Showing posts with label Virgin Islands Constitutional Convention. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Virgin Islands Constitutional Convention. Show all posts

11 April 2012

United Nations Address of U.S. Virgin Islands Governor Cyril E. King - 1975


April 7th marked the birthday of Cyril Emanuel King, the second elected governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands who passed away while in office in January of 1978. Governor King was a strong advocate for the political and constitutional development of the Caribbean territory. In 1975, he was the first governor to officially engage the relevant United Nations (U.N.) decolonisation process by addressing the U.N. Decolonisation Committee on the pathways to political status evolution for the  U.S. Virgin Islands and other non-independent Caribbean countries. As Governor, he received the first and only Visiting Mission of the United Nations Decolonisation Committee which held extensive hearings throughout the territory in 1977, and which published an extensive report on the conditions in the territory at that time.  This marked the beginning of a period of sustained official Virgin Islands engagement in the United Nations Decolonisation process pursuant to Article 73 of the U.N. Charter which guarantees the right to self-determination for the various dependencies of the world. The territory's participation in this international decolonisation process would continue under a number of Governor King's successors.

OTR is pleased to publish (below) the 1975 address to the United Nations of the late Governor King. 


[Also see: Reflections on the late Cyril E. King, second elected Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands ]


____________________________________________

                       

Address of 

   The Honorable Cyril E. King 

      Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands 
to 
 Subcommittee II 

Special Committee on Decolonization 

May 1, 1975 


Actual Delivery



Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished Subcommittee,


I consider it a privilege and an honor to accord this Committee a general and candid assessment of the legal-constitutional relationship between the (U.S.) Virgin Islands and the United States. With your kind indulgence, I will attempt to trace the course of political evolution in the Virgin Islands since their accession to the United States in 1917, outline the advances made towards self-government, and express our hopes and desires for the future. 



In considering the question of political evolution, I believe it is important to distinguish from the very outset between two levels of change or development. On one level, for example, the growth of self-government in the Virgin Islands has entailed the progressive diminution of metropolitan control and/or interference over essentially internal matters, and the corresponding expansion in the decision-making authority of the islands with the overall political determination remaining under metropolitan control.


On another level, this evolution has involved changes in the domestic status quo, in the nature of internal political participation, and in the development and inter­-relationship of democratic political institutions. By stressing the interdependence without ignoring the differences between these levels of change, the growth of self- government can be more clearly seen as involving basic changes in both the competence and character of insular decision­-making. 

If colonialism can be defined as a power relationship of outright domination, then it would not be difficult to classify the Virgin Islands – the former Danish West Indies - as a colony prior to their acquisition by the United States in 1917. 

The centralized, external locus of decision- making, the internal predominance of an "expatriate governing class,” and the restricted nature of political participation were some of the main features of the Danish system as exemplified in the Colonial Laws of 1863 and 1906, respectively. Authority and responsibility were withheld from local institutions in the determination of internal affairs. 

Briefly, the Danish arrangement, in common with those prevailing in most of the Caribbean at that time, was characterized internally by the predominance of an appointed bureaucracy under the supervision of the Danish Cabinet--and more immediately, under the (Danish) Crown appointed governor. 

This pyramid was staffed largely by imported officials holding the type of powers a democratic society only entrusts to elected representatives. At its apex stood the appointed governor responsible for his actions only to the metropolis. Local control and local accountability were almost entirely absent. The insular Legislature or Council played a subordinate role, was sharply circumscribed in competence, and was unrepresentative in composition as a result of restrictive franchise laws. The character of political participation thus completed the typical colonial equation. On one level, ultimate authority lay with the metropolitan government. On another level, local political power, however delimited, was confined to a small minority of property owners. 

The purchase of the Danish West Indies by the United States in 1917 did not signal the immediate advent of self-government significant devolution of political power. Decision-making authority was essentially shifted from one metropolis to another. A 1917 act of Congress with respect to the islands enjoined the creation of a "temporary government" under presidential supervision and subject to the plenary power of Congress. 

This temporary arrangement built upon the appointive powers of the United States President and successively administered by the military and the U.S. Interior Department persisted for some two decades. 

The islands enjoyed the constitutional status of an ‘unincorporated, unorganized territory’ composed of non-citizen "nationals." The net effect of the transfer at this point was, in the words of one historian, "an odd, combination of American sovereignty and Danish institutions, with the minor modification of a changed nomenclature to conform to American usage." 

The absence of significant change during these initial decades did not imply complete immobility, however. Important changes in the relationship of the Virgin Islands to the United States over this period included: 


a) the extension of citizenship to most of the indigenous population; 

b) the ending of military rule by executive decree; 

c) the appointment of the first civilian governor in 1931.



A major re-assessment finally came with the passage of the 1936 and 1954 Organic Acts. These (U.S.) Congressional enactments attempted to define with some measure of particularity the legal nature of the relationship between the United States and the Virgin Islands. In common with most such changes in the Eastern Caribbean they were the consequence of a complex interaction of growing local discontent and metropolitan policy review. 

Organic legislation for the Virgin Islands entailed important changes in the relationship established by the 1917 Act of Congress. It supplanted major aspects of the retained Danish colonial laws, replaced the earlier "temporary arrangement" with a more permanent and carefully defined structure, extended various provisions of the United States Bill of Rights, and clarified the constitutional status of the islands by officially designating them as an unincorpated, "organized" territory of the United States, albeit remaining under the territorial clause of the United States constitution. It delegated greater authority to the insular system in the conduct of its own affairs and strengthened its fiscal resources by creating a special "economic relationship. " 

In reaffirming the principle of civilian supremacy, organic legislation reorganized internal political institutions. It  separated "governmental powers" into three branches and provided rules for their interaction in conformity with the doctrines of "shared power" and "checks and balances." Of major importance to the character of island politics were those provisions broadening the franchise to "democratize" the internal political process. 

More specifically, the 1936 and 1954 Organic Acts furnished the basis of the present unicameral Legislature of the Virgin Islands. In terms of structure, the 1936 Act replaced the Colonial Councils the joint session of which comprised the Legislative Assembly with inter­-island jurisdiction. Ineffective and unproductive in practice, the latter was abolished by the 1954 Act which merged the municipal councils to form the present day fifteen-member Legislature. Regarding the question of composition, the 1936 Organic Act provided for the popular election of all legislators by a greatly expanded electorate. 


The competence and scope of insular decision-making was also amplified. The Legislature was strengthened both vis a vis the appointed governor and the federal government. 


The 1936 Act, for instance, specifically stated that: 


"the legislative authority of the Virgin Islands shall extend to all subjects of local application not inconsistent with this act or laws of the United States made applicable to said islands…"



Empowered to determine the salaries and qualifications of` its members, the Legislature also received a clarification of taxation powers and jurisdiction over various properties formerly under federal control. It was further authorized by the 1954 Organic Act to issue revenue- bonds for public improvements and conduct hearings related to executive performance. More importantly, it was provided with improved fiscal resources by the "economic" sections of these Acts. These sections diverted income and other taxes to the Virgin Islands treasury, thereby eliminating the continuous dependence on emergency U.S. Congressional appropriations. 

It has been said that the present power of the Virgin Islands Legislature is equal to that of the several U.S. states. It has the authority to raise taxes; to authorize expenditures; to approve the governor’s nominees to his cabinet, to independent boards, agencies and commissions; and to the judges of the inferior court. It approves the territory’s annual budget both for operating expenses and capital improvements. It has the right and power to reapportion itself consistent with the constitutional restraints of due process and equal protection. It has the authority to, and has by law provided, the procedure for filling vacancies among its membership. It has sole power to appropriate money. 

The judicial and administrative structures were no less affected. A separate judiciary was created, even as the higher court of which was placed under the supervision of the United States Attorney General. 

The insular bureaucracy was re-organized--especially by the 1954 Organic Act--and recruitment policies were revised. The 1936 Act specifically stipulated that the U.S. Secretary of Interior "give due consideration to natives of the Virgin Islands" in selecting top-echelon personnel; and the 1954 Act provided that the appointed "Governor “Governor shall give preference to qualified residents of the Virgin Islands" in making some appointments. These recruitment changes, of course, were especially important in that they set the stage for the indigenization of the insular bureaucracy, a major feature of the decolonization process in most of the Caribbean. 

Although these organic acts did not provide for an elected governor, nor eliminate the supervisory role of the U.S. Department of Interior, nor remove a number of other controls, they nevertheless symbolized a radical reassessment by the United States of its relationship with the Virgin Islands, and greatly expanded the parameters of local autonomy and self-government. 

In a sense, the perennial issue of political status in Virgin Islands politics was more refocused than defused by the 1936 and 1954 organic acts. In the early 1960’s, a Constitutional Convention was organized for the purpose of drafting a new Organic Act for the Islands. The central issues then, however, were those of the control of the executive, and representation in the United States. The resulting document included such demands as: 


1) the abolition of the presidential veto on local legislation; 



2) the popular election of the governor and lieutenant 
governor; 

(3) the local appointment of the comptroller; 

4) the removal of controls from the matching fund; 

5) the right to participate in national presidential elections; and 

(6) the seating of a Resident Commissioner in Washington. 


It should be noted that an accompanying resolution on status adopted by the Convention rejected at that point both independence and annexation by a larger political unit, and expressed a desire to attain "full self-government in closest association with the United States." 

Within a relatively short period, a majority of the reforms advanced by the 1964 Constitutional Convention were approved by the U.S. Congress. In 1969, the Elective Governor Act was passed. This milestone act not only provided for the popular election of the governor and expanded the powers of that office vis a vis the Department of Interior, but abolished the presidential veto on local legislation and extended various remaining provisions of the Bill of Rights. 

With such legislation, the pre-eminent feature of overt colonial rule--the appointed governor—was thus eliminated. In 1970, the Delegate to Congress Act was passed, granting the Virgin Islands official representation within the halls of the U.S. Congress. Soon thereafter, the Delegate was granted voting membership to various committees and subcommittees concerned with insular affairs. By this modality, Congress provided for the people of the Virgin Islands direct participation in the process of Congressional legislation.


In short, one of the more salient aspects of change in the Virgin Islands over the past several decades has been their emergence from erstwhile colony to a largely internally self-governing, democratic political system--both on a de jure and de facto basis. Again, this does not mean that all unilateral federal controls of a legal nature have been eliminated, that all demands have been met as quickly as hoped, or that the islands enjoy complete autonomy. But neither does it mean that advances have not been steady or significant, that the Virgin Islands of today bare any marked resemblance to the Virgin Islands of a few decades ago, that a deep undercurrent of dissatisfaction still prevails, or that further advances are not forthcoming. 

Although the character of political discourse in the islands has, to a large extent, shifted from issues of political status to the challenges of the process of modernization, the desire for greater autonomy and ultimate self-determination will certainly persist consistent with the framework of the United States Constitution. It is likely that a Constitutional Convention will be held in the near future to consider further. changes, and most importantly, draft a document--a basic law-- of our own making. 

It is my conviction that this document will reflect the sentiment and re-affirm the principles expressed in the 1965 resolution on political status--that the people of the Virgin Islands at this stage are unalterably opposed to annexation by any other larger unit, that they are unalterably opposed to independence from the United States of America, and that they desire to advance their political status with the fullest measure of internal self-government and in the closest association with the United States of America." 

It is also my firm belief that the draft constitutional document emanating from this conference, and representing, as it should, the will and desires of the people of the Virgin Islands freely determined, will be considered and adopted by the Congress of the United States. By that modality, Congress would re-affirm a constitutional document adapted to the needs of the Virgin Islands--it would reaffirm a document consistent with the national policy of progressively perfecting political forms that meet the legitimate aspirations of the people of the Virgin Islands.

**********

30 November 2010

Governance Expert to speak at University of Guam

Will discuss recent developments in small island governance

 The University of Guam will host Dr. Carlyle Corbin, International Advisor on Governance and Multilateral Diplomacy, who is visiting Guam from the sister territory of the Virgin Islands for a series of lectures and colloquia. He will deliver a featured address at the University of Guam CLASS Lecture Hall on November 30 at 6:00 pm. The topic of his university address is "Recent Developments in Small Island Governance: Implications for the Self-Determination Process."

The event is free and open to the public, and  is sponsored by the University of Guam Division of Social Work and the GuĂ„han Coalition for Peace and Justice.

Corbin is the former Representative for External Affairs in the Government of the US Virgin Islands, and has lectured widely on political and constitutional advancement. He is the author of three books and numerous scholarly articles on governance and political development with specific focus on non-independent countries.
 
He has served as an advisor to several Caribbean territorial governments, and presently is the international advisor to the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the US Virgin Islands. He has been an expert on self-determination and decolonisation for United Nations Caribbean and Pacific regional seminars for over a decade, and has served as the independent expert to United Nations missions to several non self-governing territories.
 
He presently serves as the Executive Secretary of the Council of Presidents of the United Nations General Assembly.

01 July 2010

US Virgin Islands Commemorates 162nd Anniversary of Emancipation


The 162nd anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the former Danish West Indies – the present day US Virgin Islands - will be commemorated on 3rd July 2010.


BY A'BUTNBTMUTAST CHENZIRA

http://stthomassource.com/content/commentary/open-forum/2010/07/01/editorial-vi-emancipation-day-2010

St. Thomas Source 

On the eve of the Virgin Islands’ Emancipation in commemoration of July 3, 1848 and the United States’ Independence Day in recognition of July 4, 1776, many injustices and oppressive actions that American natives, residents, visitors and others are experiencing in 2010 is not in accordance with the treaties, declarations and rights of people of the Americas and the world.

Hence the question that arises from many is: Whose independence and emancipation are we celebrating, commemorating and supporting on July 4th and July 3rd of every year? What are the VI executive, legislative and judiciary branches of government doing in alliance with and respect to The People of these beloved Virgin Islands to institute and practice the principles associated with the freedom, liberty, justice, human and civil rights being celebrated during these holidays of VI Emancipation and US Independence?


In the 1770's, taxation without representation caused wars and revolutions from The People. In the 1800's, chattel slavery was ended on paper while mental slavery continued prolifically with more dehumanization and institutional oppression than ever recorded in contemporary history against The People. In the 1900's, wars, movements, protests, laws and more were mobilized and organized by The People along with various governments arranging planned assassinations, coup d’Ă©tats and more for liberty, justice, freedom and independence to be denied to The People. In the opening of the first decade of the 21st century, guns, technology, germs, wars and biological/health inequities are rampant against The People.

Criminals are prosecuted and persecuted when found guilty of a crime. Who prosecutes and persecutes those guilty of crimes against The People? Even after 20th century global mandates for the end of colonialism and genocide, there still exists man-induced environmental “emergencies and tragedies”, neocolonialism and treacherous inhumane traditions that rule through the actions and institutions of economic “decepticons” and masters that have little or no regard for the self-engaged, internal and true governance of the common man and woman locally, nationally and internationally.

As the US House Mandates the USVI Constitutional Convention to reconvene to change what they "believe" is unconstitutional, why has the US failed to comply with UN Mandates of the Human Rights Charter of the 20th century and other pro-humanitarian legal UN and International World Court mandates? What are we doing and willing to sacrifice to resurrect healthy environments (land, air, sea +), reduce criminality from the top down, restore healthy lifestyles, provide affordable education, housing & social services, and heal our communities, nations and humanity?

This is the time for The People of the World Court to convene and demand justice. Enough is enough. The People of the Virgin Islands, from the grassroots and beyond, need to mandate and demand that our voices be heard and enacted upon with viable resources for their implementation from the same US Administration and its’ agencies that speak of being a living and global example of democracy. President Obama’s Administration and the hidden administration that governs this land of “liberty, freedom and justice for all” are to be accountable to The People. The trained and stellar legal minds within, associated with and supportive of the Obama Administration have a responsibility and ancestral duty to change the hands of time and implement the principles of genuine independence by doing what is right, just and true to end colonialism, neo-colonialism, fascism and terminate the colonial stronghold that the US has on the social existence, economic, ancestral, indigenous and inalienable rights of the Virgin Islands and beyond.

It is time for independence, emancipation and justice to be served to The People.


See also: “Political Evolution: The Next Phase of Emancipation”  http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2009/07/political-evolution-next-phase-of.html

29 June 2010

US House Mandates US Virgin Islands Constitutional Convention to Reconsider Autonomous Proposals

Update

The US House of Representatives on 29th June 2010 adopted Senate Joint Resolution 33 which calls on the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the US Virgin Islands to reconvene to consider US Justice Department objections regarding certain autonomous provisions contained in the proposal. The Department considered the provisions as inconsistent with the applicability of the US Constitution (as it applies to the dependency territory). This is the latest development in the constitutional process of the territory where a proposed constitution was adopted in May 2009 by the required 2/3 of the 30 member Convention delegates.

The elected governor of the territory, John P. de Jongh, initially expressed opposition to a number of aspects contained in the text, and had declined to transmit the proposed constitution to the US Congress upon its receipt in May, 2009. He was later ordered by the territory’s court in December, 2009 to forward the text for US consideration.

Confident that the proposed constitution would ultimately be forwarded to Washington, Convention President Gerard Luz James addressed the Fourth Committee of the United Nations in October, 2009 where he explained the rationale for the respective provisions of the proposal based on the Convention’s own legal analysis. The US Virgin Islands is one of sixteen non self-governing territories listed by the United Nations under Chapter 11 (Article 73) of its Charter.

Following the transmittal of the proposal to the White House in December 2009, the process resumed in earnest. Convention President James and three additional members of the Convention defended the document before a US Congressional hearing of the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the Natural Resources Committee in March, 2010. Governor de Jongh also testified on the measure, along with a US Justice Department representative. Both expressed dissent on provisions of the text, with  the Justice Department representative outlining objections to certain provisions intended to provide certain powers of autonomous governance to the territory, including those favouring the native population, the ownership of natural resources and voter eligibility.

President James, along with the territory’s non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives Donna Christian Christensen, and a US Justice Department official, later testified before the US Senate Natural Resources Committee in June 2010, explaining their respective positions. Several weeks later, James provided the UN with an update on the progress underway in formal testimony to the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation. The United Nations Committee subsequently adopted its resolution on the territory which “welcome(ed) the proposal of a draft constitution emanating from the territory in 2009, as a result of the work of the Fifth Constitutional Convention, for review by the administering Power (US), and requests the administering Power to assist the territorial Government in achieving…the successful conclusion of the ongoing internal Constitutional Convention exercise.”

The United Nations Committee also requested the US Government “to facilitate the process for approval of the proposed territorial constitution in the United States Congress, and its implementation, once agreed in the territory.” (The full text of the UN committee resolution on the US Virgin Islands and other non self-governing territories will be published in due course).

The US House of Representatives has now adopted the resolution calling on the US Virgin Islands Fifth Constitutional Convention to re-convene, confirming the US Senate action a little over a week later. The measure now goes to US President Barack Obama for final adoption. S.J. Resolution 33 follows:


111th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. J. RES. 33
________________________________________

JOINT RESOLUTION

To provide for the reconsideration and revision of the proposed constitution of the United States Virgin Islands to correct provisions inconsistent with the Constitution and Federal law.


Whereas Congress, recognizing the basic democratic principle of government by the consent of the governed, enacted Public Law 94-584 (94 Stat. 2899) authorizing the people of the United States Virgin Islands to organize a government pursuant to a constitution of their own adoption;

Whereas a proposed constitution to provide for local self-government for the people of the United States Virgin Islands was submitted by the President to Congress on March 1, 2010, pursuant to Public Law 94-584;

Whereas Congress, pursuant to Public Law 94-584, after receiving a proposed United States Virgin Islands constitution from the President may approve, amend, or modify the constitution by joint resolution, but the constitution `shall be deemed to have been approved' if Congress takes no action within `sixty legislative days (not interrupted by an adjournment sine die of the Congress) after its submission by the President';


Whereas in carrying out Public Law 94-584, the President asked the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Department of the Interior, to provide views on the proposed constitution;


Whereas the Department of Justice concluded that several features of the proposed constitution warrant analysis and comment, including--


(1) the absence of an express recognition of United States sovereignty and the supremacy of Federal law;


(2) provisions for a special election on the territorial status of the United States Virgin Islands;


(3) provisions conferring legal advantages on certain groups defined by place and timing of birth, timing of residency, or ancestry;


(4) residence requirements for certain offices;


(5) provisions guaranteeing legislative representation of certain geographic areas;


(6) provisions addressing territorial waters and marine resources;


(7) imprecise language in certain provisions of the bill of rights of the proposed constitution;


(8) the possible need to repeal certain Federal laws if the proposed constitution of the United States Virgin Islands is adopted; and


(9) the effect of congressional action or inaction on the proposed constitution; and


Whereas Congress shares the concerns expressed by the executive branch of the Federal Government on certain features of the proposed constitution of the United States Virgin Islands and shares the view that consideration should be given to revising those features: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON PROPOSED CONSTITUTION FOR UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS.


It is the sense of Congress that Congress--


(1) recognizes the commitment and efforts of the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the United States Virgin Islands to develop a proposed constitution; and


(2) urges the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the United States Virgin Islands to reconvene for the purpose of reconsidering and revising the proposed constitution in response to the views of the executive branch of the Federal Government.


SEC. 2. REVISION OF PROPOSED CONSTITUTION.


Section 5 of Public Law 94-584 (90 Stat. 2900) is amended--


(1) by designating the first, second, third, and fourth sentences as subsections (a), (b), (d), and (e), respectively;


(2) in subsection (b) (as so designated)--


(A) by striking `within' and all that follows through `after' and inserting `within 60 legislative days after'; and


(B) by inserting `or has urged the constitutional convention to reconvene,' after `in whole or in part,';


(3) by inserting after subsection (b) (as so designated) the following:


`(c) Revision of Proposed Constitution-


`(1) IN GENERAL- If a convention reconvenes and revises the proposed constitution, the convention shall resubmit the revised proposed constitution simultaneously to the Governor of the Virgin Islands and the President.


`(2) COMMENTS OF PRESIDENT- Not later than 60 calendar days after the date of receipt of the revised proposed constitution, the President shall--


`(A) notify the convention, the Governor, and Congress of the comments of the President on the revised proposed constitution; and


`(B) publish the comments in the Federal Register.'; and


(4) in subsection (d) (as so designated), by inserting `under subsection (b) (or, if revised pursuant to subsection (c), on publication of the comments of the President in the Federal Register)' after `or modified'.


Passed the Senate June 17, 2010.

Attest:
Secretary.
111th CONGRESS
2d Session

23 June 2010

Speakers at United Nations Address Self-Determination, Militarisation Issues In Island Territories

General Assembly

GA/COL/3210
Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Special Committee on Decolonization

7th Meeting (AM)

Special Committee on Decolonisation Urged toVisit Guam as Petitioners Deplore Militarisation of Non Self-Governing Territory

 US Virgin Islands Constitutional Convention President Updates Committee on US Response to Proposed Constitution for the Territory

Turks & Caicos Islands Speakers Express Urge Constitutional Restoration

Speaking out against the militarization of Guam by the United States, several petitioners today called upon members of the Special Committee on Decolonization to visit the Non-Self-Governing Territory and see the situation for themselves as soon as possible.

Many called attention to the release of an 11,000-page draft environmental impact statement by the United States, which the people of Guam had been given 90 days to study and comment on. Hope A. Cristobal Psy.D of the Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice urged the Special Committee to study the document, which was “in direct violation of various international human rights instruments, including United Nations resolutions and declarations”.

Rima Ilarishigh Peter Miles, speaking on behalf of Women for Genuine Security, noted that United States Navy activities carried out on the island had gravely impacted the environment, human health and the welfare of the territorial government. Considering such challenges, she stressed the position that “the United States does not care what it destroys as long as no one knows about it”.

Asserting that the United Nations must not allow negative impacts to further block the process of decolonization, many petitioners requested that the Special Committee declare the militarization of Guam to be a major impediment to Guam’s exercise of its right to self-determination. They also requested that the Special Committee ensure that United States congressional appropriations and other United States military projects be put on hold until past injustices were remedied, current adverse impacts were negated and the potential for future adverse impacts completely removed.

The Special Committee — known also as the Special Committee of 24...also heard petitioners on the Non-Self-Governing Territories of Western Sahara, New Caledonia, Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands.

On the question of New Caledonia, Caroline Machoro-Reignier of Front de libĂ©ration nationale kanak socialiste underscored major challenges that remained despite progress made in the wake of the landmark 1998 NoumĂ©a Accord. Those included serious economic and social imbalances between the Territory’s Northern and Southern Provinces. Emphasizing the inevitably of New Caledonia’s independence, she called for United Nations support, particularly legal assistance in developing a constitution.

As the Special Committee turned to the question of the Turks and Caicos Islands, two petitioners voiced deep concern about the process by which a new territorial constitution was to be created. Wendal Swann, Chairman of the All-Party Commission on the Constitution and Electoral Reform, said that the Government of the United Kingdom had appointed a constitutional consultant to catalogue the views of the Territory’s people — after deciding to suspend specific portions of the current charter.

Benjamin Roberts of the Turks and Caicos Forum said the appointment had incited fears among the Territory’s people that their interests would not truly be heard, and that the United Kingdom would impose a decree on the islands if they ratified a constitution that did not reflect the administering Power’s views.

The President of the US Virgin Islands Fifth Constitutional Convention Luz Anwar James updated the Special Committee on Decolonization on the process of  administering Power review of the proposed constitution for the territory (OTR)


Also taking part in today’s proceedings were representatives of Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Chile, Fiji and Papua New Guinea.

The Special Committee reconvened at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 23 June, to hear a statement presented by an Independent Expert who had consducted an analysis of  the implementation mandate during the Second International Decades for the Eradication of Colonialism. 

Background

The Special Committee on Decolonization met today to hear petitioners on the questions of Western Sahara, New Caledonia, Guam, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands.

Question of Western Sahara

PEDRO NUÑEZ MOSQUERA (Cuba) said that in light of the Saharan people’s struggles over 40 years to gain independence, the conflict in the Territory should be included on the General Assembly’s agenda as a direct responsibility of the United Nations. The Special Committee had a key role to play in fulfilling that aim, he said, noting that the people of Western Sahara were the only ones who could choose their future freely and without pressure or conditions. The United Nations had adopted more than 40 resolutions since 1963, when Western Sahara had been added to the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, and several rounds of discussion had taken place on the issue, he said, emphasizing that all parties involved must step up their determination to continue their efforts.

The self-determination of the Saharan people must be guaranteed within the framework of the United Nations Charter and resolution 1514 (XV), he said, stressing further that they needed the support of the entire international community. To that end, Cuba had contributed as much as possible to the development of the Saharan people, particularly in the area of education, he said, affirming that his country would continue to support the development of a just and definitive solution to the situation of Western Sahara, whose people would always be able to count on Cuba.

JORGE VALERO BRICEÑO (Venezuela), stressing his country’s solidarity with and commitment to the self-determination efforts of Western Sahara, said his country’s Constitution enshrined the principles of respect for the inalienable rights to independence, territorial integrity and self-determination, to which strict adherence must be exercised. On the basis of those principles, Venezuela had extended diplomatic recognition to the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and therefore reiterated its request for similar United Nations support.

He called for the strict implementation of resolution 1514 (XV) and urged the Special Committee to consider the situation with more determination, taking into account the need to promote justice and the human rights for the Saharan people. Expressing hope that negotiations would ensure the implementation of relevant appropriate resolutions, he said they could only succeed if carried out within the framework of the Charter and resolution 1514 (XV). In addition, Venezuela reaffirmed, as per resolution 1514 (XV), the necessity of eliminating colonialism, racial discrimination and human rights violations, and called upon administering Powers to take the necessary action to ensure the exercise of self-determination.

AHMED BOUKHARI, Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (Polisario Front), said 18 years had passed since the United Nations had endorsed, in 1991, the plan for a self-determination referendum in Western Sahara, which was still to be held. The process had been deterred by Morocco on the basis of friendships it had forged in the Security Council, particularly with France, which would provide it with impunity to continue its destructive efforts. Morocco still believed that it could involve the Council in gravely altering the Saharan people’s fundamental basic right to self-determination. None of the endeavours carried out, from the 1997 Houston Agreement to the 2003 Baker Plan, to efforts by Christopher Ross, the Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy, had managed to overcome the intransigence of the occupying Power, he said.

Morocco had incorporated new arguments and pretexts to create new alliances within the Council in exchange for hopes of realizing the final annexation of Western Sahara, he continued. That would signify the introduction of a new and curious doctrine that would enable all those participating in it to annex neighbouring territories, he warned. That pseudo-solution of “autonomy of Moroccan sovereignty”, which Morocco had formulated in 2007 and set as a precondition for advancing the current negotiations, implied forcing the Saharan people to renounce the option of independence and integrate into the occupying Power. It would not be difficult for members of the Special Committee to consider that pseudo-solution as a grave rejection of the principle of self-determination, established by the United Nations in resolution 1514 (XV) and defined in resolution 1541 (XV).

Morocco continued to negate the 1991 United Nations decision, he said, adding that it also continued illegally to exploit Western Sahara’s natural resources and to violate the Saharan people’s human rights under the eyes and ears of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). There was no indication that Morocco would change its position in the near future, he said, noting that the United Nations would fail to address the situation of the last African territory on the Special Committee’s agenda. The Moroccan case could have represented success on decolonization, but instead, it had become a symbol of protracted failure. No one could resign themselves to a fait accompli predicated on false and territorial appetites, he stressed.

He said Morocco was continuing the expansionist policies of Mohamed Allal al Fassi, leader of the Istiqlal Party, who had sought, since independence in 1956, to forge a “Greater Morocco” extending into Senegal and swallowing up all of Western Sahara, Mauritania and parts of Algeria and Mali. The region had seen no peace since 1975, and had even moved further away from it due to Morocco’s decision to base its demands on ancient history. Failure to follow the road to peace, as instructed by the United Nations, should not be permitted, he said, adding that the Special Committee could play a large role in replacing injury and violence with a complete process for the peaceful decolonization of the last African colony on its agenda.

More than ever, the Special Committee had the chance to find out for itself what was happening in the Territory, he said, recalling that its last visit to Western Sahara had taken place 35 years ago. There was no valid or convincing reason to object to a second visit until the question of decolonization was resolved. The Special Committee had a right to request and receive true and appropriate information about the situation in the Territory, but Morocco was refusing to provide it, claiming that it had no colonies, only “provinces”. Sooner or later international law would prevail in Western Sahara, he said.

Calling for a pooling of efforts to convince Morocco to cooperate with the United Nations on ending the unsustainable colonial situation that had handicapped the future of the entire region, bringing instability and insecurity, he said all countries of the region had been subjected to European colonization, and had subsequently spent years building their own independent futures. “We cannot be an exception to the general rule,” he emphasized, denouncing Morocco for trying to return to times of injury, violence and territorial bullying based on ancient history. The only way forward was through a democratic solution in which the Saharan people would be masters of their own destiny, he said.

When asked by the representative of Bolivia about a solution to the conflict, Mr. BOUKHARI said all the parties concerned had agreed on a solution “a long time”. The consensus had been that the Saharan people could decide whether they preferred to remain part of Morocco or to become independent. However, there had been a deviation from that process towards attempts to legitimize an unacceptable situation, he said, noting that, during informal negotiations, Morocco had taken “a step back”. In light of that, Mr. Ross hoped to consider a new negotiating round in efforts to move forward. The only solution was to apply the already agreed-upon principle of self-determination for Western Sahara, he said, noting that any other method could lead to “a dead end”.

Responding to a question by the representative of Nicaragua about the Special Committee’s role, he said that, as long as the decolonization process continued in the Territory, the Special Committee would remain involved and use all the means at its disposal. He said he did not understand the rationale behind objections to the Special Committee visiting Western Sahara in order for members to view the situation for themselves. It should visit, since preventing such a visit would not help to strengthen the competence of its work.

Asked by the representative of Venezuela about the difficulties of the decolonization process, he said the current situation in Western Sahara was the result of destruction that had begun in 2009. Considering the risk that a lack of action could become a shield for the status quo, he urged the United Nations to take another look at the situation in Western Sahara so as to avoid a tragedy that would take place in the Organization’s name.

DONATUS KEITH ST. AIMEE (Saint Lucia), Chair of the Special Committee, said it was not possible to have two separate solutions, adding that he would seek to move the process forward through talks between the parties concerned. He expressed concern that the approaches taken thus far had not produced results and he would work towards a different approach, if needed.

The representative of Chile said it was important to keep the matter on the agenda in the interest of the right to self-determination. The Special Committee must also raise the question of beginning a third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism.

The representative of Nicaragua supported Chile’s proposal.

Question of New Caledonia

CAROLINE MACHORO-REIGNIER, Front de lib é ration nationale kanak socialiste, said the Kanak people were on the path towards achieving their destiny. While it had been difficult and bloody in light of revolts, war and assassinations, the Kanak people had also experienced victories, noting that New Caledonia was becoming financially autonomous and economically viable. The 1998 Nouméa Accord towards a transfer of power from France to New Caledonia had led to a territorial government based on solidarity and dialogue, she said.

Despite the positive progress made, however, major issues remained, she said, highlighting the substantial economic and social imbalances that had led to the overdevelopment of the Southern Province and the underdevelopment of the Northern Province. Moreover, high unemployment rates had begun to attract private interests that could potentially call into question certain policies aimed at emancipating the Territory’s indigenous people, she said, noting that considerable migration, primarily of people from Europe, could lead to social destabilization. Such issues could have a negative impact, particularly on the transfer of competencies and the related training, and on the establishment of the people’s citizenship and employment priorities.

Expressing concern that the NoumĂ©a process was not moving as rapidly as expected, she underscored the Territory’s willingness to confront all challenges, including the need for regular evaluation of public policies conducted within the NoumĂ©a framework. An independent New Caledonia was inevitable, she stressed, expressing hope that the United Nations would continue to support the Territory and to help it achieve its goals. She requested legal assistance from the Special Committee to help the Territory develop a constitution.

Responding to a question from the representative of Cuba concerning economic and social imbalances, she cited several examples, noting that 85 per cent of total mining revenue was generated in the South. In that social context, 85 per cent of households in the south had access to running water, as compared to 65 per cent in the north, she said, adding that efforts were being made to reduce those serious geographical imbalances.

Also making statements on the question of New Caledonia were the representatives of Fiji and Papua New Guinea.

Question of Guam

RIMA ILARISHIGH PETER MILES, Women for Genuine Security, called for immediate United Nations action to advance the protection and fulfilment of the right to self-determination of Guam’s Chamoru people. That right was currently under threat in light of the continuing avoidance of the issue on the part of the United States, as well as recent actions which contradicted the terms of that administering Power’s obligation to the Chamoru people.

She said the presence of the United States Navy in Guam had brought about extremely negative impacts, including environmental deterioration, the drying up of major freshwater sources and a population boom of 80,000, which had created a financial burden for the territorial government. Such challenges warranted the Special Committee’s support in demanding that the United States take no further action in militarizing the Mariana Islands, she said.

“The United States does not care what it destroys as long as no one knows about it,” she stressed, noting that the militarization of Guam was a direct impediment to the right of self-determination. As for the severe health implications of militarization for the Chamoru people, she tearfully called upon the United Nations to send a visiting mission to survey the situation and to challenge protocol in such matters when the administering Power was non-cooperative. It was critical, to protect Guam’s land and resources, and to help the Territory achieve the highest possible level of economic self-reliance, environmental protection, as well as social and educational development, she said.

HOPE A. CRISTOBAL, Psy.D. Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice, said Guam’s indigenous people continued to suffer social, cultural and environmental annihilation at the hands of their United States oppressors. The Chamorro people were dying and suffering at disproportionate rates in comparison with their United States counterparts, she said, noting that their health concerns were similar to those in New Caledonia, which suffered “an overrepresentation” of depression, anxiety, alcohol and drug use, and violence. Guam had some of the world’s highest suicide rates, and the hyper-militarization plans of the United States would exacerbate those problems. As the administering Power for more than six decades, the United States must bear responsibility for Guam’s tragic invisibility, which had resulted in inadequate public-health resources.

She recalled that, in 2005, the people of Guam had been notified through the media that some 7,000 United States marines were being transferred to the Territory from Okinawa, Japan. The United States Department of Defense had refused to give any further information on the matter, citing its plans as “tentative” until the release of a draft environmental impact statement. The people of Guam had been given only 90 days to study and comment on the 11,000-page document, she said. Six months after its release, the territorial government was struggling to get United States funding to deal with the anticipated impact on water, power and sewer infrastructure, as well as seaport facilities contained in the plans.

Emphasizing that it behoved the Special Committee to study the document, which was in direct violation of various international human rights instruments, including United Nations resolutions and declarations, she said the United States was making plans to dredge 287,327 square metres of coral reefs in Apra Harbour, Guam’s only natural deep-water harbour, which already contained high traces of arsenic, lead, copper, mercury and tin, among other harmful chemicals.

She went on to say that traditional lands comprising a recently designated national historic preservation site and sacred areas near Mount LamLam had been scheduled for land takeovers through coercive procedures or outright purchase. There was no indication that the United States would adhere to its responsibilities under United Nations resolutions and treaties, and Guam’s people would suffer irreparable damage as a result, she added.

She asked the Special Committee to declare, unequivocally, that the militarization of Guam was a major impediment to the Decolonization Declaration, and that Guam’s separate and distinct status under the United Nations Charter should exist until the Chamorro people had exercised their right to self-determination, without external interference. She asked the Special Committee to request a United Nations visiting mission to Guam as soon as possible.

JULIE GILGOFF, a Guam journalist, read out a statement on behalf of Senator Vicente Cabrera Pangelinan, saying that the people of Guam wanted to resolve their political relationship with the United States before ceding any more control of their lands and oceans, or the rights of the people. The Special Committee must advance the self-determination process immediately, because recent decisions by the administering Power diluted that right daily. The decision to increase the population base in Guam, a Non-Self-Governing Territory, contravened the principles of decolonization, and was being carried out in a disingenuous, secretive manner. In the United States own words, the planned increased military presence was the most massive military undertaking in the movement of military personnel since the Second World War.

She said that, in the past couple of years, the Senator’s office had been registering native inhabitants and their descendants. In an effort to increase the number of eligible voters for a decolonization plebiscite, the Senator had sponsored legislation and public law 30-102 to accept the registration rolls of participants in the land trust programme, which had the same eligibility criteria as the decolonization registry. Guam was seeking financial and technical resources from the administering authority to implement an education campaign to adequately inform the Chamorro about the plebiscite vote, she added.

Calling on the United Nations to give the petition to Member States, particularly the United States, and to demand the administering Power’s compliance with it, she said Guam’s inalienable right to self-determination must be upheld in the face of the threat posed by military expansion. The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) must immediately seek the full support of its Members and the international community. It must be allowed to send a visiting mission to Guam to affirm the wishes of the Chamorro people for a decolonization plebiscite and attest to the urgency of those wishes.

TRESSA DIAZ, Fuetsan Famalao’an, expressed concern about the impact of militarization on the island’s social infrastructure and the livelihood of its women and children. The United States Department of Defense was working behind closed doors to prepare a final impact statement, with view to adopt it at the end of August. Congress had refused to hold an open hearing to air the concerns of people whose lives would be affected forever by the military expansion, she said.

Emphasizing that the United States military had long since displaced generations of Chamorro families and replaced much of their agricultural, hunting and ranching activities with Government and military employment, she said many local people were unaware that Guam’s land, water and food were still contaminated. Mustard gas, PCBs and radiation continued to plague the area and its food supply, especially the waters off Orote Point in southern Guam and the surrounding Cocos Islands, due to military dumping. She urged the Special Committee to conduct a hearing on Guam to see the substandard living conditions of the island’s people. The United Nations must not allow more negative impacts to precede determination of the island’s political status.

Congressional appropriations and more military projects should be put on hold until past injustices were remedied, current adverse impacts were negated and the potential for future adverse impacts completely removed, she stressed, calling on the Special Committee to give top priority to the Chamorro people’s right to self-determination. It should investigate the administering Power’s compliance or non-compliance with its Charter obligations under Article 73 to promote the socio-economic development and preserve the cultural identity of Non-Self-Governing Territories. She also asked the Special Committee to recommend that the General Assembly pass a resolution authorizing a United Nations visiting mission to examine the impact of the military on the Special Committee’s work, as well as a resolution reaffirming that the Question of Guam was one of decolonization that remained to be completed.

ANDREA SANTOS, We Are Guahan, said her organization was deeply alarmed by the injustices proposed under United States militarization plans. The Guam Environmental Protection Agency had given the military’s impact statement its lowest possible rating, calling it the most poorly constructed impact statement it had ever evaluated. Noting that United States plans had rendered the people of Guam powerless over their destiny, she said: “The political freedom, environmental safety and cultural legacy we leave to future generations is one that is ultimately decided by those who view their home as nothing more than a gas station or military training ground in the Pacific.”

The basic necessities for maintaining or creating a self-sustaining, empowered, healthy population were threatened by the United States plans, she said, adding that militarization would create a water shortfall of 2.3 million gallons per day for people living outside the properties controlled by the Department of Defense. The island’s already underfunded and understaffed education system would not be able to absorb the projected influx of 8,000 students.

According to local economists, United States projections of economic gains due to militarization had been inflated by more than 118 per cent, she said. Projected tax revenues would not be enough to support the 80,000 new residents who would arrive in 2014. Moreover, already low living standards would deteriorate further, and the predicted housing shortage through 2014 would drive up house prices while increasing homelessness and overcrowding. The impact on the coral reefs protecting the island from storms and earthquakes would be impacted in an unprecedented way, she said, adding that noise and pollution would also increase. The decolonization of Guam should take place without the administering Power and with the cooperation of the United Nations, she stressed, calling for an investigation into the administering Power’s compliance with the Charter.

The representative of Bolivia asked the extent to which the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People was known among Guam’s population.

Ms. CRISTOBAL said only a few people were aware of it, and for decades Guam’s residents had had a “colonial mindset”. They had only become aware of their island’s true status when the United States had announced plans for hyper-militarization, she said, emphasizing that it was imperative that the United Nations establish a presence in Guam and show its people that there was international concern to decolonize the Territory.

Mr. ST. AIMEE (Saint Lucia), Special Committee Chair, said United Nations agencies could disseminate information on the Declaration, adding that they had a mandate to provide assistance to local populations, such as the inhabitants of Guam.

Question of Turks and Caicos Islands

BENJAMIN ROBERTS, Turks and Caicos Forum, noted that, while the islands had experienced unprecedented growth in the last 40 years, rapid development had led to increased crime, social ills and corruption. Financial challenges had been caused by a lack of accountability on the part of elected officials and civil servants, as well as “horrendous oversight by the British”, he said, noting that since the administering Power’s installation of an interim territorial government, more people had experienced financial hardship and felt disempowered.

However, the United Kingdom was not entirely to blame, he stressed, pointing out that the administering Power had taken the necessary actions to remedy the Territory’s situation, as it had initially proposed. Recently, the interim territorial government had contracted a constitutional consultant to catalogue the people’s ideas for constitutional reform. The resulting document would be a constitution that would in turn become the law of the land prior to the end of the two-year interim government period, making way for fresh elections, he said.

He said major concerns had emerged about the United Kingdom’s use of a constitutional consultant, with many fearing that she would answer only to her employer rather than champion the islanders’ interests. The United Kingdom could then simply decree the document, which would be a blatant violation of the people’s human rights. The document must not become law until it had been ratified by the elected territorial government, ensuring the consent of the people, he stressed.

WENDAL SWANN, Chairman of the All-Party Commission on the Constitution and Electoral Reform, Turks and Caicos Islands, said certain challenges facing the islanders were a result of the current constitutional state of affairs. The Governor was considered a “constitutional dictator”, holding all authority on the basis of a decision by the United Kingdom. By the same decision, parts of the Turks and Caicos constitution had been suspended, he said, adding that Robin Auld — a former Chief Justice appointed by the administering Power to conduct a Commission of Inquiry into possible ministerial corruption — had recommended the suspension without citing any perceived constitutional failures.

Following that recommendation, the United Kingdom had appointed Kate Sullivan to run consultations with the people, he continued. Referring to certain provisions of the constitution that would definitely be changed, Ms. Sullivan had excluded the media from her meetings, thus proving the process of consultation to be “more a sham than anything reliable”. He stressed that, unless such a process was challenged, its acceptance by the administering Power as a legitimate consultation with the people would nullify their voices. To prevent that, the Territory’s political leaders had appointed an independent commission to reflect the views of the people. The Governor did not and could not represent the interests of the people, he emphasized, pointing out that the suspension of the constitution had only served to make the people leaderless.

When asked how elections could be held without a constitution, Mr. Swann reiterated that public consultations were being held, and it was to be hoped that afterwards, the United Kingdom would consider the independent Commission’s report as well as Ms. Sullivan’s. Noting that the current constitution was simply an order in Council, he said he hoped all parties involved could eventually accept a new one. With regard to the elections, he called on the Special Committee to provide the Territory with assistance to ensure that the new constitution was ratified by the people. The Special Committee’s support in that matter could help prevent an undesired decree by the United Kingdom, he said.

Question of United States Virgin Islands

GERARD LUZ AMWUR JAMES, President of the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the United States Virgin Islands, updated the Special Committee on the Territory’s constitution-making efforts, saying it was making its fifth attempt to draft a locally written charter to replace the 1954 Revised Organic Act, which had been written by the administering Power and served as the governing document in lieu of a constitution. The proposed constitution had been adopted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention last May following extensive fact gathering in public meetings throughout the Territory.

The proposed constitution had been adopted by the required two-thirds majority vote, and had been forwarded in December to the administering Power, he said. Written under the present non self-governing territorial status, the document was not intended to alter that status, but rather to organize “internal governance arrangements”, he said, adding that he had recently led a delegation to Washington, D.C., to present the document to two congressional committees, followed by a presentation of the administering Power’s views. Congress had asked the Convention to reconvene and consider the administering Power’s objections, he said.

He recalled that, during his statement to the United States Senate’s Energy and Natural Resource Committee, he had noted that the proposed constitution had been drafted by and for the people of the United States Virgin Islands, and was not a proposal to govern other people. Several negative comments had been made about certain provisions of the document, he noted, by people who had not “worn the shoes” of those who had suffered the indignity of being externally governed. They had not examined the evidence that had led the Convention to adopt the necessary provisions to maintain generations of local people working hard to own property that would provide life for themselves and their descendants.

The critics had not reviewed the evidence that showed that those with Virgin Islands ancestry, primarily people of African descent, had been devastated by the administering Power’s lack of support, he continued. For example, half of the local population had left the Territory, an exodus that must stop, he said, stressing that the extinction of the native people was not an acceptable option. Young people were leaving because their parents could not afford to pass on to them homes and businesses that had been in the family for decades. Home values had increased exponentially due to external factors, causing tax hikes well beyond the ability of local families to pay.

One of the objections to the proposed constitution had been over any meaningful reference to the native population, he recalled. However, such recognition should not cause suspicion or be challenged as improper, since it was the administering Power that had recognized and defined the native population, pursuant to the 1917 treaty transferring the Territory from Denmark to the United States. Subsequent citizenship and nationality laws of the administering Power imposed in 1927 and 1940 confirmed that recognition, he said, adding that the provisions of the proposed constitution granting certain benefits to the native population were consistent with policies, agreements and treaties executed by the administering Power. The document went further, however, by embracing all those born in the Territory, including the children of people born elsewhere who had made the Virgin Islands their home.

A key area of difference between the Convention and the administering Power had been over the local people’s ownership of the Territory’s marine resources, he recalled, noting that the administering Power regarded the islands’ natural resources as its own. That was inconsistent with relevant General Assembly resolutions and with the Law of the Sea, which had affirmed for decades that the ownership, control and disposal of natural resources, including marine resources, lay with the people of the Non-Self-Governing Territory in question. That inconsistency must be reconciled as a matter of priority in the United Nations.

23 May 2010

Proposed USVI Constitution Presented to US Senate Committee

On the precise day that the United Nations Decolonisation Committee was convening a high-level seminar in Noumea, New Caledonia to examine the democratic deficit in the political dependency arrangements in the US Virgin Islands and other non-self-governing territories, the proposed US Virgin Islands Constitution which seeks to modernise the parametres of that territory's existing political status was being presented for consideration by the United States Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Both events took place on 19th May 2010. OTR will shortly publish a selection of the territorial government presentations and expert papers presented at the UN seminar. The statement of the President of the US Virgin Islands Constitutional Convention at the Senate hearing follows.

Statement by Gerard Luz Amwur James II, President
Fifth Constitutional Convention of the U.S. Virgin Islands
to the Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
May 19, 2010

Good Morning Chairman Bingaman, Committee members and all others present.

I am Gerard Luz Anwur James II, President of the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the Unites States Virgin Islands ("Convention"). It is my distinct honor to address this Committee.

The proposed constitution was drafted by the people and for the people of the United States Virgin Islands. It is not proposed to govern any other people. The people who have made negative comments about the document have not worn the shoes of those who have suffered the indignation of being governed externally. They have not examined the evidence that led the Convention to adopt provisions in this constitution that are so necessary to keep life going for those whose parents, grandparents, and great-grand parents have worked hard in order to own property that would provide life for themselves and their future generations. The critics have not reviewed the evidence that shows that those whose ancestry lies in the Virgin Islands have been devastated by the lack of support for the people of the Virgin Islands.

The evidence demonstrates that the territory has 114,000 residents and that more than 58,000 Virgin Islanders no longer reside in the Virgin Islands. These people now live in the mainland United States. Simple math resolves that this lost represents about one-half of the current population of the Virgin Islands. This exodus must stop or the Virgins Islands’ life blood will cease to exist. Extinction of the native people of the Virgin Islands is not an acceptable option.

The life blood of any people lies in its young. Historically, people of this great country work to provide a better life for their young with the hope that they will prosper from their parent's labor. The young of the Virgin Islands are leaving because their parents cannot pass on to them the home that had been in their family for decades. Unlike the mainland, the values of the homes in the Virgin Islands have soared due to the many tourist developments. These developments have caused the taxes on the ancestral home to be well beyond the ability of many families to pay. Their homes have been taken from them. Even worst is the plight of our young who remain and resort to violence in an effort to acquire something they can call their own. I sit as a witness to the lost of these young lives. As a funeral director, I daily look into the eyes of the young and see the absence of hope they once suffered. The Convention has compelling reasons for the provisions that are contained in the document.

The provisions in this constitution as they relate to "natives" is not new to this Congress. This body has recognized that the native people of this country and its territories at times need special protections in order for the native people to exist. The Congress of the United States has enacted laws for native people in Hawaii, Alaska, the Northern Marianas, Aleutians and the continental United States. Congress did not deny those provisions in advance because of alleged unconstitutionality. Congress knew that Constitutional challenges to a specific provision of law cannot be resolved by any litmus-paper test. Congress knew that constitutionality is determined on a case-by-case basis.

It was the United States government that established the definitions contained in the proposed constitution. These definitions should not bring suspicion or challenge as being improper. These definitions are derived directly from the Government of the United States. It was an act of Congress that differentiated the people of the Virgin Islands and conferred different legal status upon them by virtue of 8 U.S.C. §1406. It was this act of Congress that carved out certain rights for “natives.” To the best of my knowledge, these provisions have not been challenged or overturned.

The Fifth Constitutional Convention’s fact gathering process included public meetings throughout the Virgin Islands. The Convention heard testimony from hundreds, reviewed formal presentations and documents.

Everyone in this room including the Justice Department is fully aware that our proposed constitution is not designed to usurp the sovereignty or supremacy of federal law. The passage of our constitution will not, nor is it intended to, alter our political relationship with the United States. It merely represents a further step along the path toward a full measure of self-dignity.

We strongly believe that the constitution's provisions are not discriminatory, do not violate federal law and support a Constitutional appropriate interest. Throughout our history our shores have remained open to people of all cultures and ethnicities. The Virgin Islands has long been known as the ‘American Paradise.” The proposed constitution is our sincere effort to insure that our beloved territory remains our “Virgin Islands Home.”

We asked that Congress approve the proposed constitution with all of its present provisions. At the very least we ask that the constitution be returned with no action.

I am aware that Congress is considering a resolution to urge the Convention to reconvene. We do not ask this, but if the resolution passes, we ask that Congress in the resolution provide the financial resources that would be necessary for the Convention to reconvene. We ask that Congress allow the Convention, after reconvening, to place the proposed constitution before the voters of the territory without further need to send the document to the Governor of the Virgin Islands, who has tried in every way to circumvent the will of the people. We further ask that the requirement to send the proposed constitution back to the President and Congress be eliminated.

This is our fifth attempt to attain greater self-government since Congress passed PL 94-584 in 1976, which granted us the authority to draft our own constitution. You need to know how important this Constitution is to the Virgin Islands. This proposed constitution has helped to breathe new life and hope into our people. It is the talk of every radio and television show. It is the topic of daily conversation. People now believe that their life-long dreams will come true. These pieces of paper may not mean much to many in this room, but it means life to the people of the United States Virgin Islands.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.