30 June 2014

French U.N. delegates avoid U.N. debate on French Polynesia

Special to Overseas Territories Review

"The United Nations has begun to intensify its focus on the extensive unilateral authority exercised by the French Government over the affairs of French Polynesia in classic colonial fashion. Nevetheless, France stubbornly insists that this dependency model it calls 'autonomy' is somehow 'self-governing' and refuses to meet its international legal obligations to provide information to the U.N. on these political arrangements which do not meet even the minumum of self-governance standards."  - An international decolonisation expert.



Delegates from the Government of France hasten to leave the United Nations conference room to avoid the U.N. Decolonisation Committee debate on French Polynesia. The French Government representatives had just given an extensive presentation on their role in New Caledonia but refused to participate in the subsequent debate on French Polynesia, the other French colony on the U.N. list of non self-governing territories. French Polynesia was re-inscribed on the U.N. list  by the United Nations General Assembly through a consensus resolution in May 2013. One year later, France has refused to provide any information to the United Nations on the governance of the colony in violation of Article 73 (e) of the United Nations Charter.

Resolution 67/265 Self-determination of French Polynesia

The United Nations General Assembly,

Affirms the inalienable right of the people of French Polynesia to self-determination and independence in accordance with Chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations and General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), recognizes that French Polynesia remains a Non-Self-Governing Territory within the meaning of the Charter, and declares that an obligation exists under Article 73 e of the Charter on the part of the Government of France, as the administering Power of the Territory, to transmit information on French Polynesia.

17th May 2013

U.N. Committee adopts resolutions on French, New Zealand territories

27 June 2014
General Assembly

Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Special Committee on Decolonization                        
9th Meeting (AM)


The Special Committee on Decolonization today concluded its 2014 substantive session with the approval, without a vote, of three draft resolutions, including one calling on France, New Caledonia’s administering Power, to consider developing an education programme to inform the people in the Territory about the nature of self-determination and prepare them for a future decision on the matter.

By other terms of that expansive text, introduced by Papua New Guinea’s representative (document A/AC.109/2014/L.12), the Assembly would urge all concerned parties, in the interest of the people there and within the framework of the 1998 Nouméa Accord, to promote peaceful progress towards an act of self-determination with all options open.  It would encourage France to guarantee the inalienable right of the people to own, access, use and manage their natural resources, including proprietary rights for their future development.

Further by the text, the Assembly would note the concerns regarding challenges in the provincial elections process, and encourage the administering Power and the people of New Caledonia to address those amicably under the relevant laws in the Territory and in France, in line with the Noumea Accord.  It would commend the recommendations of the United Nations visiting mission to the Government of France and of New Caledonia for appropriate action.

A draft resolution on the question of Tokelau (document A/AC.109/2014/L.15) would have the Assembly acknowledge the decision of the General Fono in 2008 that consideration of any future act of self-determination by Tokelau would be deferred, and that New Zealand and Tokelau would focus on enhancing essential services and infrastructure on the atolls.

A related provision would have the Assembly recallthe adoption by Tokelau of its National Strategic Plan for 2010-2015, and commend the achievement in 2013 of 60 per cent of the Plan’s objectives, including completion of the Tokelau Renewable Energy Project with the support of the administering Power.

The text on the question of French Polynesia (document A/AC.109/2014/L.16) would have the Assembly express regret that France had not responded to the request to submit information on French Polynesia under Article 73 (e)of the United Nations Charter, and call on it to intensify its dialogue with French Polynesia to facilitate rapid progress towards a fair and effective self-determination process.

Reaffirming that it was up to the people of French Polynesia to determine freely their future political status, in line with relevant texts, the Assembly would call on the administering Power, in cooperation with the territorial Government and appropriate bodies of the United Nations system, to develop political education programmes for the Territory in order to foster an awareness of the people’s right to self-determination in accordance with legitimate options.

Following a presentation by Amadu Koroma (Sierra Leone) on the United Nations visiting mission to New Caledonia from 10 to 15 March, Rock Wamytan, Signatory to the Noumea Accord and President, UC-FLNKS, Congress of New Caledonia, called the mission “historic” in that it had taken place during the final period of the Nouméa Accord, with the Kanak people hoping to achieve self-determination through electoral consultations.

The Accord’s provisions on those consultations, he said, could end a 160-year-long history of turning the Kanak people into a minority through a methodical settlement policy.  Through the non-independence parties, France was threatening Kanaks in efforts linked to the creation of lists of those eligible participants in elections, he said, adding that, for decades, the administering Power had set the rules of the game on voting rights, having strengthened the anti-independence party and contravened the wishes of the Kanak people.

Béatrice Le Fraper ( France) said her country had regularly communicated with the United Nations and responded positively to the Special Committee’s requests.  Her Prime Minister had decided to undertake the mission to show that France played an “exemplary” role in New Caledonia.  Provincial elections, held on 11 May, had been conducted smoothly, she said, emphasizing that the Nouméa process should be seen through to the end and allow for the full exercise of sovereignty by Caledonians.  A critical discussion phase was beginning among Caledonians, which must be done in an atmosphere of mutual trust.  France’s role was to facilitate dialogue that linked the various segments of Caledonian society.

Gaël Yanno, President of the Congress of New Caledonia, said that, in the May provincial elections, anti-independence candidates had won a majority of seats.  Free association, integration and independence were not the only options for New Caledonia, he said, noting the option to become a decolonized French territory.

Marie-Paule Tourte-Trolue, Deputy Secretary-General, Office of the High Commissioner of New Caledonia, said the French Government was a partner in the Nouméa Accord, having “progressively and irreversibly” shifted its powers to New Caledonia and supported socioeconomic development.

Also today, the Special Committee heard two petitioners on question of French Polynesia, as well as adopted the Report of the Pacific Regional Seminar (document A/AC.109/2014/CRP.11) and its report on decisions concerning organizational matters (document A/AC.109/2014/L.14).

Additional participants in today’s discussion were the representatives of Nicaragua, Saint Lucia and Chile.


25 June 2014

U.N. Decolonization Committee adopts resolutions on small territories

24 June 2014
General Assembly

Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Special Committee on Decolonization
6th Meeting (AM)


Tokelau, New Zealand Agree to ‘Park’ Referendum Question, Focus on Basic Needs

Acting without a vote, the Special Committee on Decolonization approved four draft resolutions today to accelerate efforts to create a world free of colonialism.

By terms of the text aimed at furthering the implementation of the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (A/AC.109/2014/L.9), the General Assembly would call on the administering Powers to take steps to enable the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to fully exercise their right to self-determination and independence.

The Assembly, through the text on economic and other activities affecting the Non-Self-Governing Territories (A/AC.109/2014/L.11), would call on all Governments that have not yet done so to take legislative, administrative or other measures to end enterprises detrimental to the interests of the inhabitants.  Further, it urged the administering Powers to safeguard and guarantee the inalienable rights of the inhabitants to their natural resources and property.

By the text concerning implementation of the Declaration by the United Nations specialized agencies and other associated institutions (A/AC.109/2014/L.10), the Assembly would recommend that those organizations’ executive heads formulate concrete proposals to fully implement the relevant United Nations resolutions and submit them to their governing and legislative organs.

The representative of the Russian Federation, speaking before action, said his Government actively supported the rights of people of Non-Self-Governing Territories to self-determination and independence.  However, attention of that highly political issue within the Economic and Social Council distracted from the Council’s main role of coordinating socioeconomic activities.  As such, his Government would abstain from the vote on the draft.

The Special Committee also approved a text (A/AC.109/2014/L.8), which covered the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands.

Nicaragua’s delegate, in a general statement, reiterated his Government’s commitment to fight colonialism and support self-determination among peoples in Non-Self-Governing Territories.  He underlined the importance of regional seminars, as well as the need for increased resources to foster greater participation among representatives of Non-Self-Governing Territories.

Aliki Faipule Kuresa Nasau, Titular Head of Tokelau, in other business today briefed the Special Committee on elections held earlier this year for the 20-member General Fono and the six-member Council for the Ongoing Government of Tokelau.  The results were positive, with the first woman ever elected to the six-member Council.  Next month, the National Fono would endorse its 2014/15 budget, which was focused on fully implementing the national strategic plan 2010-2015.  That plan was supported by the Joint Commitment for Development between Tokelau and New Zealand, and 60 per cent of its targets had been met. Gains also had been made in the areas of education, health and energy efficiency.  On the issue of self-determination, he said that, following the 2007 referendum, it was agreed with New Zealand to “park” the question of holding another referendum, and instead, focus on meeting basic needs.

Jonathan Kings (New Zealand), Administrator of Tokelau, described his country’s relationship with Tokelau as “extremely positive”.  He noted that Tokelau’s extreme geographic isolation and small population were factors that would continue to shape New Zealand’s engagement.  With reliable transport now in place, his Government was focused on basic services, with efforts centred on improving education and health-care delivery.  New Zealand was supporting Tokelau in implementing recommendations from the recent education review, which showed the need for action.  It was also focused on governance, an overarching theme of other reviews under way in health, telecommunications and transport, as well as on fishing revenues.  Those issues remained a focus before any further act of self-determination would be considered.

Also delivering statements on the question of Tokelau were the representatives of Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone and Fiji.

Consideration of the draft resolution on the question of Tokelau was postponed to a later date.

The next meeting of the Special Committee will be on 26 June, when it will take up the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).


24 June 2014

U.N. Decolonization Committee adopts annual resolution on Puerto Rico

23 June 2014
General Assembly

Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Special Committee on Decolonization
4th & 5th Meetings (AM & PM)

Speakers Call on United States to ‘End Subjugation’, Release Political Prisoners

The Special Committee on Decolonization today called on the United States to again expedite a process that would allow the people of Puerto Rico to fully exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence, as well as take decisions, in a sovereign manner, to address their economic and social needs.

By a resolution approved by consensus, the Committee would have the General Assembly urge the United States to complete the return of occupied land and installations on Vieques Island and in Ceiba to Puerto Rico, respect fundamental human rights and cover the costs of decontaminating areas previously used in military exercises.

Also by the text, the Special Committee — formally known as the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples  would have the Assembly reiterate its request to release Oscar López Rivera and Norberto Gonzalez Claudio.  Both individuals were political prisoners serving sentences in the United States for cases relating to the struggle for Puerto Rican independence.  The text also expressed concern about the actions carried out against Puerto Rican independence fighters and encouraged an investigation of those actions.

The Assembly, by other terms, would reaffirm the inalienable right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination and independence, and reiterate that the Puerto Rican people constituted a Latin American and Caribbean nation with its own unequivocal national identity.

Cuba’s representative, introducing the text, said it reflected the international community’s urgent call to end the colonial status of Puerto Rico, which had been unable to exercise its right to self-determination and independence, despite 32 previous resolutions.  In addition, he said, Puerto Ricans had rejected the current status of political subordination in November 2012.

Iran’s representative, speaking for the Non-Aligned Movement, supported the right of Puerto Ricans to self-determination and independence on the basis of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV).

Throughout the day, nearly 50 petitioners outlined their views on Puerto Rico’s relationship with the United States, which many stressed must change drastically to ensure a better future for the island’s 3.2 million inhabitants.

Several reaffirmed the applicability of resolution 1514 (XV) — the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples — and of the Special Committee’s 32 resolutions on Puerto Rico’s situation.  The self-determination process did not require United States congressional approval, they said, and that country should cooperate with Puerto Ricans to design a decolonization mechanism.

Many petitioners argued for Puerto Rico’s independence.  Wilma E. Reveron Collazo, Movimiento Independentista Nacional Hostosiano, said Puerto Rico’s sovereignty had been illegally taken over by the United States.  It was a Latin American and Caribbean country that must participate fully in the United Nations.  The Legislator had put forward bills to convene a constitutional assembly — an independent body of elected representatives who would draft or adopt a constitution — which would guarantee the start of a self-determination process.  People must be educated about their decolonization options, and efforts should be supervised by the Special Committee.

Others pointed to ways that United States corporations had exploited local populations, dislocating neighbourhoods, forcing businesses to close and, in the case of pharmaceutical companies, contaminating the soil.  Héctor Cintrón Príncipe, Consejo Nacional Para la Descolonización, said hormone-injected animals and junk food sold by the United States had created serious health problems for Puerto Ricans, who in turn had no choice but to depend on drugs sold by United States pharmaceutical companies.

Another clear example of subjugation, said Evelyn Román Montalvo, Coalición Puertorriqueña contra la Pena de Muerte, was the forced application of capital punishment on Puerto Ricans convicted on federal charges, despite that the island had outlawed that practice in 1929.  The text should recognize Puerto Rico as the only place where the death penalty continued to be applied after people had rejected it.

Some speakers took a different view of the United States relationship.  John Ross Serrano Sanabria, College Republican Federation of Puerto Rico, said Puerto Rico was not a country, but a United States territory inhabited by American citizens with a particular culture.  The island’s Governor was the Head of Government, just as in the other 50 states.  He asked the Committee to include Puerto Rico on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories and press the United States Congress to admit it as the fifty-first state.  Edwin Pagan, Generación 51, added that resolution 1514 (XV) outlined the parameters for establishing statehood.

Still others called on the Committee to recognize the Taínos people as the only representatives of the Borinquen nation.  Evaristo Silva Cintrón, Hermandad Taína, joined others in calling for the Borinquen state to have a seat in the General Assembly.  Francis A. Boyle, International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, asked the Special Committee to credential the sovereign Borinquen state.

The imprisonment in the United States of pro-independence Puerto Ricans was one concern about which a number of speakers rallied, with many calling for the immediate, unconditional release of Oscar López Rivera and Norberto Gonzalez Claudio.  A few asked for a pause in deliberations for 33 seconds, in honour of Mr. López Rivera’s 33-year struggle for justice.

Other petitioners addressing the Special Committee today were representatives of the following organizations:  Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, New Progressive Party, Madres contra la Guerra, Comité de Derechos Humanos de Puerto Rico, Boricuas por un Nuevo País, Coordinadora Nacional de las Actividades del Cerro de los Mártires, Puerto Rican Committee of the United Nations, Puerto Rican Independence Party, American Association of Jurists, Alianza Comunitaria de Boriken, Puertorriqueños Unidos En Accion, Colegio de Profesionales del Trabajo Social de Puerto Rico, ProLibertad Freedom Campaign, Unión Nacional de Estudiantes, New York Solidarity with Vieques, Oficina de Asuntos Comunitarios e Indígenas, Juventud Boricua, National Lawyers Guild International Committee, Frente Autonomista, Igualdad, Citizens Movement for Statehood, Socialist Workers Party, Frente Socialista de Puerto Rico, Movimiento Union Soberanista de Puerto Rico, League of United Latin American Citizens, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, High School Republicans of Puerto Rico, New York Coordinator to Free Oscar López Rivera, ProELA, Accion Soberanista, Partido Nacionalista de Puerto Rico-Movimiento Libertador-Junta Nacional, Renacer Ideologico Estadista, Boricua Ahora Es, Graduate School of Public Health-University of Puerto Rico, Grupo por la Igualdad y la Justicia de Puerto Rico, Frente Patriotico Arecibeño, and the Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico.

Also speaking today were representatives of Nicaragua, Venezuela, Syria, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Costa Rica (on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States).

The Special Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. on 24 June, to address the Questions of New Caledonia, American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands.

22 June 2014

Cautious U.N. procedures are impeding the decolonization process


 Overseas Territories Review

            Last week, the United Nations (U.N.) Decolonization Committee began its 2014 hearings on the seventeen non self-governing on the U.N. General Assembly list. They began with Western Sahara and Gibraltar, two of the three territories subject to sovereignty disputes. Hearings will continue over the next several weeks on the British and American administered dependencies in the Caribbean and Pacific, the French administered Pacific dependencies, and the Falkland Islands/Malvinas claimed both by neighboring Argentina and far distant United Kingdom. Thanks to the U.N. webcast, the full committee sessions are available for viewing across the globe. Last Monday's committee meeting provided a glimpse into some of the longstanding challenges faced by the U.N. in completing the decolonization process.

During its resumed session last Monday, the committee heard a presentation by the Frente POLISARIO, the representative of the people of Western Sahara which remains under  the control of the North African state of Morocco. Self-determination for the Sahrawi people has been stymied for decades with Morocco stalling the referendum process in favor of a proposed dependency status under the guise of 'autonomy'.  Meanwhile, the natural resources of Western Sahara, whose ownership is supposedly protected by U.N. doctrine and International Court of Justice rulings, are instead being usurped with the help of willing interlocutors like the Europe Union (E.U.) through agreements with Morocco to exploit the territory's fisheries resources.

The case of Gibraltar, however,  differs significantly from its counterpart in Northern Africa. Unlike Western Sahara, Gibraltar represents a dispute between two E.U. states, Spain and the United Kingdom (U.K.), over the interpretation of centuries old treaties of ownership of that tiny sliver of land between the two nations. But unlike Western Sahara where the issues of self-determination and independence are the focus, the elected Gibraltar authorities have historically sought international legitimization of its dependency status with the U.K. The Gibraltar authorities told the committee last Monday that the 1970  U.N. Resolution 2625 gives credence to any political option as long as it has been chosen by the people - regardless of whether it is self-governing or not. They use this as the basis for their argument to be removed from the U.N. list, and have repeatedly asked the U.N. to clarify this issue.

Their interpretation of Resolution 2625, however, is misguided, and had been earlier clarified in a 2006 expert analysis on the criteria for de-listing a territory disseminated to U.N. member states at that time. The analysis explained that the intention of the General Assembly in the 1970 resolution was not to legitimize a dependency status which fell short of "a full measure of self-government with political equality." In other words, the U.N. does not authenticate such arrangements as fully self-governing if they are not.

But the committee discussion on Gibraltar raised a number of issues reflective of present U.N. procedures. In order to determine the self-governance sufficiency of a given political arrangement, the U.N. is mandated to examine new or existing dependency governance frameworks on a case-by-case basis according to annual U.N. resolutions.  The problem is that such case-by-case reviews are not being performed - not for the 'autonomy' proposal promoted for Western Sahara, nor for the prevailing constitutional order of Gibraltar, nor for the political arrangements in place or envisaged for any of the other remaining dependencies. Understandably, this has resulted in a lack of clarity on the part of the territories and member States alike on where the democratic deficiencies exist in these non self-governing arrangements. In the absence of such analysis, however, the U.N. committee hearings are limited to repetitive re-statement of position. There appears to be no scope for committee examination as to whether such dependency arrangements as Gibraltar pass the self-governance test.

Such studies as the 2006 expert analysis, the 2006 Program of Implementation (POI) endorsed by the General Assembly and others would shed considerable light on some of the fundamental questions continually raised in the U.N. decolonization proceedings by the territorial leaders who continue to seek clarity on the rules of the decolonization process. These questions are mostly met with silence, and sometimes defensiveness on the part of the committee. This makes the committee vulnerable to increasing criticism by the representatives of the territories who are genuinely seeking answers on the relevance of the U.N. and international law in their decolonization process, and how this role is to be carried out in view of  myriad U.N. resolutions on decolonization and self-determination. The territories simply wish to know the reasons for the insufficient implementation of these resolutions designed to assist - and even guide - their political development. They have a right to such clarity.

The Chief Minister of Gibraltar sought as much in his statement to the committee last Monday, and  his queries could have been easily addressed. But the response was merely to point out the committee's limitation of action. This does not address the substance of the matter. An even cursory review of the Gibraltar Constitutional Order reveals substantial democratic deficiencies if U.N. principles of self-government are applied, and there is a responsibility to inform them of that fact. The Chief Minister of the territory recalled that its constitutional documents had been submitted to the committee years ago for analysis. But no review was ever published on Gibraltar or any of the other territories on the U.N. list. Yet it is the clarity brought by examination of the elements of the various dependency models which is critical. Otherwise, awkward exchanges as the one seen across the globe on the webcast between the Gibraltar leader and the committee last week will continue to be repeated. This only serves the interests of those who seek to further marginalize the U.N.'s role in decolonization.

A similar scenario to that of Gibraltar played out in the U.N.'s decolonization seminar in Fiji last May. In this case, the representative of the Government of Guam made a series of recommendations designed to assist that territory's ongoing political education program leading to a political status referendum in the territory.  The representative asked for a more proactive U.N. approach to provide information to the territories on the decolonization options,  the development of  individual work programs for each territory - as the decolonization resolutions have mandated for years, and expert political analysis on the nature of the dependency arrangements as mandated in the plan of action of the first, second and presently the third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism.

These are not new issues, but are measures repeatedly reaffirmed for action by the General Assembly for years. It should not, therefore, be seen as unreasonable that a territorial representative might question why these actions have not been carried out for decades. This is the information they need to move their own political status processes forward. But it is this very lack of clarity brought on by the absence of information and analysis which has impeded the decolonization process in these territories. It is the insufficiency of substantive response from the committee on these issues which has led to a creeping disillusionment in many territories with the committee's cautiously arcane methods.

The requests by these territories for the U.N. to carry out the actions called for in the U.N. resolutions should not be seen by U.N. member states as demeaning to the committee, but is certainly reflective of a growing frustration with a lack of accountability of the U.N. as the guardian of the  decolonization mandate. It may speak to a lack of political will on the part of the U.N. to implement its own decolonization decisions. It may also speak to the posture of a U.N. bureaucracy unwilling or unable to carry out this mandate, and which is allowed to pick and choose which actions it will undertake, and which it will not. But whatever the reason, the system seems content to define its role so narrowly as to avoid responsibility for anything more than preparing annual information documents on each territory while bypassing the far more elaborate actions contained in decolonization resolutions. The decolonization process has slowed, not merely because the administering powers have been allowed to formally absent themselves from the process, but equally because the U.N. system has not implemented its own actions. 

Just how the U.N. defines its role sheds considerable light in this respect. The U.N.'s own Biennial Program Plan and Priorities for servicing the decolonization agenda for  2014-2015 lists as the sole two "indicators of achievement" the "timely submission of parliamentary documents" and the "sustained level of support to the work of the Special Committee in facilitating communication with the administering Powers." These are the identical indicators of achievement included in the U.N. budget for years, and are the same proposed for the 2016-2017 period. Such limited measures by which to assess achievement speaks for themselves.

Through all of this, there is no reason for the member states of the Decolonization Committee to continue to defend moribund procedures which appear to have evolved over time. The Decolonization Committee was not created in 1961 to be mired in such timidity. What is required is for those same member states to ensure that the U.N. procedures used to service the decolonization agenda are modernized to ensure accountability. This could start with a fundamental re-write of the "indicators of achievement".  Without substantive change to these U.N. procedures, and without a serious effort at accountability for implementing the mandate, true decolonization may not be able to withstand the pressures of inertia. 

19 June 2014

U.S. Military build-up in Guam presents enormous challenges to island society

Us navy 110821-n-az907-015 the aircraft carrier uss ronald reagan (cvn 76) enters apra harbor for a scheduled port visit

The Hawaii Independent

Looking at the ‘tip of the spear’

How U.S. Military policy in Guam, a proposed “mega build-up” and population displacement are destroying the island and its people.

Guåhan (Guam), an unincorporated territory of the United States, is the largest and most populated island in Micronesia. For a local comparison, Guåhan is larger than Lanaʻi yet smaller than Molokaʻi. Similar to Oʻahu, U.S.military bases occupy a third of Guåhan’s landmass.

Kanaka Maoli activist and scholar Kaleikoa Kaʻeo once described the U.S. military as a monstrous heʻe (octopus). Imagine Pacific Command headquarters as its head, the mountaintop telescopes as its eyes, and the supercomputers and fiber optic networks as its brain and nerve system.

Now imagine one of its weaponized tentacles strangling Guåhan: “The Tip of the Spear.”

In 2009, details of a military “mega-buildup” on Guåhan were released in a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a document that requires the military to outline how the military buildup will pollute and degrade natural and cultural resources. The EIS was 11,000 pages long.


18 June 2014

Puerto Rico to decolonize through integration with Spain?

Group says PR should reunite with Spain

By EFE News Agency

A small Puerto Rican group has launched a campaign to demand that the Caribbean island break all political links with the United States and annex itself once again to Spain to become an autonomous community of the Iberian nation.

“We want to become Spaniards again, to be autonomous community No. 18 of a country that we never wanted to abandon,” José Nieves, the founder of the Puerto Rico Reunification with Spain group, said.

With the slogan “It’s time to return home!” and a promotional video with the Spanish national anthem in the background, the initiative so far has almost 2,000 followers on Facebook.

“We’re getting support from U.S. statehood advocates, independent-minded people, who would accept unification as a decolonizing option, and even supporters of the status quo,” Nieves said, referring to those who want to remain a U.S. commonwealth.

After decades of fruitless debates about how the political status of this former Spanish colony should evolve or be altered, the option of rejoining Spain “has never really been on the table, but we’re getting support”, said Nieves, thanks to “education and to the fact that supporters of other options see that we’re not moving forward toward anyplace”.

“Our demand has taken many by surprise, but it makes perfect sense. The key is in education,” he commented, after noting that Puerto Rico was a colony of Spain for more than four centuries and in 1897 even had a charter that gave it sovereignty as an overseas Spanish province.

The 42-year-old criminologist and security guard also challenges the traditional narrative of Puerto Rico’s incorporation into the U.S.

“In contrast to what we’re told in the schools, we Puerto Ricans welcomed U.S. troops with gunfire, not with flowers,” he says.

“The U.S. invasion was heavily contested. In fact, they could not move in during the first two attempts. Finally, they managed to do it because the mayor of Yauco sold out,” he said.

Among the group’s followers, according to Nieves, “there are many university people and ones with advanced degrees”.

“We believe we would be accepted by the Spanish people. To date, 95 percent of the feedback we’ve had from there is positive,” he said.

17 June 2014

U.N. Decolonisation Committee adopts annual resolutions on information on the remaining non self-governing territories

General Assembly

Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Special Committee on Decolonization
3rd Meeting (AM)

Committee on Decolonization Approves 3 Draft Resolutions on Information Relating to Non-Self-Governing Territories

Committee Hears from Petitioners, Observers on Questions of Western Sahara, Gibraltar

Resuming its session today, the Special Committee on Decolonization approved, without a vote, three draft resolutions on information relating to the Non-Self-Governing Territories that remained under its purview.

Formally known as the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, the 29-member body also took up the questions of Western Sahara and Gibraltar.

By the text on “Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations” (document A/AC.109/2014/L.3), the General Assembly would request the administering Powers to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social and educational conditions in the Territories, as well as the fullest possible information on political and constitutional developments there.

By the text on “dissemination of information on decolonization” (document A/AC.109/2014/L.4), the Assembly would request the Departments of Political Affairs and of Public Information to implement the Special Committee’s recommendations and to continue their efforts to take measures through all the media available, including publications, radio and television, as well as the Internet, to give publicity to the work of the United Nations on decolonization.

In relation to that text, Laura Vaccari, Chief of the Decolonization Unit, Department of Political Affairs, and Margaret Novicki, Chief of the Communications Campaigns Service, Department of Public Information, briefed on their work.

The Special Committee also adopted, as orally revised, the draft resolution on “Question of sending visiting and special missions to Territories” (document A/AC.109/2014/L.5), by which it called upon the administering Powers that have not yet done so to cooperate or continue to cooperate with the Organization by facilitating United Nations visiting missions to the Territories under their administration.

Turning to the question of Western Sahara, Ahmed Boukhari, representative of the Frente Popular para la Liberación de Saguia el-Hamra y de Río de Oro (Frente Polisario), said that the area was the last African colony awaiting decolonization.  Yet, the last time a mission had been sent there was 1975.  Morocco had replaced Spain as the colonizer.  The United Nations had convinced Morocco of the need to hold a referendum, but it had never been held due to obstruction by Morocco.  The Secretary-General’s report to the Security Council had stated that United Nations efforts should continue until the decolonization process took place. 

Moving to the next topic, Fabian Picardo, Chief Minister of Gibraltar, said its leaders had been addressing the Special Committee since 1963.  Gibraltar would have been delisted long ago if it were not for the Spanish Government’s repeated attempts to block it.  He urged the Committee to provide its opinion on whether Gibraltar’s 2006 Constitution would deliver sufficient measure of self-government short of independence.  It should visit Gibraltar, attend an upcoming symposium and seek an advisory opinion from the International Count of Justice on its right to self-determination.

Spain’s delegate, speaking as an observer, said that the inhabitants of some territories had given up their political independence in exchange for guarantee of their economic stability.  Those were cases of “colonialism by consent”.  The Spanish who lived there until 1704, the real Gibraltarians, were forced to leave and settled in the neighboring town of San Roque.  Furthermore, the United Kingdom illegally seized other territories not ceded under the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713.  General Assembly resolution 2353 (1967) stated that the colonial situation of Gibraltar undermined the territorial integrity of Spain.  Furthermore, the administrating Power had admitted that the independence of its colony was not possible without Spain’s consent.  The United Kingdom, however, had been refusing for too many years to talk to Spain about the future of Gibraltar.

The Special Committee then heard from a petitioner, Denis Matthews, representative of the Self-Determination for Gibraltar Group.

Also participating as Observers during the meeting were representatives of Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ghana, Guatemala, Italy, Jamaica, Montenegro, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Turkey, Uganda and Uruguay.

The Special Committee will meet again on 23 June to hear petitioners concerning the situation in Puerto Rico.


16 June 2014

Self-determination referendum for Bonaire being sabotaged

Concerns expressed that the referendum process is being undermined by the Netherlands in violation of  its international legal obligations to facilitate a genuine process of self-determination for the people of Bonaire. 


Foundation Nos Kier Boneiru Bek,

P.O.  Box 341, Bonaire

Aan de Minister van Binnenlandse zaken en Koninkrijkrelaties, dr. R H A Plasterk
Aan de voorzitter van de Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal
Aan de voorzitter van de Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal
Aan de Raad van State
2500 EA Den Haag

Bonaire 13 juni 2014

Subject: Self-determination referendum for Bonaire

The illegality of the new state structure as of 10-10-10 for the BES islands* has been extensively exposed by various individuals and legal experts, state and international constitutional experts and pressure groups during the last four years.

Letters to the local government and 1st and 2nd chamber, representatives of the Kingdom-government, Petition to Her Majesty Queen Beatrix and His Majesty King Willem Alexander and complaint letters to the United Nations and protests-manifestations all focused and all pointed to the fact that the "new state structure for the BES islands "violate international laws and regulations in the area of self-determination and human rights, and is not legitimate.

The integration as "Public Body" since 10-10-10 is not based on a free choice. For that reason, the lack of the outcome of the referendum to express a explicit choice of the form of state structure, this illegal foundation on which is being build on,  violates resolutions 1514, 1541 and 2625 of the United Nations and further is in non-conformity with Chapter XI, Article 73, on "Declaration of non-self-Governing Territories".

Finally, the Minister of Kingdom Relations dr R Plasterk mid-December 2013 for the treatment and deliberation on defining the state budget of the Kingdom Relations (IV) for the year 2014 (33750-IV) clearly readdressed in response to parliamentary questions on our previously expressed position on the respect of our human and self-determination rights. He made it clear that there is a misunderstanding about the arrangements made for the constitutional changes that these do not comply or violate international law and that we still as Bonaire (BES) and in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations are entitled to a (new) referendum. The Minister made it clear that the Netherlands is a member of UN and respects these agreements, and that the BES islands themselves can take the initiative to correct these errors. Minister Plasterk ratified this by letter dated January 8, 2014 (reference No: 2014-0000012853) to Foundation Nos Kier Boneiru Bek, and the final paragraph reads:

"That the people of Bonaire has the right that their voice be heard and the right to self-determination, is an achievement that is not in question and is fully endorsed by the cabinet."

The Secretary-General of the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations Mr. Richard van Zwol who visited after this declaration on Bonaire ratified and further stated that if the people choose a different state associated with the Netherlands in the Kingdom, this will affect the Netherlands, and that the Netherlands must enter into this discussion with us.

On Bonaire, there is the constant call and a petition for a referendum to the Island Council (more than 3000 signees), as well as the good news that the Netherlands will cooperate with a possible new choice of the people, causing a positive effect among the political parties. Almost all political parties and mainly those represented in the Island Council have reached a "historic moment by uniting with the purpose of organizing a referendum" so that the people's voice can be heard because it has so far proved that the new status is not what they expected or have desired. This wish and resolution got a unanimous vote by all Island Council members on February 25, 2014 and is recorded and subsequently ratified by the decision of  April 4th and led to the establishment of an "Advisory Referendum Committee."

So the people of Bonaire which was divided by the 10-10-10 misleading into the new state structure "Public Body" was finally on the road to reconciliation and reunification. The people were relieved and happy that finally the political Bonaire got the signals from the people to given a chance to make its voice heard and respected and the feeling of togetherness as people was re-established on Bonaire.

The whole process was going in the right direction until the ex-politician, former leader of UPB party, Mr. Booi, was acquitted in the case brought by the Public Prosecutor's criminal case. Mr. Booi said immediately that he will return into politics and in the Island Council to address the issues with Netherlands again. It is striking that this takes place on the same day with the inauguration and use of the renovated Council building and called Council meeting to treat the report of the Referendum Commission officially, and immediately after his swearing as a Parliament member in his re-entrance speech made clear that there will be no referendum, now he is acquitted, he will negotiate with Netherlands to improve the situation on Bonaire. So the coalition formed by UPB fraction and fraction Santana, with Booi as a new member and new approach, decided at the end of the deliberations by roll call vote to stop the referendum process. He then presented to the Island Council a so called Mission Paper which the coalition adopted what he is going to negotiate with the Netherlands on the political structure and improvements for Bonaire.

This strikes the whole population like a bucket of cold water over them, because they finally started to get hope because of the positive development and unitying of the political Bonaire for Bonaire,where the desires of the people and their voice could eventually be heard by way of a referendum. But now, because of single-handed  dictatorial boycott of the referendum by Booi and group, they saw their voice and choice silenced.

We are directing ourselves to you with the request that you not to make any further arrangements with Booi, who by the way, according to the Prosecution still is  a suspect in the criminal proceedings against him,  and his group about our people's rights and that the treaties of the UN should be respected by all politicians, governments such as of Bonaire and the Netherlands, until the people have spoken through a referendum according to the right of self-determination.

It is clear that the state Public Body Bonaire is built on quicksand, and does not stand scrutiny of the  international law and that there should be a referendum to make right to the people of Bonaire.

It is now meanwhile a public secret that Mr. Booi, and against all logic and rationality, is acquitted to stop the referendum and  prevent the people of Bonaire on a dictatorial manner to exercise of her right to a referendum. The trust of the people in the democratic constitutional state has dropped to zero by these decisions and experiences.

There are plenty of indications that indicates that Booi acts under political duress by the Netherlands, otherwise he will be convicted. This has become a recurring phenomenon around the elections, which Booi is exactly acquitted in the run up to the election of his accusations and allegations and lawsuits will then  immediately with the acquittal capitalize on the political benefits and enjoy popularity and comes to power or stay in power.

I am willing to address this issue on this way because as I personally have experienced this at least twice. The first time was in the run-up to the election that Elvis Tjin A Sjoe, highest votegetter of the UPB, ex-minister, etc, my childhood friend, told me that the whole commotion about Booi's trial and allegations are not quite what it seems but a kind of scene that is resolved as the election nears. I had real problem with it, because the whole Bonairean political panorama and the state structure that was created illegally is defended and protected by Booi, a became a sort of ego trip, and has divided our nation and people, and that he and his political power will be extremely difficult that the right and the voice of the people will be exercised. 

The second time I came in touch with this issue is that after a radio and television interview at the station of Mr.Booi,  Radio Energia, about one and half year ago, I was adressed by him personally. He consciously and powerfully intimidated me that I had to stop protesting the state- structure because I am wasting too much energy and time of them with all of the protests, actions and letters etc, and better to had to work together with them to improve it. And my question how he will solve it, because before everyone and themselves publicly through the media has stated that nothing can be done to the state structure any more and we had to look forward and had to try to get the best out etc.His response and solution to me was that I was not to worry, because even though he is suspected and accused by the Public Prosecuter, he will be free of these and then go into the politics to negotiate with the Netherlands and improve the situation of the state structure. So through my own personal experience and contact with this public secret, it was not really a surprise to me that Booi just a week before the treatment of the referendum in the island council was acquitted, and he immediately went to fulfill and complete his mission as told to me personally, so stop of the referendum and the exclusion of people of Bonaire's to hear their voice, and further build with Netherlands on the "illegal" political status of Public Body Bonaire.

We ask that you properly take into account these statements that for the Bonairean people really the last drop has fallen in the full bucket, and really not to further force to take away her right and everyone's pretend their nose are bleeding and  continues to negotiate with Booi and his comrades.

If there is no possibility through an "administrative measure" by the Dutch government to organize for the people of Bonaire a self-determination-referendum in accordance with the requirements and regulations of the United Nations, because of the implicit boycott of Booi, then in the name of the people of Bonaire, by your recognition that the 10-10-10 agreements are not in conformity with the international human and self-determination right and has not been legitimized by Boneriean (and Statians)  people, no to discuss further any issues on states-structure, until the Boneriaans people in accordance with the UN resolutions and rules their voice and desire has been heard through a referendum.

 I hope on behalf of the Foundation Nos Kier Boneiru Bek and the over three thousand signees of a petition to hold a referendum,  that you agree with this request

Awaiting your substantiated response, I remain

On behalf of Foundation Nos Kier Boneiru Bek,

PoBox 341, Bonaire. Email: jamesfinies@gmail.com

* The BES Islands are Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius which form three new partially integrated Dutch "public entities" emerged after the dissolution of the erstwhile Netherlands Antilles in 2010. The other two islands of the former political arrangement, Curacao and Sint Maarten, became separate'autonomous' countries in the Dutch Kingdom. The third Dutch 'autonomous country' in the region is Aruba which separated from the Netherlands Antilles in 1986.


Original Dutch

Aan de Minister van Binnenlandse zaken en Koninkrijkrelaties, dr. R H A Plasterk

Aan de voorzitter van de Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal
Aan de voorzitter van de Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal
Aan de Raad van State
2500 EA Den Haag

Bonaire 13 juni 2014

Betreft: zelf-beschikkings-referendum voor Bonaire

De illegaliteit van het nieuwe staatsstructuur per 10-10-10 voor de BES eilanden is uitvoerig door verschillende individuen en legale experts, staatsgeleerden, internationale constitutionele experts en pressie groepen belicht gedurende de laatste vier jaren.

Brieven aan de lokale bestuurders en 1ste en 2de kamer, vertegenwoordigers van het Rijksbestuur, Petitie aan HM Konigin Beatrix en ZM Koning Willem Alexander en klachtbrieven aan de Verenigde Naties en protestacties allemaal gericht en wijzen allemaal op het feit dat de “nieuwe staatstructuur voor de BES eilanden” de internationale wetten en regels op het gebied van zelf-beschikking en mensenrechten overtreden en niet legitiem is.

Het integreren als “Openbaar Lichaam” sinds 10-10-10 is niet gebaseerd op een vrije keuze. Om die reden, leidt het ontbreken van het uitslag van de referendum tot expliciete keuze voor de staatsvorm, tot deze illegale fundament waarop gebouwd wordt in strijd met resoluties 1514, 1541 en 2625 van de Verenigde Naties en verder ook niet-conform hoofdstuk XI, artikel 73, inzake “Verklaring betreffende niet-zelfbesturende gebieden”.

Uiteindelijk heeft de Minister van Koninkrijksrelaties dr. R Plasterk medio december 2013 bij de behandeling en beraadslaging inzake Vastelling van de begrotingsstaat van de Koninkrijkrelaties (IV) voor het jaar 2014 (33750-IV) overduidelijk in antwoord op kamervragen omtrent onze eerder verwoorde standpunt over het respecteren  van onze mensen en volkenrechten weggenomen. Hij maakte hierin duidelijk dat er een misverstand is ontstaan over de gemaakte afspraken voor de staatkundige vernieuwingen die niet voldoen of in strijd zijn met het internationaal volkenrecht en dat wij alsnog als Bonaire(BES eilanden) en conform het Handvest van de Verenigde Naties recht op hebben op een (nieuwe) referendum.  De Minister maakte duidelijk dat Nederland als lid van VN deze afspraken respecteert en dat de BES eilanden zelf het initiatief kunnen nemen om de gemaakte fouten te corrigeren. Minister Plasterk bekrachtigd dit met brief datum 8 januari 2014 kenmerk nr: 2014-0000012853 aan Stichting Nos Kier Boneiru Bek  en de sluitalinja luidde:

“Dat de bevolking van Bonaire het recht heeft om haar stem te laten horen en recht heeft op zelfbeschikking, is een verworvenheid die niet ter discussie staat en onverkort door het kabinet onderschreven wordt.” Daarna was de Secretaris-Generaal van de Ministerie van BZK  mr Richard van Zwol op Bonaire die dit ratificeerde en verder verklaarde dat als het volk kiest voor een andere staatsverband met Nederland in het Koninkrijk dit Nederland raakt maar dat Nederland deze discussie met ons moet aangaan.

Op Bonaire heeft de konstante roep en een petitie voor een referendum aan de eilandsraad(ruim 3000 firmanten) alsmede het goede nieuws dat Nederland zal meewerken met een mogelijke nieuwe keuze van het volk, een positieve ontwikkeling onder de politieke partijen teweeg gebracht. Bijna alle politieke partijen en voornamelijk de in de eilandsraad vertgenwoordigers hebben een “historisch moment bereikt door te verenigen met het doel een referendum te organiseren” zodat het volk haar stem kan laten horen, omdat het zover gebleken is dat de nieuwe status niet is wat ze hebben verwcht of hebben gewenst. Deze wens werd door een unanieme motie door alle eilandsraadsleden p 25 februari 2014 vastgelegd en daarna bekrachtigt in het besluit van 4 april en resulteerde ook tot het instellen van een “Adviescommissie referendum”.

Dus het volk van Bonaire dat verdeeld was door de 10-10-10 misleiding in het nieuwe staatsstructuur “Openbaar Lichaam” was eindelijk op weg naar verzoening en hereniging. Het volk werd opgelucht en blij dat er uiteindelijk de politiek op Bonaire de signalen van het volk voor een kans om zijn stem te laten horen respecteerde en het samenhorigheidsgevoel als volk keerde weer terug op Bonaire.

Het hele process liep in de goede richting totdat de ex-politicus, ex-lijder van de UPB partij , Dhr Booi , vrijgesproken werd in de door het Openbaar Ministerie aangespannen strafzaak.  Dhr Booi liet direct weten dat hij terugkeert in de politiek en in de eilandsraad om de zaken met Nederland weer op te pakken. Frappant is dat hij op dezelfde dag bij het inwijden en in gebruik nemen van het vernieuwe raadszaal en opgeroepen raadsvergaderng om het raport van de referendum commissie oficieel te behandelen, direkt na zijn beediging bij zijn re-entree speech liet blijken dat er geen referendum zou komen omdat hij wel, nu hij vrij gesproken is , met Nederland kan gaan onderhandelen om de situatie van Bonaire te verbeteren. De eilandsraad, dus de coalitie gevormd door UPB fractie en fractie Santana, met Booi als nieuw lid en nieuwe aanpak, besloot aan het einde van het beraad door hoofdelijke stemming de referendum traject te stoppen. Daarna rijkte hij aan de eilandsraad een zgn Mission Paper aan die door de coalitie als motie werd aangenomen welke hij dan verder met Nederland gaat onderhandelen inzake de staatkundige stuctuur en verbeteringen voor Bonaire.

Dit komt als een emmer koud water over het hele volk heen, die eindelijk weer hoop begon te krijgen, door de positieve ontwikkeling en verenigen van de politiek voor Bonaire door een referendum te organiseren  waarbij  de volkswil en stem uiteindelijk gehoord kon worden, maar nu door de eigenhandige dicatoriale boycot van het referendum door Booi en groep haar stem en keuze als volk zag wegsmelten.

Wij richten ons aan u met het verzoek dat u geen enkele afspraken meer aangaat met Booi, die trouwens volgens het Openbaar Ministerie nog steeds verdachte is in de strafzaken tegen hem,  en zijn groep aangaande onze volkenrechten en dat de verdragen van de VN  gerespecteerd dienen te worden door alle politci, bestuurders zowel van Bonaire als van Nederland, totdat het volk zich heeft uitgesproken middels een volksraadpleging confrom het zelfbeschikkingsrecht.

Het moge duidelijk zijn dat de status Openbaar Lichaam Bonaire op drijfzand is gebouwd, internationale wetstoetsing niet doorstaat en dat er een referendum moet komen om recht te doen aan het volk van Bonaire.

Het is een publiek volksgeheim ondertussen, dat Dhr Booi, en tegen alle rationele en logika in, vrijgesproken is om de referendum te stoppen en het volk van Bonaire op dictaroliale wijze van haar recht op een referendum uit te oefenen. Het vertrouwen van het volk in de democratische rechtstaat is gedaald naar nihil door deze beslissingen en ervaringen.

Er zijn genoeg indicaties en insuanaties hierdoor die ernaar duiden dat Booi door Nederland onder politieke dwang handelt anders hij dan wel veroordeeld zal worden. Dit is ondertussen een terugkerend verschijnsel rond de verkiezingen, waarbij Booi precies in de aanloop naar de verkiezing van zijn beschuldigingen en aantijgingen en rechtzaken vrijgesproken wordt en dan direkt daarna met de vrijspraak politieke voordelen en populariteit geniet en aan de macht komt of blijft.

Ik ben bereid dit op deze manier te verklaren daar ik zelf persoonlijk hiermee tenminste tweemaal heeft meegemaakt. De eerste keer was in de aanloop naar de verkiezing dat Elvis Tjin A Sjoe , hoogste votegetter van de UPB, ex-minister, etc, mijn jeugdvriend, mij vertelde dat de hele commotie rond Booi’s  rechtzitting en aantijgingen niet helemaal is wat het lijkt maar een soort scene is dat goedkomt als de verkiezing nadert. Ik had er echt problemen mee daar het hele Boneriaanse politieke panorama en de staatsstructuur die illegaal tot stand kwam door Booi verdedigd en beschermd word, een  soort ego-trip is geworden, en onze volk heeft verdeeld,  en dat hij met zijn politieke macht het uiterst moeilijk zal maken om het recht en stem van het volk tot uiting te brengen. De tweede keer dat ik in aanraking kwam met deze kwestie is dat ik na een radio en televisie-interview bij de zendstation van Dhr Booi, Radio Energia, ongeveer anderhalf jaar geleden, door hem persoonlijk werd aangesproken.

Hij intimideerde mij bewust en krachtig dat ik moest stoppen met protesteren tegen het staatstructuur daar ik teveel energie en tijd van hun verspilde met al het protest, acties en brieven etc, en beter met hun moest samenwerken om het te verbeteren. En op mijn vraag hoe hij dat ging oplossen, daar eerder door iedereen en hunzelf via de media heeft verklaard dat er niets meer gedaan kan worden aan het staatsstructuur en wij vooruit moesten gaan kijken en het beste eruit moesten gaan proberen te halen etc. Zijn reactie en oplossing aan mij was dat ik me geen zorgen hoefde te maken, omdat hij ondanks dat hij verdachte is en door de Openbare Ministerie aangeklaagd is vrij komt en dan weer de politiek in ga om met Nederland te gaan onderhandelen en de situatie van de staatstructuur te verbeteren. Dus door mijn eigen persoonlijke ervaring en aanraking met dit publieke geheim was het niet echt een verassing dat Booi net een week voor de behandeling van de referendum in de eilandsraad vrijgesproken werd en dat hij direkt zijn missie zoals verteld aan mij persoonlijk ging voltooien, dus stoppen van het  referendum en uitsluiten van de volk van Bonaire van het laten horen van zijn stem, en verder opbouwen met Nederland aan de “illegale” staatkundige status van Openbaar Lichaam Bonaire.

Wij vragen u degelijk rekening te houden met deze verklaringen dat bij het Boneriaanse volk echt de laatste druppel in het volle emmer is gevallen, en om echt niet verder te forceren om haar recht af te nemen, en doen alsof iedereen zijn neus bloed en verder met Booi en zijn genoten verder gaat onderhandelen.
Als er geen mogelijkheid is om door middel van een “maatregel van bestuur” door de Nederlands  bestuur  een zelf-beschikkings-referendum conform de eisen en regels van Verenigde Naties te organiseren voor het volk van Bonaire, door de impliciete boycot van Booi, dat u dan in naam van het volk van Bonaire, door uw erkenning dat de 10-10-10 akkoorden niet conform de internatioanle volkensrecht door het Boneriaans (en Statiaans) volk is geligitimeerd, geen enkele besprekeing meer te voeren op de staatstrcutuur nivo, totdat het Boneriaans  volk conform de VN verdragen en regels zijn stem en wens door middel van een volksraadsplegen heeft laten horen.

 Ik hoop namens de Stichting Nos Kier Boneiru Bek en de ruim drieduizend firmanten van een petitie tot het houden van een referendum, dat u met dit verzoek instemt.
In afwachting op uw inhoudelijke reactie, verblijf ik,

Namens de Stichting Nos Kier Boneiru Bek,
Postbus 341, Bonaire. Email: jamesfinies@gmail.com