers concerned to transmit, or continue to transmit, regularly to the Secretary-General information relating to economic, social and educational conditions in the Territories, for which they were responsible. It would also request the fullest possible information on political and constitutional developments in the Territories concerned. The text was approved by a recorded vote:

The Vote

The resolution on Information from Non-Self Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73e of the Charter of the United Nations was adopted by a recorded vote of 172 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Benin, France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent: Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Nauru, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Tajikistan, Vanuatu.

Resolution on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories

The General Assembly adopted a resolution on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories by which the Assembly reaffirmed the right of peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories to self-determination in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, as well as their right to enjoy and dispose of their natural resources in their best interest.

Also according to the text, the Assembly called once again on all Governments that had not yet done so to take legislative, administrative or other measures to put an end to enterprises in the Territories — undertaken by those Governments’ nationals or corporate bodies under their jurisdiction — that were detrimental to the interests of the inhabitants. It called upon the administrating Powers to ensure that the exploitation of the marine and other natural resources in the Non-Self-Governing Territories under their administration were not in violation of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations and did not adversely affect the interests of the peoples of those Territories. The text was aproved  by a recorded vote:


The Vote

The resolution on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories was adopted by a recorded vote of 173 in favour to 2 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstain: France, United Kingdom.

Absent: Benin, Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Nauru, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Vanuatu

*****

 Resolution on Implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations

The General Assembly adopted a resolution on Implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations by which the Assembly recommended that all States intensify their efforts in the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system in which they were members to ensure the full and effective implementation of the Decolonization Declaration. The resolution requested the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system to examine and review conditions in each Territory so as to take appropriate measures to accelerate progress in the economic and social sectors of the Territories. The resolution requested the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system concerned to provide information on environmental problems facing the Non-Self-Governing Territories, as well as on the impact of natural disasters and other environmental problems in those Territories. The text was approved by a recorded vote:

The Vote

The resolution on Implementation of the (Decolonisation) Declaration by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations was adopted by a recorded vote of 119 in favour to none against, with 56 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent: Benin, Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Nauru, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu.

*****

 

Resolution on offers by Member States of study and training facilities for inhabitants of Non-Self-Governing Territories

The General Assembly adopted a resolution on offers by Member States of study and training facilities for inhabitants of Non-Self-Governing Territories by which the Assembly urges the administering Powers to take effective measures to ensure the widespread and continuous dissemination in the Territories under their administration of information relating to offers of study and training facilities made by States. The resolution was adopted without a vote.

******

The General Assembly adopted eight additional resolutions and one decision related to various agenda items on the decolonisation mandate. 

By the terms of  Resolution I on the question of Western Sahara, the Assembly welcomed the process of negotiations initiated by Security Council Resolution 1754 (2007). It also welcomed the commitment of the parties to continue to show political will and work in an atmosphere propitious for dialogue, in order to enter into a more intensive phase of negotiations. The resolution was adopted without a vote.

By the terms of Resolution II, on the question of New Caledonia, the Assembly urged all the parties involved to maintain, in the framework of the Nouméa Accord, their dialogue in a spirit of harmony and in this context welcomed the unanimous agreement, reached in Paris on 8 December 2008, on the transfer of powers to New Caledonia in 2009 and the conduct of provincial elections in May 2009. It also called upon the administering Power to continue to transmit to the Secretary-General information as required under Article 73e of the United Nations Charter, and welcomed all measures taken to strengthen and diversify the New Caledonian economy in all fields. By further provisions of that text, the Assembly decided to keep under continuous review the process unfolding in New Caledonia as a result of the signing of the Nouméa Accord. The resolution was adopted without a vote.

By Resolution III, on the question of Tokelau, the General Assembly noted New Zealand’s exemplary cooperation and ongoing recognition of the complete right of the people of Tokelau to undertake the act of self-determination when they consider it to be appropriate. It acknowledged General Fono’s decision that consideration of any future act of self-determination by Tokelau would be deferred. It further acknowledged Tokelau’s initiative in devising a strategic economic development plan for the period 2007-2010, and the ongoing and consistent commitment of New Zealand in meeting the social and economic requirements of the people of Tokelau, as well as the support and cooperation of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

By further provisions, the Assembly acknowledged Tokelau’s need for the international community’s continued support, and called upon the administering Power and United Nations agencies to continue to provide assistance to Tokelau as it further developed. The resolution was adopted  without a vote.

*****

Consolidated Resolution on Eleven Small Island Territories

The two-part Resolution IV on 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 was approved without a vote. In the resolution, the General Assembly, in the general section applicable to the elevent territories (part 1) of the resolution, reaffirmed a number of principles and called for specific actions to be undertaken, including the following:

The General Assembly,

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

Recalling its resolution 1541 (XV), containing the principles that should guide Member States in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing concern that fifty years after the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,. there still remain a number of Non-Self-Governing Territories,

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

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

Noting that a number of Non-Self-Governing Territories have expressed concern at the procedure followed by some administering Powers, contrary to the wishes of the Territories themselves, of amending or enacting legislation for application to the Territories, either through orders in council, in order to apply to the Territories the international treaty obligations of the administering Power, or through the unilateral application of laws and regulations,

Mindful that United Nations visiting and special missions provide an effective means of ascertaining the situation in the Territories, that some Territories have not received a United Nations visiting mission for a long time and that no visiting missions have been sent to some of the Territories,

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

Recognizing the need for the Special Committee to ensure that the appropriate bodies of the United Nations actively pursue a public awareness campaign aimed at assisting the peoples of the Territories in gaining a better understanding of the options for self-determination,

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

Aware that the Human Rights Committee, as part of its mandate under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, reviews the status of the self-determination process, including in small island Territories under examination by the Special Committee,

* Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to self-determination, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), containing the (Decolonization) Declaration;

 

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

* Further reaffirms that it is ultimately for the peoples of the Territories themselves to determine freely their future political status in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter, the Declaration and the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, and in that connection reiterates its long-standing call for the administering Powers, in cooperation with the territorial Governments and appropriate bodies of the United Nations system, to develop political education programmes for the Territories in order to foster an awareness among the people of their right to self-determination in conformity with the legitimate political status options, based on the principles clearly defined in Assembly resolution 1541 (XV) and other relevant resolutions and decisions;

* Stresses the importance of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the (Decolonisation) Declaration being apprised of the views and wishes of the peoples of the Territories and enhancing its understanding of their conditions, including the nature and scope of the existing political and constitutional arrangements between the Non-Self-Governing Territories and their respective administering Powers;

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

* Reaffirms the responsibility of the administering Powers under the Charter to promote the economic and social development and to preserve the cultural identity of the Territories, and, as a priority, to mitigate the effects of the current global financial crisis where possible, in consultation with the territorial Governments concerned, towards the strengthening and diversification of their respective economies;

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

* Welcomes the participation of the Non-Self-Governing Territories in regional activities, including the work of regional organizations;

* Stresses the importance of implementing the plan of action for the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, in particular by expediting the application of the work programme for the decolonization of each Non-Self-Governing Territory, on a case-by-case basis, as well as by ensuring that periodic analyses are undertaken of the progress and extent of the implementation of the Declaration in each Territory…

* Reiterates its request that the Human Rights Committee collaborate with the Special Committee, within the framework of its mandate on the right to self-determination as contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with the aim of exchanging information, given that the Human Rights Committee is mandated to review the situation, including political and constitutional developments, in many of the Non-Self-Governing Territories that are within the purview of the Special Committee...

(Part 2 of the consolidated resolution containing specifically focused recommendations on each of the eleven small island non self-governing territories will be covered in a subsequent article).

*****

By Resolution V, on Dissemination of Information on Decolonization, the Assembly approved the activities of the United Nations Departments of Public Information and Political Affairs for disseminating decolonization information. It urged the administering Powers concerned to take effective measures to safeguard and guarantee the inalienable rights of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to their natural resources, and to establish and maintain control over the future development of those resources. It requested the administering Powers to take all steps necessary to protect the property rights of the peoples of those Territories. The Assembly further urged all States to provide moral and material assistance, as needed, to the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories. In the resolution, the General Assembly agreed:

* To develop procedures to collect, prepare and disseminate, particularly to the Non-Self-Governing Territories, basic material on the issue of self-determination of the peoples of the Territories;

* To seek the full cooperation of the administering Powers in the discharge of the tasks referred to above;

* To explore further the idea of a programme of collaboration with the decolonization focal points of territorial Governments, particularly in the Pacific and Caribbean regions, to help improve the exchange of information;

* To encourage the involvement of non-governmental organizations in the dissemination of information on decolonization;

* To encourage the involvement of the Non-Self-Governing Territories in the dissemination of information on decolonization;

The Assembly approved the text by a recorded vote:

The Vote The resolution on the Dssemination of Information on Decolonization was adopted by a recorded vote of 171 in favour to 3 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: France.

Absent: Benin, Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Vanuatu.

*****

By the terms of Resolution VI, on the Implementation of the Decolonization Declaration, the Assembly reaffirmed, once again, that the existence of colonialism in any form or manifestation, including economic exploitation, was incompatible with the United Nations Charter, the Declaration on Decolonization, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the resolution, the General Assembly addressed a number of issue:

The Assembly,

* Regretting that measures to eliminate colonialism by 2010, as called for in its resolution 55/146, have not been successful,

* Reiterating its conviction of the need for the eradication of colonialism, as well as racial discrimination and violations of basic human rights,

* Reaffirms its resolution 1514 (XV) and all other resolutions and decisions on decolonization, including its resolution 55/146, by which it declared the period 2001-2010 the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, and calls upon the administering Powers, in accordance with those resolutions, to take all steps necessary to enable the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories’ concerned to exercise fully as soon as possible their right to self-determination…;

* Reaffirms once again that the existence of colonialism in any form or manifestation, including economic exploitation, is incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations, the (Decolonisation) and Peoples and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

* Reaffirms its determination to continue to take all steps necessary to bring about the complete and speedy eradication of colonialism and the faithful observance by all States of the relevant provisions of the Charter, the (Decolonization) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

* Affirms once again its support for the aspirations of the peoples under colonial rule to exercise their right to self-determination, including independence, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations on decolonization;

* Calls upon the administering Powers to cooperate fully with the Special Committee on (Decolonization) to develop and finalize, as soon as possible, a constructive programme of work on a case-by-case basis for the Non-Self-Governing Territories to facilitate the implementation of the mandate of the Special Committee and the relevant resolutions on decolonization, including resolutions on specific Territories;

* Urges the administering Powers concerned to take effective measures to safeguard and guarantee the inalienable rights of the peoples of the Non-Self- Governing Territories to their natural resources, and to establish and maintain control over the future development of those resources, and requests the relevant administering Power to take all steps necessary to protect the property rights of the peoples of those Territories

The Assembly approved the text by a recorded vote:

The Vote

The draft resolution on Implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration  was adopted by a recorded vote of 171 in favour to 3 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Belgium, France.

Absent: Benin, Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Suriname, Vanuatu.

By Resolution VII on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Decolonization Declaration, the Assembly urged Member States to do their utmost to promote effectie measures for the full and speedy implementation of the Declaration in all Non-Self-Governing Territories to which the Declaration applied. The text was approved by recorded vote:

The Vote
The resolution on Fiftieth Anniversary of the (Decolonization) Declaration was adopted by a recorded vote of 168 in favour to 3 against, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United Kingdom, United States.


Absent: Benin, Bolivia, Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Suriname, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu, Yemen.

*****

 Resolution VIII approving the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, called upon Member States to intensify their efforts to continue to implement the plan of action for the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism and use those efforts as the basis for a plan of action for the next Decade. The text was approved by a recorded vote:

The Vote

The resolution on Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism was adopted by a recorded vote of 151 in favour to 3 against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Micronesia (Federated States of), Netherlands, Palau, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Absent: Benin, Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Nauru, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Suriname, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu.

*****

By the terms of the decision on the question of Gibraltar, the General Assembly urged both the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom, while listening to the interests and aspirations of Gibraltar, to reach a definitive solution to the question of Gibraltar, in light of relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and applicable principles, and in the spirit of the United Nations Charter.

*****
Overseas Territories Review will provide an analysis in a forthcoming article on the adoption of the 2010 United Nations decolonization resolutions, with commentary on the implications of the voting patterns to the committment of those member States which administer territories to meet their obligations under the United Nations Charter.

The United Nations Decolonisation Declaration 50th Anniversary

 Adopted  by United Nations General Assembly on 14 December 1960

"...After fifty years, the decolonisation era has not ended, but rather, it has entered an increasingly complex period requiring innovative solutions to ensure that the full measure of self-government with absolute political equality is attained by the peoples of the remaining non self-governing territories. Real decolonisation, as opposed to dependency reform, can only be achieved through the adherence to the international mandates contained in the United Nations Charter, relevant resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly, and the various human rights instruments concerning the inalienable right to self-determination, in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Decolonisation Declaration and its companion resolutions are as relevant today as they were fifty years ago..."

-  Dr. Carlyle Corbin, International Advisor on Governance and Multilateral Diplomacy

************************

The Decolonisation Declaration

by: Mr. Edward McWhinney

Professor of International Law

Past President

Institut de Droit International

The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 14 December 1960. The deliberate location of the United Nations vote – in the General Assembly rather than in the Security Council where a permanent member’s veto would always be available to any one or more of the three permanent members that still had “colonial” legal ties or associations – was an obvious enough choice for the political activist States sponsoring resolution 1514 (XV). And the timing of the vote – in 1960, when the decolonisation process was already well under way – was hardly fortuitous. A working majority in favour of a patently anti-colonialist measure would not become politically possible until the General Assembly’s transformation from its original very narrow base of representation limited to the States members of the victorious wartime Alliance against Fascism to something more nearly reflective in cultural and ideological terms of the world community at large. By 1960, this had begun to be achieved, albeit on an intermittent, or casual, step-by-step basis, over the decade and a half from War’s end. The numerical breakthrough had occurred as late as 1955, when 16 new States had been admitted in one big step to membership, bringing the total to 76. In 1960 itself, 19 new States had been admitted, sealing the emergence of what became, in Cold War terms, a neutralist or uncommitted, majority voting coalition variously styled as the Non-Aligned bloc, the Group of 77, the Bandoeng group, the Developing or Third World countries. It was this informal electoral alliance, that provided the intellectual cohesiveness and also the political-tactical competence to secure the adoption of resolution 1514 (XV) without a single expressed dissent in the General Assembly.

Why a Declaration, and not something with more obvious and immediate concrete political and legal consequences? The answer must be that it was partly tactical, to convert potential negative votes in the General Assembly into softer, legally ineffective abstentions. But it also has something to do with the patently French civiliste, legal-systemic influences on its styling and drafting. The paradigm-model for resolution 1514 (XV) must be the great French Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen (Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen) of 1789. Resolution 1514 (XV), like that historical example, is short and succinct, and written in clear, non-technical, often poetic language.

In the end, the persuasiveness, in both political and legal terms, of resolution 1514 (XV) as Declaration must rest upon its claims to be an authoritative, interpretive gloss upon the Charter of the United Nations as originally written, amplifying and extending the Charter’s original historical imperatives so as to encompass the new historical reality of the post-World War II international society of the drives for access to full sovereignty and independence of erstwhile subject-peoples, in an emerging new, culturally inclusive, representative, pluralist world community.

In its substantive law stipulations, the Declaration postulates what may be described as ordering principles, intended to guide the progressive development of international law in accordance with the General Assembly’s own explicit mandate under Article 13, paragraph 1 (a), of the Charter of the United Nations:

- that the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights (art. 1);

- that all peoples have the right to self-determination, but that this necessarily includes the right freely to determine their political status and freely to pursue their economic, social and cultural development (art. 2);

- that all armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease (art. 4);

- that immediate steps shall be taken, in United Nations Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories (art. 5).

And there is the warning, in the premonition of possible future post-decolonisation conflicts (as, at the time, in the former Belgian Congo), against any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a (post-decolonisation) country (art. 6); and as to the obligation of all States to observe the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as to equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity (art. 7).

The Declaration’s subsequent history, as a call for legislative activism – affirmative action – within the General Assembly (and, if politically opportune, within the Security Council) and certainly also for parallel initiatives in other coordinate United Nations institutions and agencies (the International Court of Justice in particular), has helped in a process of elevating the Declaration’s claimed juridical status to the rank of imperative principles of international law (jus cogens), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter’s norms and entering into general international law in the result.

The Declaration was at the core of Security Council and General Assembly legislative initiatives that provided a legal base for reference to the International Court of Justice for Advisory Opinion in Namibia in 1971. The Declaration is also reflected, in its full spirit, in the International Court’s Advisory Opinion ruling on Western Sahara in 1975.

In the immediate political context of the drafting and the diplomatic lobbying leading on to its adoption, the Declaration was generally understood as being directed to “salt-water” Colonialism – occupation of the lands and territories of indigenous, native or aboriginal peoples, in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean, who were physically separated by the oceans from their colonial Powers. There is nothing in the language or the spirit of resolution 1514 (XV) inhibiting its legal extension to situations involving relations between European colonial Powers and other European or European-derived peoples overseas. In a major ruling, the International Court of Justice, being seised of a legal complaint of military and paramilitary support by the United States Government for forces from outside Nicaragua attempting to overthrow Nicaragua’s elected government, may have come close in its strong judicial majorities to making such a connection.

Within the General Assembly itself, the Declaration gave birth immediately to further legislative acts whose ties of consanguinity to resolution 1514 (XV) are clear: resolution 1515 (XV) of 15 December 1960, on the sovereign right of States to dispose of their own wealth and natural resources and resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, on States’ permanent sovereignty over those natural resources. The further Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order and the related Programme of Action (resolutions 3201 (S-VI) and 3202 (S-VI) of 1 May 1974), and the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (resolution 3281 (XXIX) of 12 December 1974) are demonstrations of the prophetic quality of resolution 1514 (XV) in providing an inevitable legal linkage between self-determination and its goal of decolonisation, and a postulated new international law-based right of freedom also in economic self-determination.

Collateral questions arising from resolution 1514 (XV) concern its consequences for the continued validity in legal terms of the former territorial frontiers from the colonial era in the post-decolonisation context. The new Organisation of African Unity had displayed, in the early post-decolonisation period, a concern for avoiding the internecine conflicts over territorial frontiers and the resultant pursuit by military means of “natural frontiers”. The pragmatic conclusion was that it might be wisest for the new African States to accept, at least for the moment, the legitimacy of their own newly-inherited territorial demarcations even where, as very often happened, they had arbitrarily divided indigenous peoples or “nations” belonging to distinct ethno-cultural communities. Openings in judicial terms to the Latin American legal doctrine of uti possidetis, as in the legal discussion in Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), a ruling in 1986 by a Special Chamber of the International Court of Justice, perhaps do not take full account of that doctrine’s own special, intrinsically regional character as a concept limited to disputes inter se of the South American Succession States to the former Spanish and Portuguese colonial Powers. The Badinter Commission’s attempt in 1992 to extrapolate the Latin American uti possidetis doctrine to the international boundaries of the succession States to the Former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia may be questioned substantively on the same basis.

The large conclusion must be that the Declaration has essentially fulfilled its original legislative objective of consolidating the political process, already entered upon, of legally terminating the old Colonial Empires, and of pressing on with all deliberate speed to successful conclusion of the process. With political and economic self-determination now assured for the new succession States, and their control over their own natural and other economic resources guaranteed, the way would be open to pursuing supervening, collateral issues now being canvassed – rectification of inherited frontiers, autonomous development of economic resources on a fully regional basis, and related regional security questions – under other, different legal categories and in other, predominantly diplomatic-legal arenas in aid to the General Assembly’s original great legislative act.

Related Materials

A. Jurisprudence

International Court of Justice, South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa). Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1966, p. 6.

International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 16.

International Court of Justice, Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 12.

International Court of Justice, Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 554.

International Court of Justice, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14.

B. Doctrine

M. Bedjaoui, Terra nullius, ‘droits’ historiques et auto détérmination, The Hague: Sijthoff, 1975.

M. Bedjaoui, “Non-alignement et droit international”, Recueil des Cours, vol. 151, 1976, p.406.

B. Boutros-Ghali, “The Arab League 1945-1970”, Revue Egyptienne de Droit International, vol. 25, 1969, p.67.

C.J.R. Dugard, “Organisation of African Unity and Colonisation”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 16, 1967, pp. 157-190.

E. McWhinney, Self-Determination of Peoples and Plural-Ethnic States in Contemporary International Law, Leiden, Boston, Martinus Nijhoff, 2007, particularly chapters 1-4.

E. McWhinney, United Nations Law Making: Cultural and Ideological Relativism and International Law Making for an Era of Transition, Paris, UNESCO; New York, Holmes and Meier, 1984, particularly Chapter 9 [French version: Les Nations Unies et la formation du Droit, Paris, Unesco, Pedone, 1986].

E. McWhinney, The World Court and the Contemporary International Law-Making Process, Alphen aan den Rijn, Sithoff & Noordhoff, 1979, particularly Chapters 2 and 4.

M. Mushkat, “Process of Decolonisation: International Legal Aspects”, University of Baltimore Law Review, vol. 2, 1972-1973, pp. 16-34.

A. Zamora R. (ed.), Actividades Militares y Paramilitares en y contra Nicaragua, (Nicaragua c. Estados Unidos), (Corte Internacional de Justicia), Managua, Nicaragua, 1999.