France continues to violate UN Charter on French Polynesia

 

A Decade of Violations of the United Nations Charter by the French Republic with respect to non-compliance of Article 73(e)
of the United Nations Charter (2013-2023)

Article 73

Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:

……..

 

e) to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories to which Chapters XII and XIII app

Dates of non-transmission of information by France under Article 73 e of the United Nations (UN) Charter with respect to  Ma'ohi Nui/French Polynesia

2013 – 2023

 Administering Power         Year                            Transmission of Information

France	2013	No information transmitted
France	2014	No information transmitted
France	2015	No information transmitted
France	2016	No information transmitted
France	2017	No information transmitted
France	2018	No information transmitted
France	2019	No information transmitted
France	2020	No information transmitted
France	2020	No information transmitted
France	2021	No information transmitted
France	2022	No information transmitted
France	2023	No information transmitted

According to its resolution 67/265, the General Assembly recognizes that, in the light of the provision of Chapter XI of the Charter of the UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), French Polynesia remains a Non-Self-Governing Territory within the meaning of the Charter.” (U.N. Document A/78/63  of 11 January 2023).

 

U.S. TERRITORIAL VOTING RIGHTS AND POLITICAL INEQUALITY

Statement of Dr. Carlyle Corbin

International Advisor on Governance

to a Briefing on of the Voting Rights in the U.S. Virgin Islands

U.S. Virgin Islands Advisory Committee

to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

January 23, 2023

    
At the outset, I wish to thank the U.S. Virgin Islands Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for the kind invitation to participate in this discussion.

    The subject at hand is the particular question of territorial voting rights in the US political system. It is evident that this a function of the general question of the overall political inequality of our unincorporated territorial status.

    Following the end of WWII and the subsequent adoption of the United Nations Charter, such dependency arrangements as our own were to serve as preparatory to the full measure of self-government (Article 73) - not the embodiment of it. This may be why attempts at reforming or modernizing the territorial status through legal challenges and US Congressional legislation have not been successful to present day.

    Such dependency reform measures being proposed to the territorial status, as presidential and Congressional votes, delegate representation in the US Senate, de-legitimization of the Insular Cases, et al, would provide for, at best, a position of “lesser inequality” within the US political system. Even in the unlikelihood that any of these proposed measures would be adopted, the territories would not be elevated to the full measure of self-government (FMSG) required under international law.

    If the proponents of these dependency reform measures take the position that the current political status of the US territories is that of political inequality requiring remediation, then we are in agreement. Where we may differ is how to address the inequivalence. I would suggest that the inequality is best remedied through the attainment of a permanent political status through a process of self-determination where options of full political equality would be considered. Self-determination is a fundamental human right which has yet to be exercised in the US Virgin Islands or other territories.

    Only last December, the UN General Assembly adopted its annual resolution on the US Virgin Islands (Resolution 77/147) which called for public education programmes in the territory “to foster an awareness among the people of their right to self-determination in conformity with the legitimate political options” providing for full political equality. As always, the US joins in the consensus on the US Virgin Islands resolution even as we await full implementation of such a programme.

    The General Assembly also adopted last December a resolution calling for the countries which administer territories, like the US, to take all steps necessary to enable the people” of the US Virgin Islands and other territories “to exercise fully and as soon as possible their right to self-determination.” This international self-determination mandate applies directly to the US Virgin Islands even as it is not well known, and rarely referenced, or even misconstrued, in local discourse.

    This mandate is codified in Article 73 of the UN Charter, in particular Article 73(b) which requires the administering Power to advance the territory to the full measure of self-government, and Chapter XI, Article 73(e) which mandates the administering Power to report to the UN annually on developments in the territory. The US, as the US Virgin Islands’ administering Power, complies with Article 73(e) by submitting information to the UN. Regarding Article 73(b) on the advancement of our territory to the full measure of self-government, the compliance is not so evident as we remain a non-self-governing territory (NSGT) under international law without full political, economic or social rights.

    Territories such as Guam have taken the approach to select from one of the three options of political equality, namely US statehood, free association or independence. The adoption by the US House of Representatives of the Puerto Rico Status Act last December (2022) also endorsed these same three political status options. These political status alternatives are aligned with UN doctrine [UN Res.1541(XV)] and are cited in several White House Reports as the permanent options for Puerto Rico - and by extension, for the other US territories. Guam and Puerto Rico have followed this approach, and have removed the unincorporated territorial status from consideration because of the inherent inequalities of the status quo. Congress followed suit by consciously omitting the unincorporated territory status from the Puerto Rico Status Act.

    The attainment of any of these three genuine self-governing choices would, by definition, provide for equal voting rights. Accordingly, US statehood would yield full political, economic and social rights (and responsibilities) in the US political system, and could be achieved as a stand-alone state, or also as integration into an existing state. The other options of free association or independence, respectively, would provide for full rights within the political systems created under those alternatives.

    This process of self-determination is the route to address the existent political inequality of a system which has effectively reached its peak in terms of the political evolution of a polity – a system which was never meant to be permanent in any event, but rather intended to be transitional to a permanent political status. The problem comes when the temporary becomes indefinite.

    Unsurprisingly, the likelihood of success in remedying the specific political inequalities and democratic deficiencies of the present territorial status through various proposed reforms remains slim. Recent efforts mirror initiatives dating back over a half-century with similar results. Neither US Court decisions nor Congressional legislative proposals have yielded outcomes favouring political rights for territories - because full political rights in the US system inhere in states. Territories are not states.

    On this point, three challenges to the lack of presidential voting rights for US citizens in Puerto Rico between 1994 and 2004 were consistently denied, and determined not violative of the constitutional rights of those citizens. The consistent determination was – and remains - that such voting rights under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution inhere not in citizens, but in states - absent the unlikelihood of a constitutional amendment as previously adopted for the District of Columbia.

    An earlier 1984 ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit resulted in a similar conclusion for Guam. A 2006 case in the U.S. District Court for the US Virgin Islands, upheld by the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals, confirmed that the US Constitution does not grant the right to vote for President and Vice President to individual citizens, but to “Electors” appointed by each state.

    In the 2020 analysis “America’s Territories: Equality and Autonomy,” eminent American legal scholar Howard Hills confirmed that “the U.S. Constitution itself allows fully equal representation in Congress and the Electoral College only for citizens of a state, making any remedy other than statehood less than equal” (emphasis added).

    On this particular question of territorial voting rights, the late U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals Justice Juan Toruella in 2014 referred to the inherent “state of eternal inequality” including the “political impair(ment) of the territory(ies’) representation to the US House of Representatives.”

    In fact, the limitation of the territorial vote in the US House was confirmed as early as 1993 by U.S. District Court ruling which set a requirement for an automatic recount excluding the territorial representatives in the event that their votes had been “decisive.” These limitations were later reflected in a 2017 U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the limitation of the authority of what was referred to as the “officers who represent territories and properties possessed or administered by the United States (emphasis added). Being referred to as possessed ‘properties elicits a particular reaction for a people whose ancestors suffered the crimes against humanity perpetuated under chattel slavery.

    There is a larger picture. Such dependency reforms that could unilaterally alter elements of the political status of the US territories, one way or another, are being pursued without the informed consent of the people of the territories. This is especially concerning in light of the potential implications of such initiatives. One such proposed measure is illustrative. If proposed federal legislation is adopted “to reject the Insular Cases and ‘their application to all present and future cases and controversies’, the basis for unincorporated territorial status would disappear. However, the territorial clause would still remain applicable.

    Would the US territories, then, become incorporated territories, by default, since the basis for unincorporated territorial status would have disappeared? Would US territories, then, be vulnerable to the application by Congress of the full corpus of the US Constitution - as has historically been the case for incorporated territories? Would this incorporation put the USTs on the road to statehood - without the formal concurrence of the people? Some analysts are asking these questions.

    Specifically for the US Virgin Islands, would there be unintended political, economic and social consequences of incorporated territorial status? - Loss of Jones Act exemption? - diversion of tax revenue to Washington? - Incorporation into the US Customs zone? I would suggest that the people should be made fully aware of any such unintended consequences of these dependency reform initiatives. Ironically, the Congress can unilaterally impose such measures, and more, under the plenary authority of the territorial clause of the US Constitution. Therein lies a particular irony that such measures are being pursued without a public discussion.

    Another proposed initiative affecting the US territory of American Samoa is also relevant. That territory’s political leadership continues to vehemently object to court challenges that would unilaterally confer an unwanted US citizenship on its people. Their concern is that this could have potential implications for their land rights and indigenous governance. American Samoa leaders from all political parties regard such efforts as violative of their right to self-determination since their status could be unilaterally changed by a US court decision.

    Overall, the clarification should be made as to the current relationship between US territories and the US. It is often routine to refer to the USTs as part of the US, when in effect, is it more accurate to refer to the territories as being owned by the US - as the ‘territorial clause’ of the US Constitution implies? It is instructive that the application of the territorial clause refers to “territory or other property belonging to the United States” (emphasis added).

    In this light, it is interesting that the French Constitution, the Netherlands Kingdom Charter, and the political and constitutional documents of other ‘democracies' (which also administer dependencies) clearly identify these respective territories by name in their governance documents. (Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Aruba, Curacao, Sint Maarten, et al). It should speak volumes that the linkage between the US Constitution and the US territories is not by name, but rather tied to the Article of the US Constitution that deals with property.

    This is our political reality reflective of an anachronistic model of dependency governance that was never meant to be permanent, but preparatory to something permanent. Yet, in the absence of public discourse, the illusion prevails that there is legitimacy in the territorial status as a permanent, democratic form of governance worthy of modernization, and that it only needs to be reformed or modernized. A sustained dialogue on these issues is required.

    Perhaps a discussion on the general question of a permanent status for the US Virgin Islands might be held in future - unless the adoption of a territorial constitution through the recently-legislated Sixth Constitutional Convention would be perceived as the final step in our political evolution. It should be recognized, however, that just as a territory is not a state, a territorial constitution is not a state constitution. There is no territorial clause applicable to states.

CONCLUSION

    I conclude on the particular question of the right for the people of the US Virgin Islands and other US territories to vote in the US political system. This is not a question of a denial of civil rights, but rather a symptom of a political status which was not intended to provide such rights to non-states. Again, political rights inhere in states, not citizens, as clearly set forth in the US Constitution and re-confirmed in relevant US court decisions, and consistent Congressional refusal to legislate political rights for territories in the US system.

    I reiterate that full political rights can only be achieved through the evolution to a permanent political status through a process of self-determination - a fundamental human right, rather than a US civil right. This would yield a model of democratic governance devoid of the existent political, economic and social inequalities of the status of “territory or other property belonging to the United States.”

BONAIRE SELF-DETERMINATION DENIED - NEW BOOK BY JAMES FINIES

   The book, Self-determination Denied, has as its main objectives: to document and commemorate events that transpired between 2010 and 2020; inform about important decisions, situations and actions that led towards the illegal annexation of Bonaire; and document the consequences of the change of status imposed on Bonaire. It will further shine light, desecrate and encapsulate the persons, politicians, leaders, the players, their actions, and all that led to the betrayal and annexation of the Bonaire people on October 10, 2010 going forward to October 10, 2020.

    The people of Bonaire never chose this change of status termed “public entity” and also referred to as “special municipality”. On the contrary, Bonereans used a referendum to express their overwhelming rejection of the imposed status under unequal rights in the Dutch Constitution.

    The book will reveal the atrocities committed against our people, the social inequality, the oppression of our rights, and the suppression of our culture on Bonaire.  Imposed laws, policies, regulations, and taxes rob our people of their natural food resources and inherited land and leave them destitute. Local Bonerians, now a shrunken and displaced population, have become a minority group on their own island in less than a decade.

    Further the book, Bonaire Self-Determination Denied, will summarize Nos Ke Boneiru Back trajectory to re-list Bonaire back on the Non-Self-Governing-Territories list of the United Nations that started in 2016, when Mr. James Finies spoke as the first Antillean in the Special Committee on Decolonization. History has shown us that only  international exposure can free our people and guarantee the right of self-determination to the whole Dutch colonies in the Caribbean; Sint Eustatius, Saba, Bonaire, Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten.

Click on the following link to watch the trailer-promo: https://youtu.be/dNoiZo_hNbY

INDEPENDENT SELF-GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT ON BONAIRE

 

U.N. Fourth Committee Approves 23 Texts on Decolonization

 

MEETINGS COVERAGE

GA/SPD/725

6 NOVEMBER 2020

• GENERAL ASSEMBLY 
  • FOURTH COMMITTEE

SEVENTY-FIFTH SESSION, 10TH MEETING (PM)

Fourth Committee Approves 23 Texts on Decolonization, as It Concludes Main Part of Seventy-Fifth General Assembly Session

Chair Notes High Output Despite Constraints Imposed by COVID-19 Pandemic, Highlighting ‘Exceptional’ Joint General Debate

The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) approved 22 draft resolutions and one draft decision concerning decolonization today, as it completed its work for the main part of the General Assembly’s seventy-fifth session.

At the outset, the Committee approved the a text titled “Information from Non‑Self‑Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations” by a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions (France, United Kingdom).

By its terms, the General Assembly requests that administering Powers transmit or continue to regularly transmit to the Secretary‑General statistical and other technical information relating to the economic, social and educational conditions in the Territories within a maximum period of six months following the expiration of the administrative year.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution “Economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non‑Self‑Governing Territories” by a recorded 162 votes in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 3 abstentions (El Salvador, France, United Kingdom).

By that text, the Assembly reaffirms its deep concern at the number and scale of natural disasters in the course of 2017 and their devastating impact on Caribbean Non‑Self‑Governing Territories.  The Assembly also expresses concern about activities aimed at exploiting the natural and human resources of the Non‑Self‑Governing Territories to the detriment of their inhabitants.

Further by that text, the Assembly calls upon administering Powers to ensure that the exploitation of marine and other natural resources in the Non‑Self‑Governing Territories neither violates relevant United Nations resolutions nor adversely affects the interests of the Territories’ peoples.  It also calls upon those Powers to provide all necessary assistance to those in the Territories affected by hurricanes in order to alleviate humanitarian needs, support recovery and rebuilding efforts, and enhance emergency preparedness and risk reduction capabilities.

The Committee also approved — by a recorded vote of 115 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 52 abstentions — the draft “Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations”.

By that text, the Assembly recommends that all States intensify their efforts to ensure full and effective implementation of the Declaration through specialized agencies and other entities of the United Nations system.  It also urges those that have not yet provided assistance to Non-Self‑Governing Territories to do so as soon as possible.

Taking up the draft “Dissemination of Information on Decolonization draft resolution XVIII” (document A/75/23, chapter V, p.100), the Committee approved it by a recorded vote of 168 in favour, 2 against (Israel, United States) with 1 abstention (France).

By its terms, the General Assembly requests that the Department of Global Communications continue its efforts to update web-based information on the assistance programmes available to the Non-Self-Governing Territories.  It also requests that the Department, and the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, implement the recommendations of the Special Committee on Decolonization.

The Committee then turned to the draft “Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” (document A/75/23, chapter V, p.102), by which the General Assembly calls upon administering Powers to cooperate fully with the Special Committee to develop and finalize a constructive programme of work for the Non-Self-Governing Territories to facilitate implementation of the Special Committee’s mandate as well as relevant resolutions.

Moreover, the text calls upon administering Powers to ensure that economic and other activities in the Territories do not adversely affect the interests of their peoples but instead promote development.  It also calls upon the administering Powers to terminate military activities and eliminate military bases in the Territories.  The Committee approved the text by a recorded 126 votes in favour to 3 against (Israel, United Kingdom, United States), with 42 abstentions.  

The Committee then turned to the draft resolution “Fourth International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism: draft resolution XX” (document A/75/23, chapter V, p.106), by which the General Assembly declares the period 2021–2030 the Fourth International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism.  As such, the Assembly calls upon Member States to intensify their efforts to implement the plan of action for the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism.  It calls upon the administering Powers to cooperate fully with the Special Committee to develop a constructive programme of work for the Non-Self-Governing Territories to facilitate implementation of its mandate.  The Committee approved the text by a recorded vote of 147 in favour to 3 against (Israel, United States), with 22 abstentions.

It went on to approve several other texts without a vote, including “Offers by Member States of study and training facilities for inhabitants of Non-Self-Governing Territories” (document A/C.4/75/L.2), by which the General Assembly urges administering Powers to take effective measures to ensure widespread and continuous dissemination of State-offered study and training facilities information in Territories and provide all facilities necessary to enable students to avail themselves of such offers.

Acting again without a vote, the Committee approved drafts on the following individual Non‑Self‑Governing Territories:  American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, French Polynesia, Guam, Montserrat, New Caledonia, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Tokelau, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands.

The Committee went on to approve, without a vote, a draft resolution and a draft decision on the questions of Western Sahara and Gibraltar, respectively.

Finally, the Committee a draft decision on its programme of work for the seventy-sixth session without a vote.

In concluding remarks, Committee Chair Collen Vixen Kelapile (Botswana) noted that it approved 34 draft resolutions and three draft decisions despite constraints imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic.  On an exceptional basis, the Committee held a joint general debate on all 11 substantive agenda items before it, which heard 135 statements delivered in 10 formal meetings and two virtual informal meetings.

Delivering statements in explanation of position were representatives of the United States, United Kingdom, Argentina, Germany, Australia, Armenia and Spain.

Speaking in exercise of the right of reply was the representative of Azerbaijan.

Wamytan elected as New Caledonia Congress president

RNZ PACIFIC/PACNEWS The pro-independence politician Roch Wamytan has been elected as the president of New Caledonia's Congress. Wamytan of the Caledonian Union secured 29 of the 54 votes after getting the backing of the three members of the new Pacific Awakening party. He defeated Magali Manuhoalalo of the anti-independence Caledonia Together party who won 25 votes. Pacific Awakening was tallied as being part of the anti-independence bloc after the provincial elections 12 days ago. However, the party, which represents mainly ethnic Wallisians and Futunians, decided to endorse Wamytan over Manuhoalalo, who is also an ethnic Wallisian. The Congress vote has gone against this week's deal struck within the anti-independence camp which had earmarked the Congress presidency for Philippe Michel. This was agreed after the big winner of the provincial election, Sonia Backes of the Future with Confidence, assumed the presidency of the southern province. The deal also provides for the presidency of the collegial government to go to Future with Confidence.

LACK OF INFORMATION, NOT LACK OF DESIRE, IMPEDES SELF-DETERMINATION PROCESS - VIRGIN ISLANDS ATTORNEY

A PRAGMATIC LOOK AT THE WAY FORWARD FOR NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES AT THE END OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL DECADE FOR THE ERADICATION OF COLONIALISM

 

Statement of Judith L. Bourne, Esq. 

to the Caribbean Regional of the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization 

2 - 4 May 2019 

St. George’s, Grenada 

Ms. Chair, 

I thank the Special Committee for this opportunity to present my views on this most important matter which impacts my home of the US Virgin Islands as well as the mostly small island dependencies on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. 

I also thank the government and people of Grenada, for the gracious Caribbean hospitality that they have extended to me and to all of the participants at this seminar. 

The theme of this seminar contains three significant concepts - accelerating decolonization, renewed commitment and pragmatic measures. I will focus on these three concepts as they relate to the NSGTs that are not the subject of sovereignty disputes, which require a different analysis.

ACCELERATING DECOLONIZATION 

In this 29th year of a specific focus by the UN on the eradication of colonialism, the penultimate year of the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, why are we talking about increasing the speed of this process? 

We do so because within this almost generation and a half, there has been one territory decolonized and one territory returned to the jurisdiction of the Committee on the recognition that it has not been effectively decolonized, leaving a grand total of zero percent change in the number of NSGTs. 

To be perhaps uncomfortably frank, if Administering Powers felt that it was in their interest to encourage self-determination in the NSGTs that they administer, we would be in an entirely different situation.

RENEWED COMMITMENT 

An initial examination of this concept calls for immediate clarification: a renewed commitment to what by whom? I maintain that the only correct response is a renewed commitment to the actualization of the right of self-determination as set forth in U.N. Resolutions 1514(XV) and 1541(XV). 

Commitment to anything not rooted in these first principles encourages the erosion of the distinction between principles and ideals. And the commitment is not simply that of this Committee, but that of the UN as a whole. The responsibility for decolonization was recognized as that of the international community and was accepted by its foremost organization, the United Nations, which simply delegated to this committee the authority to directly oversee the process. 

PRAGMATIC MEASURES

The invocation of pragmatism is both encouraging and worrying. Encouraging because it is almost invariably useful to base courses of action on reality. Worrying because the call for “pragmatic measures” implies that there has been a focus on some idealized path and that we now need to deal with the ‘real world’. 

As the original of the UN document setting the theme and agenda of this seminar is in English, I have looked at the meaning of the word “pragmatic” in what I believe to be the leading dictionaries of the UK and the USA, which have been described as two countries divided by a common language. The OED gives the meaning as “Dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations”. Miriam Webster defines it as “relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters : practical as opposed to idealistic”. 

In fact, for the last 29 years, the Committee, as a political body composed of member states of the UN, has not seen itself as able to address the apparent fact that the major obstacles to decolonization are the nations who maintain the NSGTs as colonies - their fellow member states. This is neither surprising nor appalling; it is simply one of many implicit but normally unspoken facts of international relations. However, that reality should not, and must not, undercut or weaken the fundamental right to self-determination or seek to re-define it out of effective existence. 

Pragmatism calls for an examination of what factors would influence the Administering Powers to re-evaluate their interest in encouraging self-determination amongst their NSGTs. 

THE NEED FOR FOCUSED AND SUSTAINED PRESSURE BY THE PEOPLE OF THE NSGTS 

The early history of the successful decolonization of more than 80 territories, most of which are now member countries of the UN, was propelled by the expressed will of the colonized population. 

In February 1806, Frederic Tudor of Boston shipped a cargo of natural ice to Martinique believing that the people of that tropical island would welcome cool drinks and make him a fortune. What he did not realize was that, having no experience of ice-cooled anything, his potential customers had no interest in his ice, and it melted away unbought. 

Similarly, many of the people of the NSGTs, having little or no knowledge of the three self-determination options, or of how a choice might affect their lives or their futures, and demonstrate no generalized impulse towards self-determination. This should not be seen as a lack of desire, but as a lack of information. I described examples of the confusion caused by this lack of information in the U.S. Virgin Islands in my presentation at the 2017 Regional Seminar in St. Vincent, copies of which I have available, both on paper and electronically, for those who may desire to read it. 

What does this mean with respect to pragmatic measures? 

The first aspect of the reality that must be addressed is not to assume that the people of the NSGTs do not want significant changes in their status. The reality is that they do not have sufficient accurate information to even begin to think about what options exist and what those options might mean for them. 

The second aspect of this reality is that the Administering Powers that are not actively assisting their NSGTs in internationally recognized self-determination efforts are not likely to undertake such activities of their own volition. This is, of course, a politically sensitive assessment. 

Thirdly, and as a consequence of the first two conclusions, the pragmatic method to manifest a renewed commitment to the principle of self-determination and to decolonization, and to move that commitment forward, must be a process which directly addresses the need for education in the NSGTs, which includes providing them with more regular contact with the international community, which does not depend on action by the Administering Powers and which is in concord with resolutions adopted by the General Assembly. 

Fortunately, such measures have previously been set forth in detail in the “Plan of Implementation of the Decolonization Mandate 2006-2007" found in U.N. Document A/60/853; E/2006/75. This Plan of Implementation was presented by the then Chairman of this Special Committee, compiled and organized from the myriad of resolutions, statements and reports of the General Assembly, the Secretary-General, other U.N. bodies and this committee itself which speak to “innovative strategies [which] are necessary in order for the United Nations to fulfil its obligations to ensure the successful self-determination and subsequent decolonization of the remaining non self-governing territories through the assumption of a full measure of self-government.”[1] This Plan was welcomed and recognized as “important legislative authority” by the General Assembly in December 2006.[2]

While there may be differences of opinion about the causes of the lack of significant progress in the decolonization effort over the past 29 years, the theme of this seminar is evidence of a general agreement that such progress has not occurred. This more-than-a-decade-old plan remains sharply relevant and such commonly heard reasons for non-implementation as the lack of budgetary resources can be readily overcome by including the necessary resources in the budgetary process and advocating for their funding in accord with paragraph 20 of General Assembly resolution 73/123. 

I urge this seminar to exhort the Committee to go “back to the future”, to reach back to this well-grounded, well-developed Plan of Implementation that was endorsed by the General Assembly twelve years ago and to have its staff begin implementation as a matter of utmost urgency. 

Thank you.
________________________________________________

[1]Introduction to Plan of Implementation of the Decolonization Mandate 2006-07

[2]A/RES/61/130

USVI LT. GOVERNOR ADDRESSES U.N. DECOLONIZATION SEMINAR

THE QUESTION OF STATUS AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 

OF THE UNITED STATES 

Presented by TREGENZA A. ROACH, Esq. 

Lieutenant Governor 

United States Virgin Islands 

To the Caribbean Regional Seminar 

of the United Nations 

Special Committee Decolonization 

May 2, 2019 

St. George’s, Grenada 

Greetings Madame Chair, to all the members of your Committee, to all the representatives of other Non Self Governing Territories, to all the experts gathered here, ladies and gentlemen. I greet you as well on behalf of my Governor Albert A. Bryan, Jr. who was elected with me in November 2018 and inaugurated on January 7, 2019.

I thank the Government and the people of Grenada for their gracious hospitality, and I thank this Committee for the invitation to speak on the critical issue and noble endeavor, eradication of colonialism. 

Although this will be my first time engaging many of you, this is actually the fourth time that I will be addressing this Committee on this topic. In fact, it has been exactly one decade since my last presentation in 2009 when the seminar was held in Basseterre, St. Kitts and Nevis.

At that time, I presented shortly after the conclusion of a University project, a program of public education in support of the Territory’s Fifth Constitutional Convention. An expected outcome of the Convention was a constitution drafted locally, which would replace the United States federal Organic Act which first organized a Government for the Virgin Islands when the Territory and its people were purchased from the Kingdom of Denmark in 1917. The year 2017 marked the 100th Anniversary of that acquisition.

That purchase, and the identification of the United States Virgin Islands, or actually the Virgin Islands of the United States, a title which fully confirms a possessory status, keep us on the agenda of this Committee, because they confirm the absence of either full integration, or full self government.

I want to return to the purchase because it is essentially the reason why we are here and why the status of the Virgin Islands is a very different matter than our closest US neighbor in the Caribbean, the island of Puerto Rico whose relationship with the United States has its origins in the Spanish American War. We reference Puerto Rico because we want to be specifically on the alert for those in the United States who might suggest that our status issue might be resolved together. The status of Puerto Rico with its unique history and culture and with a population of more than 3 million to our 105 thousand and more people than several US states, and the status of the US Virgin Islands require separate treatment.

Our present status, though it was acquired more than one hundred years ago, represents the shameful act of the purchase of land and people in the relatively modern era, many decades after the Emancipation in all the territories framed by European slavery. In fact, it took 15 years after the purchase before the United States fully conferred its citizenship on the people of the Virgin Islands. These people had essentially been left stateless during this period, having neither the citizenship of the previous colonial power, nor the new.

And the identification of the Virgin Islands as an Unincorporated Territory of the United States—one in which the United States Constitution does not apply automatically, but only by action of the Congress of the United States—demonstrates the continued infirmities in that citizenship.

When the Congress passed Public Law 94-584 authorizing a locally drafted constitution, as referenced earlier, that law also provided that any Constitution adopted by the people of the Virgin Islands would require the approval of the Congress of the United States.

In its efforts to address the eradication of colonialism, the United Nations has provided in Resolution 1541 guidance by which this body would evaluate any movement by a territory to the path of being fully self governing.

You have said, through this Resolution, that a Non Self Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of Self Government by:

1. Emergence as a sovereign independent state;
2. Free Association with an Independent State;
3. Integration with an Independent State;

In the context of this Resolution, the adoption by a NSGT of a constitution which would first have to approved by the administering power, would not be endorsed as a movement to more self government. 

The present Government of the United States Virgin Islands recognizes the need for the Territory to embark on a new and meaningful conversation regarding its status which should culminate in a status referendum within this four year term.

However, we are mindful of critical issues to which we must speak. One such issue which we have avoided and continue to avoid, despite the fact that it rears its head every time we arrive at a juncture such as this, is identity. Questions of constitutions, status, self government, are inextricably bound to the issues of identity.

Throughout the Constitution project, there was a sentiment that Native Virgin Islanders should be entitled to special recognition “because they represent the ones who were colonized, who did not have the opportunity to define and determine their destiny as a people and as a self-governed entity.” 

That position, is clearly not shared by all. An opposing sentiment is raised by large numbers of migrants from the Eastern Caribbean who believe that living and raising families in the Territory for the previous four or five decades or more entitle them to play a part in the political fate of the Territory. 

It is echoed as well by large numbers of United States Citizens who have moved to the Virgin Islands from the continental United States and who trumpet their rights under the United States Constitution and controlling federal law.

Despite opposition to the idea of a special treatment for the group of persons who identify as native and who can trace their presence in the Territory back to Danish times and to the acquisition by the United States, it is an important issue which demonstrates the question of identity which confronts a place as it wrestles with both the idea of self determination and self government. The issue will not go away for a place which has witnessed tremendous demographic and political change, dating largely to the decades beginning with the 1960s.

Looking at the latest 2010 Census data, for example, we learn that our population reflects just about 70 percent native born with the remainder coming from the Eastern Caribbean Islands, the Greater Antillean Islands, several of the countries of North and South America, several European Countries, several nations of the Middle East, Israel, Palestine, African nations and others.

Second is the challenge of public education about the United Nations’ decolonization imperative. How do you even manage a conversation which in any way suggests a disassociation with the behemoth United States whose Government and culture have made significant impacts on the culture of the Territory since the imposition of its rule?

We would welcome the presence of the UN as an objective and credible voice regarding the decolonization process which extends not just to land, but to mind and body. We would also welcome your financial and other resources which can serve to advance the dialogue.

With the last constitutional effort in 2008, the funding devoted to public education was provided by the local government. That should not be the case, As a member state, and as an administering power, the United States should support financially status discussions and further pursuit of self government.

Madame Chair, I close by observing the paradox in which we find ourselves, a decade for decolonization has morphed into three, and from some perspectives, so much more is left to be accomplished with regard to the eradication of colonization. Yet the colonization of which we speak did not happen in a day, did not happen in three decades, but has in fact persisted for hundreds of years. The task is daunting, but it is pregnant with meaning. We must stay the course.

I thank you for the opportunity to engage on this topic. I look forward to spirited and valuable dialogue.

THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL DECADE FOR THE ERADICATION OF COLONIALISM - THE PENULTIMATE YEAR

Opening 2019 Session, Special Committee on Decolonization Elects New Chair

____________________________________________________________________________

SG/SM/19467-GA/COL/3329

21 FEBRUARY 2019

• SECRETARY-GENERAL
 
• STATEMENTS AND MESSAGES

Referendum on Status of New Caledonia ‘Important Step’ Forward in Decolonization Process, Secretary-General Says 

as Special Committee Begins Annual Session

ANTÓNIO GUTERRES

Following are UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ opening remarks at the organizational meeting of the 2019 session of the Special Committee on Decolonization, in New York (21st Feb. 2019):

Decolonization helped to transform the United Nations membership, propelling the Organization’s growth from 51 original members to 193 today.

Decolonization is one of the most significant chapters of the Organization’s history. But, this story is still being written, as 17 Non‑Self‑Governing Territories remain.

Each deserves attention. Each still waits to attain self-government, in accordance with Chapter [XI] of the United Nations Charter, the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and relevant United Nations resolutions.

In recent months, there has been notable movement on the question of New Caledonia. Last November, in a referendum, New Caledonians expressed their will on their future and on the status of the Territory. This was an important step forward in the decolonization process.

The cooperation of France, the administering Power, throughout the referendum process, in accordance with the 1998 Nouméa Accord, was commendable.

This Committee, for its part, assisted New Caledonia in the period leading up to the conduct of the referendum, dispatching two visiting missions to the Territory.

To achieve decolonization, the voices of the peoples of the Territories should be heard, as it was the case [in New Caledonia]. The cooperation of all concerned, including the administering Powers, is likewise vital.

It is also paramount that the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories understand the options regarding their political status and the right to choose their future freely.

I applaud the Special Committee’s tireless efforts to uphold its mandate and to support the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to achieve self‑government.

I also commend the Special Committee for maintaining dialogue and productive cooperation with the administering Powers and all concerned.

The United Nations decolonization successes across the decades can inspire us today. Let us uphold our duty to assist all the peoples of the Non‑Self‑Governing Territories in bringing their decolonization process to a successful conclusion, according to their choice.

The Special Committee has accompanied many Territories in their journey since the beginning of the 1960s. As you begin working in the 2019 session, I wish you every success. The Secretariat will do all we can to support your very important work.