Kosovo fails by three votes to secure membership in UNESCO

A setback for Kosovo amid bitter rows 

over its ancient churches

BY T.J. AND ERASMUS

There is something supremely changeless about the daily rites of an Orthodox Christian monastery, such as the 700-year-old community of Visoki Decani on the western fringe of Kosovo, which occupies one of the most aesthetically graceful, and gloriously decorated, religious monuments in Europe. But in recent days the abbot, Sava Janjic, has been combining his liturgical duties as a Serbian Orthodox priest with another activity: using social media to explain why his community has opposed Kosovo's admission to UNESCO, the UN's cultural arm. For example, he has been posting pictures on Facebook, including a recent baptism, and a shot of a desecrated Serbian cemetery.

On the face of things, his efforts have borne fruit. This week, Kosovo (a land that was wrested from Serbian control after a NATO bombing campaign in 1999) failed by three votes to secure the two-thirds majority needed to join the cultural agency: some 92 nations voted in favour, 50 voted against and 29 abstained. Russia backed its historic ally Serbia in opposing the admission, which would have been a big boost to Kosovo's efforts to consolidate its statehood, currently recognised by 111 countries.

But as is well understood by Father Sava, who has long enjoyed a reputation as an internet-savvy "cybermonk", the story will not end here. Kosovo's ethnic-Albanian masters are insisting that they will redouble their efforts to join international organisations and in due course reapply to UNESCO. At issue is whether or not the Kosovo government can be relied on to protect the country's historic Orthodox Christian places of worship, four of which (including Decani) have been recognised by UNESCO as World Heritage sites and been placed at Serbia's behest on a list of cultural monuments in danger.

The Kosovo government insists that it will take good care of the Orthodox sites, which were put under the protection of international peacekeepers after the conflict of 1998-99 in which hundreds of religious monuments (Serbian churches and cemeteries as well as Albanian Muslim mosques and shrines) came under attack. Serbs point out that that even with international guards, their sites can be vulnerable; NATO forces failed to stop thousands of ethnic-Albanian rioters wrecking historic churches when they ran amok in Prizren and elsewhere in 2004. Kosovo Albanians retort that the ringleaders of that riot have been prosecuted, while Serbs have never said sorry for the religious vandalism which they perpetrated. These days Decani is the only Orthodox site in Kosovo which is internationally guarded.

Although the fear is over-blown, ordinary Serbs worry that if given the chance, the Kosovar authorities would simply take over the Serbian Orthodox monasteries and churches and expel the monks. For the 130,000 Serbs who still live in Kosovo, alongside 1.8m ethnic Albanians, seeing their kin lose control of those monasteries would be a devastating blow.

The argument over UNESCO has severely strained relations between figures in Kosovo who were previously seen as advocates of reconciliation, such as Father Sava on one side and Petrit Selimi, Kosovo's deputy foreign minister on the other. Mr Selimi has deplored the fact that the Serbian government and the Serbian church have, in his view, been working in close cahoots to block UNESCO entry. All other religious organisations active in Kosovo (Muslims, including Sufis, Catholics and Protestants) have signed a letter strongly supporting UNESCO membership, as Mr Selimi stresses. During the campaign Father Sava and Mr Selimi have been duelling on Twitter. 

For Serbia and many of its diplomatic supporters, including Russia, the UNESCO issue is part of a broader concern: a refusal to accept what they see as Serbia's forcible breakup through a NATO bombing campaign. But Father Sava is making a much narrower and more nuanced point: he thinks the UNESCO bid should not go ahead in the absence of some breakthrough in the so-called Brussels dialogue involving the European Union, Serbia and Kosovo. The EU has been trying to persuade Serbia and Kosovo to find a way of living together, pending the eventual entry of both places into the Union. Father Sava also points out that Martti Ahtisaari, the Finnish envoy who laid out a plan for Kosovo's independence, always insisted on international guarantees for holy sites; in the cleric's view, this proposal has been brushed aside.

What really worries the Serbian monks is the argument made by some Kosovo Albanian academics that the land's historic churches, despite their frescoes of Serbian kings, are in fact part of the Albanian Catholic heritage, and that the Serbs are interlopers.

Even as things are, life can be hard for Decani's 24 monks and novices who offered succour to all sides during the bitter fighting of 1999. Much of the local ethnic-Albanian population is hostile, and the monks have not ventured on foot into the nearby town in many years. The monastery has also been fighting a long battle with the local authorities over the ownership of land adjacent to the monastery.

It does not help that the Orthodox Serbs of Kosovo are internally divided. Their current spiritual leader is Bishop Teodosije, a former abbot of Decani; he took over from another prelate, Artemije, who pioneered the monastic revival in Kosovo but has been defrocked, in part because he now takes a harder line, both politically and theologically, than the church leadership in Serbia. Some Serbs still support the dissident cleric.

In recent years, Decani's magnificent walls have been daubed with Islamist graffiti and shot at with rockets. But, in the immediate wake of the battle over UNESCO Father Sava says he does not expect new attacks because “they would be highly harmful for Kosovo and would only confirm allegations that it is becoming an Islamist society and as such unacceptable for Europe." In a roundabout way, the high volume of arguments over Kosovo's UNESCO bid could serve as a sort of protection, however temporary, for the monastery.

Kosovo Fails to Gain Membership in UNESCO

PARIS – The general conference of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, voted on Monday against accepting Kosovo as a member of UNESCO, since the country failed to gain the support of two-thirds of the votes. The vote over Kosovo’s membership was backed by 92 votes, but 50 votes were against this bid and 29 abstained, while 15 countries did not attend the vote, so the bid fell short of the minimum required 95 votes. Kosovo’s bid will not be resubmitted for a vote until the next general conference of the United Nations organization, scheduled to be held within two years, according to UNESCO officials. Russia and Serbia were the most prominent countries to have adopted an active campaign to prevent Kosovo’s membership to the agency. Kosovo would have gained membership, which was originally proposed by Albania, if it had received the support of at least two-thirds of the countries attending the general conference and also two-thirds of the voters.

See: UNESCO Executive Committee approves Kosovo membership

UNESCO Executive Committee approves Kosovo membership

Vote of full membership expected in November 

DIPLOMATIC INTRIGUE AS COMMITTEE APPROVES KOSOVO’S BID TO JOIN UNESCO

Mark Leon Goldberg

Here is a totally overlooked story that is dripping with diplomatic intrigue.

Yesterday, UNESCO’s executive committee narrowly approved Kosovo’s bid to join the UN agency in a hotly contested election. UNESCO, the UN agency best known for the World Heritage program, also runs important scientific and education projects around the world, from Tsunami early warning systems, to Holocaust education, to fighting the trafficking in stolen antiquities by ISIS, to restoring mosques and mausoleums destroyed by extremists in Timbuktu.

Kosovo’s bid for membership is part of its ongoing attempt for international recognition as a state independent from Serbia. Serbia (and its historic ally Russia) disagree.

UNESCO is comprised of most UN member states, including Russia and Serbia. New states can join only after the 58 member executive committee sends the application to the 195 member General Conference, which has final say. Yesterday the executive board did that with a 27 to 14 vote, with 14 abstentions. Now, Kosovo’s quest for membership to UNESCO will be turned over to UNESCO member states for a vote at its General Conference in November.

And with that move, the UNESCO has suddenly at the heart of some second-tier diplomatic squabbles, the implications and result of which could have far-reaching implications.

Yet Another USA-Russia Clash

Russia is a longtime ally of Serbia, which strenuously opposes both Kosovo independence in general and bid at UNESCO in particular. The USA, on the other hand, has long championed Kosovo independence and it is one of 111 countries that recognize Kosovo’s independence from Serbia.

For years, the Security Council has been the venue in which Russia and the USA clash over Kosovo’s independence — or what is known in UN circles as “final status.” But those debates have gone nowhere because of the veto. The UNESCO bid shifts the venue of this debate to a forum where no country holds a veto.

The pro-Kosovo crowd won this round at the executive committee, but it will be interesting to see the extent to which Russia tries to influence the vote in the General Conference. Either way, the coming vote in the General Conference will be the latest manifestation (albeit a comparatively low stakes one) of the ever heightening global competition between Putin and Obama.

Implications for the Race to Replace Ban Ki Moon

UNESCO’s director general, the former Bulgarian foreign minister Irina Bokova, is a candidate to replace Ban Ki Moon as secretary general. She’s considered a frontrunner for the post. To win, she needs to earn the support (or at least, avoid the opposition) of the the five permanent members of the Security Council, including Russia. Accordingly, Bokova can’t be seen as favoring this decision one way or the other. But if Kosovo’s bid is successful, the key question is whether Russia will punish the institution over the actions of its member states, which is what the United States did five years ago when UNESCO admitted Palestine as a member state. (See below).

A Very Awkward Spot for the USA

Three years ago, the USA opposed Palestine’s bid to the join UNESCO, arguing that such a move would be counterproductive to the peace process on the ground. UNESCO member states overwhelmingly approved Palestine’s membership anyway. This time around, the USA voted for Kosovo’s membership, even though the rationale for opposing Palestine’s bid is basically the same: that membership to UN bodies can’t substitute for direct negotiations.

Another complicating issue is that the USA won’t actually be able to vote for Kosovo’s membership when the measure goes to the full UNESCO general conference next month. This is because the USA lost its voting rights there after failing to pay its dues to UNESCO for the last two years. And…wait for this…the USA did not paid its dues because a decades-old law prohibits the US government from funding any UN body that includes Palestine as a member. In other words, the USA can’t vote for Kosovo’s bid for membership at UNESCO because Palestine is a member state.

So…Stay tuned. The vote at the General Conference comes in early November.

A Permanent Memorial to Honour Victims of Slavery

*****

Inter Press Service

UNITED NATIONS  (IPS) - As a follow-up to a General Assembly resolution adopted recently. the United Nations last week announced an international competition for the creation of a Permanent Memorial to honour victims of Slavery and Transatlantic Slave Trade.

Over five centuries ago, more than 18 million people were forcefully removed from Africa and enslaved in the Americas and Europe in "one of the most devastative chapters of our history", Ambassador Joseph Goddard, Permanent representative of Barbados told reporters Friday. It’s a chapter the Permanent Memorial Committee and the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) decided to highlight at a U.N. press conference. The theme of the Permanent Memorial initiative is: " Acknowledging the Tragedy; Considering the Legacy; Lest We Forget".

"This monument must be a strong symbol to say ‘never again’," Ambassador Raymond O. Wolfe, Permanent Representative of Jamaica and chair of the Permanent Memorial Committee said.

With this permanent memorial, the international community wants to ensure that the world will never again endure another tragedy of such immense proportions, which today is commonly referred to as a crime against humanity. The memorial is aimed at honouring the victims of this crime, Tete Antonio, Permanent Observer of the African Union said. Philippe Kridelka, Director of UNESCO’s New York Office said "this monument is not only a symbol, but it is part of the educational process around the memory of slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade".

The memorial represents an effort to acknowledge the tragedy of slavery but also to provide future generations with an understanding of the history and consequences of slavery. It will serve as an educational tool to raise awareness about the current dangers of racism, prejudice and the consequences that continue to impact the descendants of the victims today.

Wolfe pointed out "there are still contemporary forms of slavery, but a lot of resolutions have been adopted…the monument represents a source of reflexion not just in terms of what happened in the past, but also for what is taking place today." And he added, "We are here not to judge but to educate and encourage a total participation from all the countries because it is a United Nations’ project."

According to the press release, UNESCO invites artists, designers, sculptors, architects and other visual arts professionals worldwide to take part in this global effort to commemorate history. The deadline for the submission of design proposals to UNESCO is December 19, 2011. The design of the memorial will be selected through an internationally acceptable, credible and transparent global competition. The actual monument is expected to be unveiled at the United Nations Headquarters in New York in 2013.

Statians appeal to UNESCO to prevent oil terminal expansion

*****
Daily Herald

Statians appeal to UNESCO,  Petition launched Monday

ST. EUSTATIUS--St. Eustatius Awareness and Development (SEAD) Movement, Statia Roots Foundation (SRF) and historian and Head of Monuments Walter Hellebrand launched an appeal Sunday with United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in a bid to prevent the expansion of the NuStar terminal.

SEAD further launched a petition Monday against the projected construction of a second oil terminal in The Farm, while SEAD and SRF sent an open letter to the Executive Council on Sunday, in which they expressed their concerns about the "consequences and effects" of the expansion plans.

NuStar, which currently has 58 oil storage tanks on Statia with a capacity of more than 13 million barrels, wants to establish a new facility on the island with an additional 40 tanks and another jetty.

The petitioners believe that, considering the small scope of the 21-square-kilometre island, the expansion is out of proportion, while there are also concerns about safety, pollution and damage to coral reefs and marine life.

However, according to petitioners, the main point of concern is the location of the planned expansion, which they claim is a very valuable historical site with several slave cemeteries and other historical remains.

"The cemeteries are an essential part of the historical heritage of the people of St. Eustatius (as African descendants) and are of extreme value for the whole Caribbean region. They cannot be destroyed by bulldozers and replaced by oil tanks," they wrote in the letter sent to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee.

SEAD representative Kenneth Cuvalay, SRF President Paul W. Spanner and Hellebrand claim to represent a "group of concerned citizens [...] fighting against a multi-billion-dollar multinational." They fear that the local government, with its limited resources, would not be an equal partner in the discussions with NuStar.

According to the letter's three authors, the island government would be open to the expansion, because of the supposed extra tax income and the creation of new jobs.They are requesting UNESCO's aid in legal advice and counselling and are also seeking UNESCO's help in reaching out to the international community to prevent the expansion and to write a letter of concern to the island government.

In Sunday's letter to the Island Council, which was signed by SRF President Spanner and Secretary G. Berkel, as well as by Cuvalay, it was stated that a second oil terminal south of Signal Hill, in full view of most of the used part of the island, with a jetty for four mega-tankers right at the end of the beach of Lower Town, would seriously hamper any future development of tourism as a second economic pillar of the island.

SEAD is calling on Statians to sign a petition, which was launched Monday, expressing disapproval of NuStar building an oil terminal in The Farm and approval of NuStar seeking expansion of its oil terminal at the current location.

Non Aligned Movement Adopts 2008 Recommendations on Self-Determination

Some 118 Ministers of state or government of the Non Aligned Movement, at its 15th Ministerial Conference held in Tehran from 27-30 July 2008, adopted a final communiqué with specific portions directly relevant to overseas countries and territories, including indigenous peoples in those territories. In this connection, the relevant provisions are excerpted:

________________________________________________________________________________


Relevant Decisions of 2008 Non Aligned Movement

Self-Determination and Decolonisation

38. The Ministers reaffirmed and underscored the validity and relevance of the Movement's principled positions concerning the right to self-determination of peoples under foreign occupation and colonial or alien domination, as follows:

38.1 The Movement stressed the fundamental and inalienable right of all peoples, including all non-self governing territories, as well as those territories under foreign occupation and colonial or alien domination, to self determination, the exercise of which, in the case of peoples under foreign occupation and colonial or alien domination, remains valid and essential to ensure the eradication of all these situations and to guarantee universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms;

38.2 The Movement reaffirmed the right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination and independence on the basis of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), and expressed its unwavering support to the resolutions on Puerto Rico adopted by the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation; and called for their immediate implementation.

38.3 The Movement remained concerned at the loss, destruction, removal, theft, pillage, illicit movement or misappropriation of and any acts of vandalism or damage, directed against cultural property in areas of armed conflict and territories that are occupied.

39. Consistent with and guided by the afore-mentioned principled positions and affirming the need to preserve, defend and promote these positions, the Ministers agreed to undertake the following measures, among others:

39.1 Strongly support the work and activities of the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation, and again urge the Administering Powers to grant their full support to the activities of the Committee and fully cooperate with this UN body;

39.2 Request the colonialist countries to pay full compensation for the economic, social and cultural consequences of their occupation, bearing in mind the right of all people who were or are still subjected to colonial rule or occupation to receive fair compensation for the human and material losses they suffered as a result of colonial rule or occupation;

39.3 Strongly condemn the ongoing brutal suppression of the legitimate aspirations to self-determination of peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation in various regions of the world;

39.4 Urge UN Member States to fully implement the decisions and resolutions of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) concerning the return of cultural properties to the peoples who were or still under colonial rule or occupation, and in this regard, further urge UNESCO to identify the stolen or illegally exported cultural properties in accordance with the relevant conventions on the subject, and also urge the process of returning these properties to their countries of origin, in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, be expedited, bearing in mind the right of the Non-Aligned Countries to maintain and conserve their national heritage as it constitutes the foundation of their cultural identity;

39.5 Renew its call to UN Member States to speed up the process of decolonisation towards the complete elimination of colonialism, and including by supporting the effective implementation of the Plan of Action of the Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001-2010);

39.6 Work towards the full implementation of the principle of self-determination with respect to the remaining territories within the framework of the Programme of Action of the Special Committee on Decolonisation, in accordance with the wishes of the people consistent with the UN Charter and the relevant UN resolutions; 13

39.7 Oppose any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a State, which is incompatible with the UN Charter; and

39.8 Call on the Government of the United States to assume its responsibility to expedite a process that will allow the Puerto Rican people to fully exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence, and urges the Government of the United States to return the occupied land and installations on Vieques Island and at the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station to the Puerto Rican people, who constitute a Latin American and Caribbean nation.

39.9 Work actively to have the U.N. General Assembly to consider in its 63rd Session the question of Puerto Rico in all its aspects;

Democracy

154. The Ministers reiterated that democracy is a universal value based on the freely expressed will of the people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives. They reaffirmed that while all democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy, that it does not belong to any country or region, and further reaffirmed the necessity of due respect for sovereignty and the right to self-determination. They expressed their conviction that international co-operation for the promotion of democracy, on the basis of respect for the principles enshrined in the UN Charter as well as those of transparency, impartiality, nonselectivity and inclusiveness, could contribute to the attainment of the goal of democracy consolidation at national and international levels.

155. The Ministers reaffirmed that democracy, development and respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. The international community should support the strengthening and promotion of democracy, development and respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the entire world, in compliance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

Chagos Archipelago

196. The Ministers reaffirmed that Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, is an integral part of the sovereign territory of the Republic of Mauritius. In this regard, they called on once again the former colonial power to pursue constructive dialogue expeditiously with Mauritius with a view to enable Mauritius to exercise its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago.


Western Sahara

208. The Ministers reaffirmed the previous positions of the Non-Aligned Movement on the question of Western Sahara.

209. The Ministers reaffirmed all resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council on Western Sahara. They reaffirmed UN General Assembly resolution 62/116, adopted without a vote, and reiterated that, in accordance with the said resolution, they continued to support strongly the efforts of the Secretary General and his Personal Envoy to achieve a mutually acceptable political solution which will provide self-determination for the people of Western Sahara in the context of arrangements consistent with the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 and other relevant resolutions. The Ministers recognized that all available options for self-determination are valid as long as they are in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned and in conformity with the clearly defined principles contained in General Assembly Resolutions.

210. Bearing in mind the above, the Ministers welcomed the four rounds of negotiation held under the auspices of the Secretary General and welcomed the commitment of the parties to continue to show political will and work in an atmosphere propitious for dialogue, in order to enter into a more intensive phase of negotiations, thus ensuring implementation of Security Council resolutions 1754, 1783 and 1813 and the success of negotiations. They took note of efforts and developments since 2006.

211. They called upon the parties and the States in the region to cooperate fully with the Secretary General and his Personal Envoy, and with each other, and reaffirmed the responsibility of the United Nations towards the people of Western Sahara. They further welcomed the commitment of the parties to continue the process of negotiations through United Nations sponsored talks.


Indigenous Peoples

361. The Ministers took note with deep appreciation of the adoption of the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples by the General Assembly. Likewise, they reiterated their support for the need to promote the economic, political and cultural rights of the indigenous peoples and their commitment to give special attention to the efforts made at the national and multilateral levels in order to improve their living conditions through civil participation. Likewise, in face of undue appropriation and use of the traditional indigenous knowledge, they agreed to promote the defence of the bio-cultural collective heritage to allow indigenous peoples to have appropriate legal instruments on intellectual property so that their
traditional knowledge is protected against unauthorized or inappropriate use by third
parties.

362. The Ministers also supported the need to promote within the UN system, in particular its agencies, funds and programmes, the rights of indigenous peoples, through a series of policies and programmes for the improvement of indigenous peoples’ well-being around the world and, where applicable, through the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

363. The Ministers took note with appreciation of the adoption of the Human Rights Council resolution 6/36 of 14 December 2007, that established the expert mechanism on
the rights of indigenous peoples to provide the Council with thematic expertise on the rights of indigenous peoples.

U.N. Support to Territories Adopted

The United Nations (UN) Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) on the final day of the 2008 Session ending in late July adopted its annual resolution on “Support to Non Self-Governing Territories by the Specialised Agencies and international organisations associated with the United Nations”– but not without the usual detractors.

The international mandate on assistance to the non self-governing territories from the UN system, as a means of advancing their progress towards full self-government, has provided these territories for decades with the opportunity to gain valuable experience through participation in international deliberations on relevant issues affecting them. If they are to assume the increasing responsibilities of full self-government, a role in the UN system makes perfect sense. This activity has been supported by longstanding resolutions of ECOSOC and the General Assembly. In June, the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation adopted its own annual resolution on the matter, along with a package of other resolutions addressing various aspects of the promotion of self-government.

Dissenting Views

The larger countries which administer territories, and a few other developed countries, continue to express misgivings by abstaining on the vote on the ECOSOC resolution on support to the territories, even as they have supported over the years the participation of these territories in UN activities through other UN votes. In recent years, a number of these countries have based their objection on the contention that that the rules of procedure governing the specific UN bodies should be respected. The reality is that the rules of many of these UN organisations have always been respected, since provisions for the participation of territories have been put in place with the concurrence of these same administering countries.

Examples include resolutions providing for the participation of these territories in the UN world conferences from 1992 through 2005, as well as provisions for associate membership or observer status in a number of UN specialised agencies. Why, then, this emphasis on the respect for rules of procedure, if they are already being respected?

In the 2008 ECOSOC session, the rationale for abstaining on the resolution came from the usual groups of countries, particularly the European Union (EU), the United States, Japan - and even the Russian Federation. The EU position on the issue is rather puzzling since France and the United Kingdom administer a considerable number of the remaining non self-governing territories, most of which are the beneficiaries of support from a variety of UN organisations including UNESCO, the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the regional economic commissions among other UN bodies. EU-administered territories have also benefitted from participation in UN world conferences on environment, sustainable development, and small island developing states among others – consistent with the rules of procedure adopted by the UN with administering power concurrence.

Yet, speaking before the vote on behalf of the EU, France contended that “the subject in the resolution does not fall within the competence of ECOSOC.” But, since ECOSOC is the main UN body devoted to economic and social matters, and since the resolution addresses economic and social development assistance, how can the resolution be regarded as outside the competence of ECOSOC?

The US representative at the meeting expressed its own version of the issue. The US “agreed, in principle, that UN funds, programmes and specialised agencies can usefully provide support to territories that are not UN members, so long as the domestic laws and policies of a territory's administering power allow such UN support.” This is a statement of the obvious since the rules of the UN bodies require any request for territorial participation to be agreed by the administering country. So far, so good.

However, the US representative went on to “object to provisions in the resolution” that they somehow perceive to be an interference in the power of the administering country to decide “the nature, if any,” of territorial participation in UN programmes and activities. Since it is long established that the participation must be agreed by the administering powers, where’s the issue? The further contention that the prevailing arrangements for the US control of foreign affairs of the territories “has been accepted by the territories” belies the fact that the US territories have neither accepted not rejected their present status as non self-governing territories in the absence of a legitimate process of self-determination.

There are also numerous cases where the territories have not “accepted” such arrangements, after having been denied administering power approval to join such international bodies as the World Tourism Organisation, the Caribbean Community, the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, the Association of Caribbean States or the Pacific Islands Forum, among others. Most recently, the Governor of American Samoa, for example, has objected to the lack of US concurrence for the territory to join the Pacific Islands Forum, whilst various US Virgin Islands governments have similarly objected to the obstacles placed in the way to gain permission to seek participation in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and other regional bodies. Similar blocking of Puerto Rico’s interest in engaging various Latin American and other international institutions is legendary.

The further contention that the ECOSOC resolution somehow “infringe(s) upon the relations between the U.S. federal government and the governments of its territories, as well as upon the internal constitutional arrangements of the United States” is unnecessarily alarmist, and only serves to re-state administering power unilateral authority over the territory. This argument is made even in the face of the existence and maintenance of all of the controls over the dependency. These annual re-statements of position by member states, deviating little from previous years, are in dire need of updating and substantive correction.

One administering power, the Pacific state of New Zealand which administers Tokelau in the Pacific, spoke in favour of the resolution and made note of the longstanding support historically provided by UNDP and other UN bodies in their socio-economic and constitutional evolution of that territory. Bolivia, Cuba and Syria also spoke in favour of the resolution which had over 20 co-sponsors.

The Russian Federation, on the other hand, made an extraordinary proposal to remove from the ECOSOC agenda what it termed the “political item” of support to the territories. No such proposal was made to remove other items with a far higher degree of political implication, such as the one on “economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people.” In reality, there is equal merit for both items to remain on the ECOSOC agenda, and the Russian position favouring one, but not the other, might be reconsidered using the same principle applied to its veto of the Zimbabwe sanctions resolution (along with China) in the UN Security Council a month ago. All of these issues are but variations on the contemporary colonial/post colonial dynamic requiring the support of the UN and its member states.

Information Lacking on UN Support

Through it all, the dearth of information on the actual support to the territories continues to limit the awareness of the governments on the role of the UN bodies reflecting in the statements in the general discussion. According to the ECOSOC resolutions on the matter, the UN Secretary-General provides a report on the implementation of support to the territories each year. Rather than an annual substantive analysis of UN support by the UN Secretariat, the Secretary-General sends a request for information to the various UN and other international bodies for information on their assistance programmes. A compilation of the replies to this request constitute the content of the report on implementation. The trouble is that only a small fraction of the UN bodies actually reply. This makes for a largely incomplete report, even devoid of information from agencies which have continued to provide assistance to the territories for years. There was no UNDP reply this year, even as that Programme is the main provider of UN assistance to the territories. There was no ECLAC reply, even as the Caribbean territories are integrated into their programmes and activities (with longstanding administering power concurrence), and even as the substantive research on the issue has been conducted in that commission. There is no reply from the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) which similarly integrates territories into their work programme.

Such an incomplete substantive Secretary General’s Report tends to reinforce the faulty assumption that the UN agencies are somehow resistant to providing support to the territories. The reality is that the territories participate in a wide array of UN programmes and activities. Apart from the insufficiency of replies, the information is available on the websites of these agencies. Those who prepare the Secretary-General’s Report on the issue could do more in-depth research, rather than rely on the fraction of replies from a few agencies.

The overall issue of participation of the territories in the UN system was the subject of a comprehensive study undertaken for the ECLAC entitled “Further Integration of Associate Members in the United Nations System,” and published in December, 2007. The study is regarded as the most comprehensive examination to date on the subject. This study could have been made a document for consideration of the members of ECOSOC this year to provide insight on the nature, extent and challenges of participation of the territories in the UN system. At the least, the study could have been referenced in the 2008 ECOSOC resolution. Ironically, the very research study which would have shed considerable light on the nature and scope of territorial participation in the wider UN system was not made available to ECOSOC or to the General Assembly. Perhaps the update to the study could be included in the official ECOSOC documentation for 2009, but only if a member state so requests. In any case, without a more comprehensive picture of the level of territorial participation in the UN system, the UN’s 2009 consideration of this issue promises to be “déjà vu all over again,” with the same re-statements from the same countries, with the same language in the resolution and the same limited information in the Secretary-General’s report. This does little to further the development process of the territories for which this exercise is designed to assist.

Hidden within this repetitiveness are significant omissions and deletions of important text from the ECOSOC resolution. One such omission was the reference to the 2004 ECLAC decision to examine possible territorial participation in technical programmes of ECOSOC, in areas such as statistics and sustainable development. Both ECLAC resolutions were referenced several years ago. Amazingly, reference to a virtually identical 1998 resolution was retained by ECOSOC, even as it is standard UN practice that older references are deleted in favour of newer ones.

In the final analysis, the die was cast at the outset of the 2008 ECOSOC discussion when the acting chairman announced that the resolution had "no programme budgetary implications.” If a resolution that is to provide support to the territories has no budgetary implications, then the territories are wondering what kind of support is being considered.

Conclusions of Decolonisation Committee

Aside from the companion resolution on UN assistance, the Decolonisation Committee one month earlier adopted its usual number of resolutions on political, constitutional and socio-economic development of the territories. Of particular note is the consolidated resolution with recommendations on the decolonisation and self-determination process of eleven small island territories, mostly in the Caribbean and Pacific. A bit of political sleight-of-hand is reflected in the subtle changes introduced, and subsequently agreed by the member governments. Several are noteworthy.

First, reference to the 2001 World Conference against Racism (WCAR) was removed from a footnote, as it was no longer deemed relevant to the paragraph. Never mind that the paragraph referenced “all UN world conferences in the economic and social sphere” in which the territories were eligible to participate, including the WCAR. Could this deletion have been a concession to those countries which disassociated from the conclusions of the racism conference, even as the rationale for that action was questionable?

Other issues conspicuously absent from the resolution include the concerns repeatedly expressed by the representatives of the territories at the regional seminars on decolonisation over the unilateral authority of the administering powers to legislate for the territories without their consent, and often against their will. A number of other key issues contained in the reports of these seminars are also never reflected in the resolution.

There was also no reference to the decision of the May, 2008 UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to hold an expert seminar on decolonisation, and the invitation for the Decolonisation Committee to participate in it. In fact, the UN resolution has repeated for years the request that the Decolonisation Committee develop a working relationship with both the Permanent Forum, as well as with the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), but no action to date has been taken to develop such a natural linkage. Interestingly, the CERD has to write each year in its annual report, rather embarrassingly, that it cannot obtain from the Decolonisation Committee the requested information on racism issues in the territories.

On the sections of the resolution addressing the individual territories, a number of changes were made, with several most noteworthy. On American Samoa, reference was inexplicably deleted from the previous year to the request by the territory’s non-voting Congressional delegate requesting US clarification on the role of the UN in the political status development of the US territories. Rather than delete the language, it would have been better to add the rather interesting and widely reported US response to the delegate’s query.

On Anguilla, references were properly added to the fact that the territory’s new position was to seek full internal self-government. Regarding the British Virgin Islands, reference was also added which took note of the new constitution, but the revisions to the constitutional proposals in the Cayman Islands were not reflected.

In the case of Guam, despite impassioned pleas for UN review of the ongoing militarisation of the territory made by representatives of native Chamorro organisations at the 2008 decolonisation seminar and at its annual session in New York, the resolution only expressed the committee’s awareness “of deep concerns by civil society and others regarding the potential social and other impacts” of the situation.

Finally, on the US Virgin Islands, reference was made to the establishment of a constitutional convention, but nothing was said about the decline of the territory’s request for assistance from its administering power to conduct its public education programme on the constitution. Also, all reference was removed to the longstanding request of the territory for the delegation of authority to seek formal status with the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, and the Association of Caribbean States. It would have been better to have added language on why the requests by successive territorial governments were either denied or ignored over the years.

A second key resolution adopted by the Decolonisation Committee renews the committee mandate each year, and had only cosmetic updates. Interestingly, this resolution contains a number of activities which are agreed by the governments year after year, but never implemented. These include reports on the implementation of such mandated activities as a constructive programme of work on a case-by-case basis for each territory, and the plan of action for the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. Yet, these two initiatives are cited in the resolution as “an important legislative authority for the attainment of self-government by the Non-Self-Governing Territories.” Deleted from the same resolution several years ago was the important third component, the Plan of Implementation (POI) of the Decolonisation Mandate, which provided the mechanism for the UN system to actually carry out its responsibility. Without the POI, everything else is just re statement of principles. It is rather like “spinning a top in mud.”

The United Nations is to be commended for its excellent work in a wide array of substantive areas in many parts of the world. It is inconsistent with the UN's demonstrated excellence that the necessary political will among the governments, and the substantive support necessary to carry out the activities approved by these very same governments, remains insufficient to implement the self-determination mandate only two years before the end of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. The contemporary self-determination process for the remaining territories must re-emerge as a significant political issue warranting the required degree of UN attention, human and financial resources if the mandate of the UN Charter is to be realised.