New Martinique Exec. Council President, Caribbean Official Meet

Organization of Eastern Caribbean Caribbean States (OECS)

OECS Director General meets Martinique Council President

The meeting was the first since the election of a new administration in Martinique following the French national elections of Dec. 2015.

Director General of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), Dr. Didacus Jules (r), met with the President of the Executive Council of Martinique, Alfred Marie-Jeanne at the offices of the Collectivité de Martinique in Fort-de-France.

The meeting was the first since the election of a new administration in Martinique following the French national elections of Dec. 2015, and follows the long-established practice of briefing engagements between the Director General and newly elected heads of political administrations of member states.

The meeting covered a wide range of issues including the nature and structure of the new governance arrangements in Martinique, as well as the inherent implications for a smooth transition between both administrations and systems; the priorities of the new administration both domestically and in respect of regional cooperation; the governance structure and arrangements of the OECS; and the modalities of participation by Martinique as a member of the OECS in the work of the organization.

The meeting also discussed the efforts of the OECS Commission to make the organization more relevant for its non-independent and associate membership, and received the assurance of the Director General that the OECS Commission existed to serve the member states of the organization.

Attention was also given to the necessity for continued active participation of Martinique in the organization, and for continuation of the active engagement between the administration and the OECS Commission. In this regard, the President confirmed the decision of his administration to maintain its resident representation at the OECS Commission via the physical presence of the Commissioner for Martinique, and agreed on the urgent necessity for the appointment of elected representatives and other officials to the various OECS organs and working groups.

The parties to the meeting considered it a tremendous success, and agreed on the need for continued engagement and action in the interest of achieving concrete results.

The President and the Director General were supported by their respective delegations which included Chef de Cabinet Mme. Maguy Marie-Jeanne, OECS Commissioner for Martinique Mme. Murielle Lesales, and Head of International Relations at the OECS Commission, Anthony Severin.

Norfolk Island's Relationship with the United Nations & Australia

                                        Norfolk Island -The Website

            Norfolk Island's Relationship with the United Nations 

Norfolk Island appears nowhere on the United Nations' maps of the world. Although Australia signed the UN Charter as a foundation member on November 1, 1945, it did not pass onto the UN the fact that at that time Norfolk Island was a non-self-governing territory, although it was required to do so under the Charter's Article 73e. Thus the UN views Norfolk as a territory of Australia when it is not. It is a separate and distinct Colony of the British Crown placed under the authority of the Commonwealth of Australia. In 1972 Australia ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. PART I, Article 1 states: "1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. ... 3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realisation of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations." Australia has not applied the Covenant to Norfolk Island, and has, in fact, acted at times in direct opposition to the rights espoused by the Covenant. In 1977 the Norfolk Island Council, an elected body having no legal power or authority, was advised of the Australian Government's plans to incorporate Norfolk Island into an Australian electorate. The Council appealed to the UN for protection from these plans after specifically being denied the right of referendum on the issue by the Australian Government. Australia successfully lobbied other UN members to prevent the appeal's being heard. In 1978 the United Nations Association of Australia issued an extensive report about the status of Norfolk Island in relation to Australia and the UN. It concluded that the official Australian stance on Norfolk Island is "patently ludicrous", and that the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs clings to the claim that Norfolk Island is not a non-self-governing territory, but rather a part of metropolitan Australia, on the basis that no other member state of the UN has ever proposed otherwise. And to continue the litany of head-scratching actions, Australia has made 34 declarations to the International Labour Organisation denying that Norfolk is part of metropolitan Australia, stating instead that it is a dependent territory under Australia's authority. In 1980 the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights but neither has that Covenant been applied to Norfolk Island. And again the Australian Government has acted in direct opposition to it in dealing with Norfolk. Norfolk Island is thwarted in bringing these matters to the attention of the United Nations' General Assembly by the power that Australia holds over neighbouring Pacific nations in the form of foreign aid. Norfolk cannot afford, either, to have its case heard by the International Court of Justice or even to have its constitutional status clarified by Australia's High Court, the later of which is not liable to view the situation impartially. countryreports.org                       Norfolk Island's relationship with Australia The history of Norfolk Island's relationship with Australia is scattered with actions that are at best headscratching and at worst immoral and illegal. Australia has gathered more and more of the island to itself - wiping out Norfolk culture and robbing the islanders of their birthrights. In 1856 Her Majesty Queen Victoria's Order-In-Council declared that Norfolk Island was to become a distinct and separate settlement; the affairs of which be administered by the Governor of the Colonies of NSW and Norfolk Island. Her Majesty's instructions to the Governor were that he should preserve the Pitcairner's laws and usages including those relating to the possession, use and enjoyment of land. Today the islanders have to apply to the Australian Administrator for permission to put a driveway onto a road. The Pitcairners were advised that Norfolk was to be theirs to divide as they wished, but in the years following their arrival this promise was reneged upon and they succeeded in gaining title to only a quarter of the island's land. This was the first of many promises broken by those with the power of administering Norfolk Island. In 1896 the promise of self-government was reneged upon. The Governor of the day, Viscount Hampden, sailed from New South Wales (where he had decided that the islanders were incapable of governing themselves) and upon his arrival on Norfolk he read a prepared speech abolishing all the Laws of Norfolk Island and proclaimed new laws transferring all authority to New South Wales. He also removed the island's Chief Magistrate - the traditional head of the government - and made it an appointed position never again to be held by an islander. In 1908 the Norfolk Islanders living in Quality Row (a street in Kingston) were evicted from their homes of 52 years by Governor Harry Rawson when they refused to sign lease documents saying that their homes were the property of the Crown. The Crown, of course, did not own the land. In a rare display of defiance the evicted islanders burnt down some of the houses. The Australian Government still perpetuates the myth that the islanders were evicted because they burnt down the houses. In 1935 the Australian Government enacted, by virtue of their power of administration, the Norfolk Island Printers and Newspapers Ordinance. This made it illegal to publish any newspaper, newsletter or pamphlet without the approval of the Australian Administrator. This ordinance remained in force for 29 years: effectively banning free speech on the island - a right the islanders had, until 1935, put to good use in making known their unhappiness with the Administrator's treatment of island affairs. In 1948 the Australian Government passed a law forcing Norfolk Islanders to discard their British Passports and apply for Australian ones. Norfolk was, and is, a Colony of the British Crown. The residents of Norfolk Island were not Australian citizens, but were forced, without consultation, to become so. The ludicrousness of Norfolk Island's position in relation to Australia is nowhere more obvious than in the following. In 1957 the Australian Parliament passed the third of its Norfolk Island Acts. It repealed the Acts of 1913 and 1935, but failed to make provision for the continuance of the section by which it accepted authority over Norfolk Island. The result is that for almost 40 years, Australia has enforced laws in relation to Norfolk Island's administration which have no constitutional basis. During the 1970s a number of geological reports were issued concluding that the waters around Norfolk Island have a 95% chance of containing natural gas and/or crude oil at commercially viable depths. The Australian Government acted quickly to claim, as its own, Norfolk Island's 200-mile economic zone. Under what power this claim was made is a mystery. 1979 saw Australia pass the fourth of its Norfolk Island Acts. The 1979 Act provided for limited self-government, the continuance of which is dependent upon Norfolk Island supporting itself from its own resources. Norfolk has remained debt-free since the arrival of the Pitcairners and continues this tradition today - despite Australia selling and pocketing the fishing rights in Norfolk's territorial waters: an amount the Australian Government will not disclose, but in all likelihood is more than $1 million annually. During the 17 years since limited self-government was granted, more public works have been completed on the island than during the whole time Australia enforced its autocracy. The Norfolk Island Act reserves many powers to the Australian Government, which promised to release them within five years to the Government of Norfolk Island. Another promise broken - 17 years later and Australia still retains much of what it promised to release. In 1987 an Australian Government advisory committee reported to the Australian Government Norfolk Island's wish to have a "free association" status with Australia, whereby Australia would retain the powers of external affairs and defence. The report also outlined the method by which this could be achieved under the Australian Constitution. In 1991, however, the Australian Government took the opposite tack and announced that Norfolk was to be incorporated into the Australian Federal electorate of Canberra. Strenuous objections by the Norfolk Island Government and two referenda with 82% and 80.2% of votes against the Australian Government's proposal were dismissed by the Australian Government as "irrelevant". 1994 saw the Pitcairners declare themselves as the indigenous people of Norfolk Island and the discovery of their genetic uniqueness. Australia today denies that Norfolk has an indigenous population; yet at the same time it has no accepted definition of indigenousness. The Australian Government also denies that the Pitcairners are a separate and distinct people, even in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary - the Pitcairners of Norfolk Island can only receive successful organ transplants from another Pitcairner. The Australian Government perpetuates the myth that Norfolk Island is part of Australia by constantly declaring that it is so, without any foundation in fact. It is not. The myth is perpetuated even on the island itself, where the Australian Government, which has responsibility for the educational curriculum, sets essay topics such as "Why I am proud to be an Australian." This is part of Australia's declaration that is it dedicated to "strengthening the Australian identity in the external territories." As far as the Pitcairners of Norfolk Island are concerned, Australia's declaration is a dedication to bloodless genocide.