Support to Territories from UN System

Action on Resolution on Support to Non-Self-Governing Territories by the specialised agencies and international institutions associated with the United Nations

Excerpts from UN Press Release
Geneva
1st August 2009

In a resolution on Support to Non-Self-Governing Territories by the specialized agencies and international institutions associated with the United Nations (E/2009/L.26), adopted by a vote of 25 in favour, none against, and 22 abstentions, the Council recommends that:

All States intensify their efforts within the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system of which they are members to ensure the full and effective implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), and other relevant resolutions of the United Nations;

Requests the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system and international and regional organizations to examine and review conditions in each Non-Self-Governing Territory so that they may take appropriate measures to accelerate progress in the economic and social sectors of those Territories;

Urges those specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system that have not yet provided assistance to Non-Self-Governing Territories to do so as soon as possible;

Requests the specialized agencies and other organizations and bodies of the United Nations system and regional organizations to strengthen existing measures of support and to formulate appropriate programmes of assistance to the remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories, within the framework of their respective mandates, in order to accelerate progress in the economic and social sectors of those Territories;

Requests the administering Powers concerned to facilitate, when appropriate, the participation of appointed and elected representatives of Non-Self-Governing Territories in the relevant meetings and conferences of the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system, in accordance with relevant United Nations resolutions and decisions, including the resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and the Special Committee, on specific Territories, so that they may benefit from the related activities of those agencies and organizations.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (25): Algeria, Barbados, Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, China, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Against (0):

Abstentions (22): Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malawi, Morocco, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States.

JOHN SAMMIS (United States) said with regard to the resolution before the Council, he said this was essentially the same one that had been considered several times in the past by the Council. Each time it had come up, the United States had called for a vote and abstained, as have a number of other countries. They would do so again today. They found themselves in this position despite agreeing in principle that the UN funds, programmes and specialized agencies could usefully provide support to territories that were not United Nations members, so long as the domestic laws and policies of a territory’s administering power allowed such UN support. It was the responsibility of the administering power to decide the nature of the participation in the United Nations, if any, of its territories. Under the Constitution of the United States, the federal Government had sole responsibility for the conduct of United States foreign relations, which included the foreign relations of United States territories. They were concerned that the proposed language of this resolution infringed upon these internal constitutional arrangements of the United States, and therefore could not support the resolution as it stood now.

JAKOB STROM (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union also called for a vote on resolution L.26. The United Nations system provided support to Non-Self-Governing Territories. Regrettably, the resolution was loaded with political content, and diverted attention from the noble objective. The European Union would abstain from the resolution, as it did not fall within the purview of the Council. Time had not allowed a collective reformulation of the resolution at this session, but the spirit of the meeting would inform consultations when time permitted.

TONY FAUTUA (New Zealand) said New Zealand had first hand experience with specialized agencies as related to non-self governing territories. New Zealand was pleased to recognize the Taukalow peoples, and the achievements made thus far, and in this regard they would support the draft resolution.

ALEXANDER PANKIN (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation would abstain on voting for this resolution. Russia had consistently supported deleting this agenda item on the granting of independence to colonial territories and peoples. Economic questions to do with helping vulnerable peoples should be considered in another context. Politicisation of the Council's work would not help with its main function, which was coordinating United Nations activities in economic and social spheres.

DONATUS ST AIMEE (Saint Lucia) said a couple of issues had been raised in the discussion, including sovereignty. Saint Lucia felt that self-determination did not imply independence. The question of whenever (Resolution) 1514 was mentioned did not in itself mean that the Council was advocating this, and this was the difficulty that some delegations had. The very title of the resolution probably gave the impression that independence was the focus of the resolution - and this was incorrect, the focus was encouraging administrative powers to collaborate with the United Nations, and to encourage the non-self-governing territories to ask for help from the United Nations system. Saint Lucia would vote in favour of the resolution. It was unfortunate that a vote was required, but hopefully this would be remedied next year.

************

Needed: Modernisation of Resolutions

Overseas Territories Review Commentary

The adoption by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the resolution on support to the non self-governing territories by the wider UN system is one of the most important areas of UN focus on the territories because it is intended to build their technical capacity as they evolve toward full self-government. The resolution in 2009 was introduced by the Representative of St. Kitts and Nevis, a member of ECOSOC.

If the territories are not prepared for self-government, it is less likely that they would be able to assume the powers necessary to run their own affairs, and more likely that they would remain in the political periphery of non self-governing status. A similar resolution is adopted by the General Assembly, with the voting pattern virtually identical. It is sad that these resolutions do not enjoy unanimity, and it remains puzzling why the member states have not been able to arrive at a consensus on the language.

It is clear that modernisation of the language of this resolution on support to the non self-governing territories from the UN system would go a long way in addressing the concerns of those member states which do not appear to object to the principle of UN support to the territories, but disagree with the political nature of some of the language in the text, causing them to abstain year after year.

An approach to modernising the resolution has been repeatedly recommended to the relevant UN committees and seminars by independent experts for well over a decade. These and other expert recommendations are welcomed by member states at the time they are made, but are subsequently overlooked behind closed doors when the text of the resolution is being prepared. Thus, the default position of retaining the previous year’s language, over and over again, with the same voting pattern, continues to prevail. Further, the actions called for in the resolution are effectively ignored by the very UN agencies who are to provide the relevant support.

This scenario is a classic example of bureaucratic reluctance to implement proposed solutions which could have solved this problem years ago. It is not surprising, and certainly should be embarrassing, that when ECOSOC takes up the issue, none of the specialised agencies and other UN institutions make presentations on such an agenda item which deals directly with their work. It is sad that, year after year, only a small fraction of the UN agencies respond to the request by the UN Secretary-General for information on their assistance programmes for the territories. Even agencies which provide assistance to the territories are reluctant to reply to the request for information because of the perceived political nature of the text.

The Need for Modernisation

The objections of the various member states to the resolution on assistance to the territories from the UN system are virtually identical to their objections for over a decade. Thus, the US representative continues to articulate to ECOSOC that any assistance to, or participation in, UN programmes for the non self-governing territories must be confirmed by the UN member State which controls the foreign relations of the territories concerned. This is a but a re-statement of the practice which is already in place, and has always been a requirement of the rules of procedure of any UN agency which provides for assistance or participation for these territories. The resolution, even in its present form, makes this clear.

A second objection by the US representative suggests that the resolution somehow “infringes upon” the internal constitutional arrangements of the United States. Yet, the longstanding US practice provides the delegation of authority to the territories, on a case by case basis, to participate in international organisations and activities.

In virtually all cases, it is only the state which controls the international relations of the territory which can make a request for the affiliation of the territory in any given UN body. If the delegation of authority is freely given by the administering power to the territory to participate in a given international organisation or activity, how can it be, at the same time, an infringement on the administering power’s control?

The arguments of the European Union and the Russian Federation have substantive merit as these states have always objected to the inclusion of language deemed political in nature in resolutions focused on economic and social development. Their respective positions could be similarly addressed in a proper consultation aimed at a consensus. This was called for by the St. Lucian Ambassador following the vote on the resolution, and it is hoped that the Caribbean and Pacific member states – the two regions to which the majority of the territories belong – would support this strategy at the upcoming session of the UN Fourth Committee where the same agenda item will be addressed.

It is recalled that this “repetition of process” which characterises UN consideration of support to the non self-governing territories was reviewed one year ago by OTR. The same conclusion applies now, as it did then: (http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html)

“…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.”

However, there may be grounds for some optimism. Several strategic recommendations emerging from the Caribbean Group may provide the necessary environment for consultation and compromise, and ultimate consensus on the resolution related to support to the non self-governing territories from the UN system.

OTR will continue to follow the issue during the next session of the UN General Assembly which convenes in September.

FNLKS Group Questions France Oceana Summit Venue

The France Oceana Summit was scheduled to convene in New Caledonia on 31st July 2009 under the chairmanship of French Foreign Affairs Minister Bernard Kouchner. The Nouméa meeting is being held at the headquarters of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). The session is to include senior-level participation from most of the countries of the Pacific Islands Forum.

The Union Caledonienne Elected Representatives of the FLNKS Group has expressed their objections to the convening of the meeting in their country which it views as inconsistent with the self-determination process of New Caledonia as a non self-governing territory. The position of the FNLKS Group is articulated below:


CONVEYING MESSAGE BY THE UNION CALEDONIENNE
ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FLNKS GROUP
(Wednesday 29th July 2009)

With recognition that New Caledonia is fully engaged in a real process of decolonization in accordance with the Noumea Accords which was signed the 5th of May 1998 between the French State, the FLNKS and the RPCR, we have witnessed for the past years that the French State has strategically positioned itself to recover power, with the main objective of pressing a brake on the emancipation of the country in order to jam her journey towards accession to complete sovereignty.

Thus since the appointment of the President of the Republic of France in 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy has put into place in a systematical approach, his plan for “l’outre mer” (French Overseas Departments and Territories) essentially destined to counter the aspirations towards Independence and it is with the old gaullienne rhetoric which expresses ‘the greatness of France’, that France articulates ‘three oceans’ of which ‘the sun never sets’.

The organization of “Etats généraux de l’outre mer” (General States of French Overseas Departments and Territories), the “Grenelle de la mer”, the creation of “Conseil interministériel outre mer” (The Inter-Ministerial council of French Overseas Departments and Territories) the many diplomatic visits of Ministers to the colonies, demonstrate the evidence of a takeover by the French State, guided by fierce opposition towards Independence of offshore countries. In relation to New Caledonia, during the last signatory committee on the 8th of December 2008 the President Nicolas Sarkozy gave a course of action to take, of which Harold Martin reminded at the Congress “If the point in time has come where the partners of the Noumea Accord wish to develop, progress and engage New Caledonia in new perspectives within the Republic of France, they must know now that they can count on my support and that I will never change my support to the most innovative solutions with relation to the legal plan in order to acknowledge and to guarantee the entity and the power of New Caledonia within France”.

The holding of the third France-Oceania Summit in New Caledonia this Friday the 31st of July 2009 takes this political viewpoint and which is also wanted by the President of the Republic. Furthermore as precisely stated by Madame Marie Luce Penchard, Secretary of State in charge of Offshore States on Tuesday the 28th of July in front of the Elected Representatives of the Congress of this country, the decision to set up New Caledonia as the confirms .

With this mentality, New Caledonia has therefore become a platform to defend the superior interests of France within our Pacific region disguised under its many assistance to Island States and under the sustainable development alibi and the preservation of the marine biodiversity. Our country, with an emancipating voice is therefore instrumental by the supervisory authority that claims to support her regional integration as it is also an ability already offered by the Noumea Accord.

The Elected Representatives of the Union Calédonienne of the FLNKS group both at the Congress and at the Government of New Caledonia refuse to support this purpose that is not ours and stay strongly anchored in the irreversible processes of the Noumea Accords that drives to the complete sovereignty of the Kanak country. So as to highly and strongly reaffirm their attachment to the dynamic emancipation, the elected representatives of the Union Calédonienne of the FLNKS have decided to oppose the holding of the France-Oceania Summit in New Caledonia. They have moreover requested to the brother countries: Melanesian, Polynesian, Micronesian as well as Australia and New Zealand to not support the hegemonic strategy of France in our pacific region and to refrain from participating in this staged farce from Paris.

The Elected Representatives of the Union Calédonienne of the FLNKS group both at the Congress and at the Government finally remind that the United Nations had declared the year 2010 as the end of the international decade for the elimination of colonialism, it is therefore a good time for France to turn the page of colonial history by accompanying their territories towards a true step towards emancipation instead of continuing to shut them away with tricks, in the stitches of nets in the name of the greatness of an empire that never came into effect but alas it will always be in the minds of some nostalgic spirits. If France will take into account the will of the people’s right to self-determination she will come out great and dignified.



The Leader of the FLNKS group,
R. WAMYTAN

Democratic Deficiencies in Puerto Rico

Should We celebrate ‘Commonwealth’ on July 25?
by CARLOS ROMERO BARCELÓ
Caribbean Business
July 30, 2009

Carlos Romero Barceló is a two-term former governor of Puerto Rico (1977-’84), a two-term former resident commissioner (1993-’00) and a two-term former mayor of San Juan (1969-’78). He was president of the New Progressive Party for 11 years.

What happened on July 25, 1952 that we should celebrate and honor with an official holiday? Nothing. On the contrary, instead of celebrating the adoption of our local constitution on that day as a giant step toward full local self-government, we should declare July 25 a day of shame and mourning for being the day when our people voted to become a “colony by consent.”

Until July 25, 1952, we were a colony by conquest in the Spanish-American War of 1898. At the time of the Spanish-American War in 1898, we had been a colony for more than 450 years. In the Treaty of Paris, signed at the end of the Spanish-American War, Spain gave up Puerto Rico to the U.S. and we became a colony of the U.S. by conquest.

During the first two decades of our colonial relationship with the nation, two very important acts of Congress established the colonial government in Puerto Rico. The Foraker Act in 1901 and the Jones Act of 1917 determined and defined the Republican form of government established in Puerto Rico. As established in the Jones Act, the Puerto Rico Senate and House of Representatives were organized, and all people born in Puerto Rico after the enactment of the Jones Act would be natural-born citizens of the U.S.

Since the Foraker Act, the governor of Puerto Rico was appointed by the U.S. president and, as a result, the highest-ranking and most-powerful elected public official after 1917 was the Puerto Rico Senate president.

It wasn’t until 1948 that we were allowed to elect our own governor by virtue of an act of Congress during President Harry Truman’s administration. Precisely during those years, right after World War II, Gov. Luis Muñoz Marín began conversations with the White House and Congress in an attempt to achieve full local self-government in Puerto Rico.

The attempt failed and all we obtained was:

First, a change of official name from the Territory of Puerto Rico to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;

Second, the consent of Congress to allow us to draft a local constitution, which would define the Republican form of government with its separation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches as were already established under the Jones Act of 1917 as amended, including the right to elect our own governor, which had been bestowed upon us in 1948;

Third, the right to appeal our local Supreme Court decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, was eliminated and our Puerto Rico Supreme Court decisions could only be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In everything else, Puerto Rico remained under full congressional authority in all laws including, but not limited to, labor, tax and other revenue, transportation, commerce, banking, health & health services, criminal, immigration, environmental and all other areas subject to congressional jurisdiction.

All attempts to interpret the legal and political relationship with the U.S. as one that granted Puerto Rico full local self-government, have fallen by the wayside. For many years, Muñoz Marín and “Commonwealth” supporters claimed we had full control over minimum-wage laws and other labor relations. However, when Congress decided to legislatively apply federal minimum wages in Puerto Rico, it did. There was nothing the Popular Democratic Party and those who claimed full autonomy on minimum wages and other fair-labor standards could do about it.

For decades, Muñoz Marín and all Commonwealth supporters claimed full fiscal autonomy. However, when President Clinton and Congress decided to eliminate the tax credits of Section 936 to companies established in Puerto Rico, there was nothing “Commonwealth” supporters could do other than beg and plead with the president and Congress. All they could obtain was an extension of the time to eliminate the tax credits.

More and more people in Puerto Rico have realized the so-called Commonwealth status is nothing other than a “disguised colony.” Or, as that memorable constitutional lawyer, Dr. Santos P. Amadeo, used to say: “The Commonwealth is nothing other than a perfumed cologne” or, a “bonsai,” as Peña Clos says.

As a result of Puerto Rico’s continuous colonial relationship, an undesirable colonial mentality has been creeping into our behavior and sense of relationship with the federal government and even with our own local government.

That is why every time a member of our executive or legislative branch of government goes to the White House, Congress or any federal government agency, it is to ask or beg for money or other resources, while here, in Puerto Rico, Commonwealth supporters blame the federal government for all of our problems, albeit past, present or future.

While those of us who work and struggle to achieve political and economic equality, not only in terms of rights and privileges but also in terms of duties and obligations, those who support the colonial relationship ask for more money and equality in privileges and funds, but refuse to accept any more responsibilities or obligations, particularly payment of taxes and acceptance of other fiscal responsibilities.

The colonial relationship has undermined the self-respect and sense of pride of those who continuously beg and plead but refuse to accept responsibilities and obligations. They make our people appear as beggars and leeches. When Commonwealth supporters go to Washington to beg and plead, while at the same time they refuse to accept any more duties or obligations as citizens, they not only demean our people, they also give the bigots and prejudiced groups arguments to use against us in our quest for equality and to create and provoke prejudice against Puerto Ricans.

The result of the undermining of our self-esteem as a consequence of our colonial relationship and the sponsoring of a beggars attitude is clearly demonstrated by a widely held fear that even if we have a majority support for political equality in a referendum, Congress wouldn’t grant us statehood. Those who make the argument and believe we will never be granted equality even if a majority asks for it, have a clear inferiority complex. The nation’s history clearly demonstrates that not a single territory has ever been denied admission as a state once a majority has voted for it.

The political reality of the world and the nation today makes it even more improbable that we wouldn’t be accepted as a state if a majority votes for it. It is precisely the colonial mentality that we must rid ourselves of. It is the colonial mentality that creates doubt in many of us as to what we can achieve with a majority vote.

It is our misfortune that a majority of our people were misled into voting for “Commonwealth” under the belief we were achieving a full measure of local self government.

Instead of celebrating July 25, we should proclaim it a day of shame and a day of mourning in our struggle for political and economic equality. Next year, on July 25, those of us who want full measures of democracy and political and economic equality should wear black ribbons on our chests and put black flags on our cars.

“Political Evolution: The Next Phase of Emancipation”

The 161st anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the former Danish West Indies – the present day US Virgin Islands - was commemorated on 3rd July 2009. A commemorative programme was held in Fort Frederik, Frederiksted, St. Croix, Virgin Islands. An address was given by former Virgin Islands Minister for External Affairs Dr. Carlyle G. Corbin, International Advisor on Democratic Governance. The address has been made available to Overseas Territories Review (OTR), and is reprinted by permission.

3rd July 2009

Introduction

I wish to thank the members of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, the organizers of this important event each year, for the kind invitation to participate in these activities in commemoration of the 161st anniversary of emancipation. I wish to especially thank Ms. Mary Moorhead and Ms. Pam Richards for facilitating my participation at this year’s activities. I have worked with these dynamic Virgin Islanders for a number of years, and was honoured to have been asked to present some thoughts on this sacred day in our history.

I especially wish to congratulate my friend and brother Mario Moorhead on the publication of his most recent book, “He and Me.” His earlier works, Redemption, Mammon Versus History, Who Feels it Knows It, and the series of ‘Black Star' novels among other works, provide a most dynamic analysis of the historical evolution of the people of the Virgin Islands. These works are required reading for those who wish to achieve clarity on the true legacy of the struggle of our past, and what is necessary to move forward. In the words of Actress Ruby Dee, “Above all, we need those with a sense of history - those who have the longer view.” I look forward to Mario’s feature address this afternoon.

As we commemorate this 161st year of emancipation, it is my firm belief that today, Emancipation Day, is our single most important holiday because it represents the successful struggle of the ancestors in abolishing the abominable system of slavery under the Kingdom of Denmark, beginning a long and arduous journey towards the pursuit – but not yet the attainment - of the civil, political and human rights of the people.

It is interesting that Emancipation Day in other parts of the Caribbean is often the most important holiday on the calendar. Our close neighbor, the British Virgin Islands, commemorates its emancipation on the first Monday in August (August Monday). In fact, the Emancipation Festival in the BVI, as in other British territories, is centered around Emancipation Day, with many activities dealing with cultural history and the struggle of African people who succeeded in defeating slavery under the British.

International Commemoration of the Abolition of Slavery

In recent years, my work at the United Nations has permitted me to participate in the international commemoration the abolition of slavery. On 17th December 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution designating March 25th each year as the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade. As a result, a number of educational outreach programmes have been instituted to draw attention to the “causes, consequences and lessons of the transatlantic slave trade, and to communicate the dangers of racism and prejudice.” This initiative was done through the collaboration of the member countries of Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the African Union at the United Nations. Ambassador Crispen Gregoire of Dominica and Ambassador Raymond Wolfe of Jamaica are especially engaged in keeping the issue on the front burner of the United Nations.

This initiative was an outgrowth of the momentum generated at the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance which convened in 2001 in South Africa – one of the world conferences in which I had the honour to speak on behalf of the Government of the US Virgin Islands during my tenure in Government House.

In 2008, a number of activities were undertaken including a solemn ceremony in the United Nations General Assembly Hall and an exhibition in the United Nations Visitor’s Lobby entitled “The Middle Passage: White Ships, Black Cargo.” Additionally, a conference entitled “Lest We Forget: Breaking the Silence on the Transatlantic Slave Trade,” was also held after the premiere of the powerful documentary “The Slave Route: A Global Vision.” Also in 2008, a group of students sailing on a replica of the Freedom Schooner Amistad retracing the Transatlantic Slave Route joined an international videoconference, when their ship docked in St. Lucia on 26 March.

The 2009 activities three months ago at the United Nations included several documentary films: Scattered Africa: Faces and Voices of the African Diaspora (US),and Black Atlantic: On the Orixas Route (Brazil). An expert panel discussion on The Legacy of the Slave Trade on Modern Society, and a major cultural event in the General Assembly Hall culminated this year’s commemoration. Recently, a Trust Fund was established for the creation of a permanent memorial at United Nations Headquarters acknowledging victims of slavery and the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. You would be interested to know that the Kingdom of Denmark has pledged US$ 10,000 to this memorial, and was one of the first countries to so pledge.

To this end, Denmark’s acknowledgment of the past has been encouraging. In a 2007 report submitted to the United Nations, Denmark acknowledged its role in “the barbarism of transatlantic slave trade (which) constitute(d) one of the darkest chapters of our history, in terms of its magnitude, its organized nature and particularly its negation of the human dignity of the victims.” The Danish perspective, however, regards slavery as a legal institution at the time it was practiced, and as such, absolves them of any liability to this point. In any case, the Danes, too, should share in this July 3rd commemoration as well since our emancipation, and the cessation of that “crime against humanity,” was part of Danish political history and evolution, as well – even as emancipation was not one of benevolent enlightenment, but rather the result of the organized revolt by the enslaved Africans.

The Internalization of Dependency

A week or so ago, I heard a talk show host in St. Thomas discuss the adoption of the recent non-binding US Senate Resolution 26 apologising for the “enslavement and racial discrimination of African-Americans.” This followed the adoption in 2008 of a similar resolution in the House of Representatives (H. Res.194). Neither resolution, however, supported reparations for the descendents of the enslaved Africans. Undeterred, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan last January introduced legislation, once again (HR 40), to form a Commission to Study Reparation Proposals. Meanwhile, President Obama’s delegation to the recent United Nations international conference in Geneva to review progress in implementing measures to combat racism successfully pressed for the removal of reference to reparations in the final report of the conference.

In any case, what was interesting to me as I listened to the talk show host discuss the Congressional apology was how he internalized this Congressional resolution, as if it applied to us here in this unincorporated territory. I am sure that he was aware that the slavery experience of our ancestors was under Denmark, not under the United States – unless, of course, the US assumed liability at the time of the purchase. I don’t see that anywhere in the Treaty of Cession, however.

The point that I am making is that our territorial status has caused us to internalize many things that do not apply to us precisely because our political identity is incomplete. In effect, we operate without a full measure of self-government. We are a people, not a ‘minority,’ as we are often referred to in the media. How can an overwhelmingly African descended society located in the Caribbean be referred to as a minority? Even federal statistics acknowledge that the society is comprised of about 85 per cent African descendents. Why, then, are we continuously characterized as a minority? As Paul Keens-Douglas wrote, is this “freedom of the press, or freedom to de-press?”

The fact is that we are a people who have a right to self-determination under international law - but we have never exercised that right. The Charter of the United Nations and the human rights conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights confirm this right as inalienable. This is not based on United Nations resolutions whose effect is not legally binding – although they are certainly morally binding. These are international treaties which are, in fact, legally binding on the countries that enter into them.

Under this inalienable right of self-determination, we have the right to choose from a set of legitimate political status options which provide for absolute political equality. As a society, however, we seem to have internalized the dependent territorial status, and by doing so, we have given it a legitimacy which it does not necessarily warrant. It has served us to this point in our political evolution and development, but the elements of the present status remain seriously deficient with respect to what constitutes democracy. These democratic deficiencies are the primary reason why we are listed by the United Nations as one of the sixteen remaining non self-governing territories. If we cannot be recognised as a people because of our dependent territory status, then there is clearly something wrong with that status – not with the people who demand their due recognition as a people. Identity and citizenship are not necessarily synonymous.

Recommendations have been made by the United Nations General Assembly since 1946 to give effect to our political development and evolution to full self-government. As a society, however, we are encouraged to dismiss the relevancy of international law and principles, and the role of the United Nations, even as most of our elected governments for decades have addressed the United Nations during the annual United Nations review of the US Virgin Islands. The Bush Administration issued a policy position that the territories under its administration were no longer an international issue, and merely a domestic one – but they still report to the United Nations every year. But, if we are not an international issue, why are we still on the United Nations list, and why did the Bush Administration continue to acknowledge us as an international question by reporting to the United Nations?

We do not read, see nor hear much of any of this in the media. The fact that our political development has been the subject of international review and assessment since 1946, based on the Charter of the United Nations is rarely reported - unless someone writes a guest editorial. We must find alternative sources to fill the considerable gaps in information on matters that directly relate to us.

Status Quo Versus Options of Political Equality

I was asked to focus this afternoon on the option of free association – one of the three options which would provide us with a full measure of self-government. It is an option which is recognized as a permanent political status, along with independence and integration, in accordance with international law. These three options are also recognized by the US Congress as options of political equality. Present legislation before Congress known as the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009 (H.R. 2499) introduced by Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi confirms that these three options as the only ones which provide for a permanent political status. The White House under former President Bush had agreed that these were the three permanent options in their 2005 and 2007 reports, while also recognizing the temporary nature, as well as the limitations, of the present territorial status.

Puerto Rico Governor Luis Fortuño put it this way in his testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources on self-determination legislation for Puerto Rico:

“230 years after the Declaration of Independence and 220 after the ratification of the US constitution, (the United States) continues to sanction an arrangement of governance over four million of its citizens that is abhorrent to the sacred principles enshrined in that Declaration because of the anachronistic survival of the Territory Clause of that constitution.”

Governor Fortuño continued that:

“Whatever may have been the role of the territorial system in the birth and growth of (the United States), the fact is that (the) Founding Fathers never intended it as a permanent way of governance by the federal government over the citizens of the Republic. More importantly, it clearly offends the values of American democracy in the 21st Century, especially as Congress has allowed such an inherently undemocratic system to remain in place…”

The Governor went on to say that:

“…we have forged an overall and growing consensus in Puerto Rico that our current relationship with the U.S. – territorial, unequal in the rights and duties of citizenship, not fully democratic, not fully self-governing and not fully consensual – no longer serves either Puerto Rico or the U.S. as well.”
The present territorial status no longer serves the U.S. Virgin Islands either.
Governor Fortuño, in his testimony, asked the fundamental question of “whether the framers of the (U.S.) constitution intend American citizenship to be a source of equal rights?”

He observed that:

“Puerto Rico is a community of American citizens who are deprived of the most basic rights of citizenship in a representative democracy: the right to vote and the right to be represented in the political body that enacts the laws by which they must abide.”

He ventured that:

“American citizens in Puerto Rico are separated from their counterparts in the States by a wall of political inequality built upon the foundation of our current territorial status.”

So there we have it. In analyzing this unincorporated territorial status, then, it is easy to recognize the fundamental democratic deficiencies under which we are governed. We are aware, for example, that we have no presidential vote, non-voting representation in the US House of Representatives and no representation at all in the US Senate. We also know that there are limitations, because of our status, in relation to the level of participation in some federal programmes.

The inconsistency of these democratic deficiencies are mentioned, often in passing, in the local media from time to time, but often so obliquely that it generates little or no reaction. As Mario might say, we may have heard it, but nothing rang in our head. This is not the case in some of the other territories. The driving force behind Puerto Rican political parties, for example, is their support for a political status preference. Thus, there is a pro-statehood New Progressive Party, a pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party and a pro-independence Puerto Rico Independence Party. The political leadership, as evidenced by the clarity of position of Puerto Rico Governor Fortuño and other political leaders, plays a critical role in the public education process on these issues.

The territory of Guam recognised the importance of full internal self-government as far back as the 1990s, and voted in favour of substantive autonomy in a referendum, although their proposal stalled in Congress. The commonwealth of the Northern Marianas has the most autonomous status of all of the US territories with powers governing the ownership of land and sea resources, among other areas. They gained these powers through successful negotiations with the United States in the 1980s. Recently, however, their autonomy is being systematically eroded by the Congress through legislation adopted late last year. This has motivated the Marianas Government to bring suit against the federal government for the unilateral removal of their self-government. We await the decision on their lawsuit which was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C.

For our part, the Virgin Islands Status Commission in the early 1990s drafted an autonomous political arrangement for consideration by the voters as an attempt to achieve a degree of self-government. The faulty process which included an excessive number of seven options severely impeded a proper public review of the areas contained in the autonomy proposal. The result, as we recall, was a less than sufficient turn-out in the 1993 referendum, and we reverted to the status quo, by default, and many questions remained.

Thus, in our present political status, we in the US Virgin Islands know that there is something not quite right. There is something peculiar, for example, with the fact that on Election Day last year we could not cast a vote for Mr. Obama – we seem to have concluded that voting in a primary election in the territory months before the ‘real vote’ for president is sufficient. We have internalized the deficiencies, and seem to have accepted them as adequate. We have given legitimacy to a model of political dependency which is far short of acceptable democratic governance. The late Michael Manley in the book “Struggle in the Periphery,” wrote that in order “to go forward (we) first have to recognize the depth of the trap in which we are caught.”

It may be surprising to many that the denial of such political rights is an issue for the citizens of the District of Columbia. The democratic deficiencies in their political status vis a vis the United States were enough to motivate civic leaders to file a case in the Inter American Commission for Human Rights. The Commission ultimately ruled that the lack of Congressional vote violated international law (specifically, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, et al). The Inter American Commission on Human Rights is a statutory body of the Organization of American States (OAS) which itself has a Democracy Charter by which it defends democratic principles in the hemisphere. On this basis, a similar case was filed with the same Commission by former Puerto Rico Governor Pedro Rossello, but has not yet been heard.

While there are no enforcement provisions in the Commission rulings, they represent a true sense of moral reasoning. In any case, such rulings serve as precedents for our situation as an unincorporated territory if we were to similarly challenge our lack of full political rights. Are there similarly organized civic groups in the US Virgin Islands who recognize the democratic deficiencies, and who would bring such a challenge?

Indeed, proper and sustainable organisation around these issues is critical if we are to advance from the political periphery. As if to confirm our place in that periphery, the US courts have continuously and consistently reaffirmed that full political rights can only be granted through the achievement of political integration, or statehood. The ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in 2000 was a landmark in a series of earlier and subsequent court decisions which confirmed this fact. The Court reversed an earlier District Court of Puerto Rico decision which had concluded that the 24th and 26th amendments of the U.S. Constitution support that the right to participate in presidential elections is not a function of state residence, but rather of individual right of citizenship.

It was therefore confirmed by the Appeals Court, once again, that only citizens residing in one of the fifty states have the power to vote for electors, and thereby indirectly for the president of the United States. A similar case brought by Krim Ballantine in St. Thomas with respect to the US Virgin Islands has met with similar rulings.

The federal executive has acted consistent with these rulings, and has made important policy decisions regarding the territories to this effect. Thus, prevailing White House policy has confirmed that the present status in Puerto Rico known as commonwealth is really an unincorporated territory subject to the Territorial Clause of the US Constitution. This gives the Congress the right to unilaterally make laws for the territories without their consent, and often against their will. It is this very unilateral authority which has been identified by the United Nations General Assembly each year as the fundamental basis of the political inequality which characterizes unincorporated territorial status. It is a fundamental reason for the retention of territories on the UN list of non self-governing territories. We are one of the sixteen remaining territories on that list.

We should find out the position of the Obama Administration later this year on the self-determination process of the territories when the newest White House Report on the status of Puerto Rico is due. Would the Obama administration have a different opinion than that of the Bush administration on the legitimacy of territorial status, and the possible way forward? We shall see. It is often the case, however, that policy made on the basis of the U.S. Justice Department opinion carries over from one administration to the next.

But whatever is decided, one thing remains clear. There is a fundamental imbalance in the political relationship between a territory and the federal government. The only matter of discussion is how do we correct the imbalance? But then again, do we recognize that such an imbalance indeed exists? Do we consider that the political imbalance of power between the federal government and the territory is necessary - to keep us in check? I am especially troubled by this thinking. This is why Mario’s talk show is so important because it helps us to understand the imbalance, and to discuss how it can be re-balanced. On this Emancipation Day, I recall the words of former Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere that: “Freedom is the ability to determine your own future and to govern without interference.”

One way of addressing the imbalance is through a gradualist approach where we would seek incremental rights, beginning, perhaps, with the presidential vote. But this would be a formidable task, and could only come via an amendment to the US Constitution, as was done for the District of Columbia. It would be a major challenge to gain overwhelming support of both houses of Congress along with three-fourths of the state legislatures for a constitutional amendment. The lobbying costs alone would probably be prohibitive. Of course, legislation to grant the presidential vote to the U.S. territories by federal law has been dutifully introduced in the House of Representatives, year after year, for decades. These bills have never been acted upon.

Also taking the gradualist approach, we could seek to gain full voting rights in the US House of Representatives as opposed to the present vote only in committee. Under the present Democratic Party-controlled Congress, this also includes a vote in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House rules. But the District of Columbia non-voting delegate can attest to the difficulties in achieving a Congressional vote for a non-state, as present legislation is being held up as a result of provisions added to soften DC gun laws – to allow more guns. You might be quite amazed by the nature of the discussions in the Congressional debate on several bills that would extend House of Representatives voting rights to Washington, D.C.

Further, what about the vote for the territories in the US Senate? The US Constitution is clear that only states have that power. We are not a state, although we have state directors and state plans, and state-like treatment. A colleague of mine calls it the illusion of inclusion. But, as Martin Luther King said in his “I have a dream” speech on the steps of the US Capitol, “We must guard against the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.” As Leba Ola Niyi concluded in his newspaper column on this day, “the status quo is archaic, colonial and undesirable.”

The fact that we have an Olympic team which competes in international competitions under the US Virgin Islands flag, and the fact that we have associate membership in several United Nations agencies with a seat behind the US Virgin Islands nameplate, should signal that our status is complex. States cannot send teams to the Olympics nor can they be represented in international organisations. These things were created, mostly at the request of the territories, to contribute to preparation towards full self-government. We must not lose sight of that fact.

Statehood as a Legitimate Option

If we really want to emerge from the ‘illusion of inclusion,’ and gain full political rights in the United States system, we could become a state, or even a part of a state. But with a population of just over 100,000, as well as other demographic factors, it would be especially difficult to achieve separate statehood. Of course, there is the possibility of joining an existing state, or joining with a new state entering the union. This would solve the democratic deficit. We would have a vote in both Houses of Congress, as well as the presidential vote. But would this be in our economic, cultural and political interest? There are certain questions that answer themselves just by being asked.

But it is necessary for us to decide our political future sooner, rather than later. If we don’t decide, Congress could decide for us - so if they wish to combine us with an existing state, for example, or make us three new municipalities of a new 51st state of Puerto Rico, what would be our response? Indignation? Incredulity? Or would we have a counter offer?

In any case, the option of integration – or as we know it, statehood - is defined by the United Nations in its Resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960, as follows:

• "Integration should be on the basis of complete equality between the peoples of the erstwhile non-self-governing territory with which it is integrated. The peoples of both territories should have equal status and rights of citizenship and equal guarantees of fundamental rights and freedoms without any distinction or discrimination; both should have equal rights and opportunities for representation and effective participation at all levels in the executive, legislative and judicial organs of government...”

Former territories such as Alaska and Hawaii became the 49th and 50th states of the US, and as such, were removed from the UN list of non self-governing territories. In our region, Martinique, Guadeloupe and French Guiana are the examples of integration through their overseas departmental status. This provides them with full political rights, but recent labour unrest indicates that the model is far from perfect. Recently, there have been calls for the creation of a new autonomous arrangement for Martinique – perhaps along the lines of French Polynesia. In any case, the chronic economic crisis in Hawaii does not bode well for the ‘overseas state’ model, which along with the five US territories, was in economic crisis long before the present global recession.

Of course, political integration, or statehood, is one of the three options which provide for full political equality where the people of the territory would have full political rights, as well as the responsibilities of actually being “a part of” the US - rather than “owned by” it. Many have internalized that we are a part of the US already, since we hear the phrase repeated on a daily basis. But the political and constitutional reality is fundamentally clearly otherwise. Having the US territories embossed on the back of a coin does not constitute political integration, but merely serves to further the illusion of integration. I suppose if any of the territories change their status, the minting of these coins would cease, and the remaining coins would become immediate collector’s items.

I am clearly not an advocate of statehood. But I fully respect it as a viable option because it would afford full political rights which we presently do not have. It would provide, in the words of the late Peter Tosh, “equal rights and justice.” The price in economic, social and cultural terms, however, might be far too steep.

Evolution of Governance

Historically, we have gone through various systems of governance, beginning with chattel slavery to military governance through Congressional rule via the Organic Act of 1936 and the Revised Organic Act of 1954, as it has been subsequently amended. In the process, we have moved from the era of an appointed governor to one of an elected governor by 1968 – all the while, still being governed by the Revised Organic Act which was written by the U.S. Congress.

We have gone through four – and now five – attempts to draft a local constitution - with the caveat each time that the final document would have to be consistent with our present dependency status. I share the view of those who felt that we should have followed the will of the people who voted in referendum in 1982 to deal with status first. Of course, we did try to deal with status through two commissions in the 1980s and 1990s, as well as one committee of the Legislature. Our second Status Commission, which convened before and after Hurricane Hugo, and on which I had the honour to serve, did significant work that should have propelled us into a new decade of concentration on the political evolution of the territory.

Some of our best political thinkers of today, Gerard Emanuel and Malik Sekou, were part of that earlier process, and it is most unfortunate that their recommendation was not accepted that an educational component on political development be continued after the inconclusive referendum of 1993. As such, there was no public discussion on the status or constitutional issues between 1993 and the present Fifth Constitutional Convention process. Many issues which were left unresolved following the political status referendum in 1993 have re-surfaced in the Fifth Constitutional Convention which has a narrower mandate. We should not be surprised since this was the only forum for over a decade where any issues of governance could be discussed.

My view is that a constitution based on a legitimate status chosen by the people would be preferable than one which is based on the status quo which itself was never meant to be permanent. Territorial status was always meant to be a transitional status to one of permanence. We have tweaked it, amended it and otherwise changed it within parametres, sometimes defined, sometimes un-defined, by the U.S. Congress, and always subject to unilateral change. Such changes effectively eliminated the foreign sales corporations sector, and had significant impacts on the investment incentive programme, for example. The overarching control to legislate for the territory remained, and remains, in place.

It is not surprising, therefore, that many of the issues under discussion in the present Fifth Constitutional Convention were those which sought more autonomy and local control. Some viewed them as ‘status’ issues. Again, I have always favoured status-first, but in a pragmatic sense, I take the view that anything which stimulates discussion on political development is a good thing. This is why I agreed to serve as an advisor to the Fifth Constitutional Convention where the deliberations raised a series of fundamental questions, such as:

• Would additional powers and authority be delegated by the Congress to an unincorporated territory under a local constitution?

• Does the fact that other US territories have unique provisions in their constitutions in relation to their local population serve as precedents for the US Virgin Islands? If not, why not?

• If the process goes through successfully, and we adopt a new constitution after it comes from Washington – assuming it actually goes to Washington – will we feel that we have “arrived,” and that we are “done with that?”

• Or will we recognise that with the enactment of a new constitution, a step would be made, but that we would still remain an unincorporated territory, albeit with a constitution, as opposed to a territory without a constitution as we are now?

• Will we come to the realisation that a local constitution would be only the beginning of a process to address the fundamental matter of achieving full internal self-government and the achievement of a permanent status?

It is often better to know some of the questions than all of the answers.

Free Association

As I stated earlier, integration, free association and independence are the three options recognised as legitimate by the White House, by the Congress and by the United Nations. If these are the available alternatives to achieve a permanent status, then the most logical step in my view would be a transition from a political dependency, as we are now, to a political association – given that the territorial status was always meant to be temporary and transitory.

Most of the present work in political transition has been historically done in regards to Puerto Rico, and is directly related to the political future of the US Virgin Islands. The present legislation before the US Congress authorizing a referendum for Puerto Rico confirms the legitimacy of the three options. It also provides for the Puerto Rican people to choose the status quo commonwealth - but if the people choose it, they would have to vote again in a few years, until they select one of the three permanent options. As you might imagine, Commonwealth supporters are not too pleased with their option of “permanent union” with United States now being re-defined as temporary. As far as they are concerned, commonwealth is permanent. This is part of their illusion.

Free association, then, is an option which emerged from the same United Nations resolution which defined political integration, specifically United Nations Resolution 1541 (XV) of 1960. It sets the minimum standards for an acceptable autonomous political arrangement. Accordingly:

• “Free association should be the result of a free and voluntary choice by the peoples of the territory concerned expressed through informed and democratic processes. It should be one which respects the individuality and the cultural characteristics of the territory and its peoples, and retains for the peoples of the territory which is associated with an independent state the freedom to modify the status of that territory through the expression of their will by democratic means and through constitutional processes.

• The associated territory should have the right to determine its internal constitution without outside interference, in accordance with due constitutional processes and the freely expressed wishes of the people..."

So far, the model of free association offered by the United States is that which it maintains in the Pacific with the associated states of Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall Islands. These arrangements emerged from the former United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and are based primarily on military considerations in exchange for long-term economic assistance packages. There are also requirements for consultation to take place on all issues related to defense and foreign affairs. The three associated states are also full members of the United Nations.

The free association arrangements between these three associated states and the United States provides for grant assistance over a twenty year period (which could be extended), and a trust fund that will accrue to provide an ongoing source of revenue when direct U.S. grant assistance ends. The arrangement also identifies the mutually agreed priorities for grant assistance in the areas of education, health care, infrastructure, private development, environmental protection, and capacity building sectors. It also provides for the continuation of federal programs and services for the benefit of the citizens of the associated state.

The Congressional Research Service in a 2005 Report indicated that the US model of free association is based upon a legal document known as a compact of association between the associated state and the United States. The CRS also said that free association could be accompanied by a transition period in which the United States could continue to administer certain services and provide further assistance for a period of time, as specified in the compact. Free association could also be annulled by either party based on the terms of the compact.

Whether US citizenship could be retained under free association continues to be the biggest question mark. I would argue that if free association with the retention of US citizenship were offered to Puerto Rico, a critical mass of 75 per cent of the electorate would coalesce around that option – especially if statehood were denied. The Congress, thus far, has been rather adept over the decades in avoiding the question of whether it would accept Puerto Rico as a Spanish-speaking state. The retention of the primacy of the Spanish language as a state is non-negotiable, even among many pro-statehooders. Congress may be faced with that question, once again, if the present legislation authorizing a referendum for Puerto Rico on the three options is adopted and signed into law by President Obama.

In the Caribbean, there are presently other, more flexible, models of autonomy which combine elements of free association and elements of integration. These have risen to the level of political equality sufficient to remove them from United Nations jurisdiction. The Netherlands Antilles, comprised of Bonaire, Curacao, Saba, St. Eustatius and Sint Maarten, is referred to in the Charter of the Kingdom of the Netherlands as a separate country with significant autonomous powers, along with Aruba and Holland. The relationship allows for the right to influence whether or how Kingdom laws or treaties apply. At the same time, there are provisions for participation in the legislative body of the Kingdom.

The present dismantling of the five-island Netherlands Antilles has more to do with the difficulties in multi-island governance from Curacao than the efficacy of the autonomous model itself. Both Sint Maarten and Curacao fought hard to maintain the autonomy existing in the present arrangement of the five islands in their negotiations with the Dutch on separate arrangements for the individual islands. The negotiations, however, have resulted in some loss of autonomy in fiscal matters and security.

Puerto Rico used to be considered a model of free association with the United States on the basis of common market, common citizenship, common defence and common currency. However, as I mentioned earlier, the Puerto Rico model of commonwealth has been re-defined by the White House, and in Congressional legislation, with the perception of autonomy significantly curtailed. It is on the basis of significant autonomy, however, that the people supported numerous referenda in support of commonwealth status.

Pro-commonwealth leaders continue to argue – most recently in Congressional hearings – that the commonwealth status provides freedom from control or interference by the Congress in respect of internal government and administration. They cite a series of US Supreme Court decisions supporting their position, as well as a 1971 U.S. Justice Department opinion which concluded that Congress can gradually relinquish its plenary powers and grant ever increasing measures of self-government. More recent Justice Department opinions, however, appear to have modified this perspective.

Other autonomous models for small island territories are in the Pacific, including the Cook Islands and Niue in free association with New Zealand. This is probably the most progressive of models of association existing today, providing for the maximum autonomy with shared New Zealand citizenship.

There is also Greenland and the Faroe Islands which enjoy autonomous arrangements with Denmark. These arrangements (Greenland more than the Faroes) provides for significant autonomy, while also providing for shared Danish citizenship and voting representation in the Danish Parliament. This brings to mind a discussion in our Status Commission in the 1990s of adding “Return to Denmark” as a status option. It was clear that the political status of Greenland and Faroe Islands, respectively, was far more autonomous than our present status of unincorporated territory. Since we already had seven options, however, there was insufficient interest in adding an eighth.

In all of these cases, though, the elements of any model of free association are determined in negotiation. Our best minds would have to be tasked to study these models, and develop a strategic plan for negotiations. Ultimately, an autonomous arrangement specifically suited to us would be the logical outcome. Of course, this would have to be preceded by an extensive public education programme on the three legitimate political options, to ensure fairness. To this end, the federal government has an international obligation under Article 73(b) of the United Nations Charter to assist the territory in the promotion of self-government.

So far, the federal government has not been forthcoming in providing such assistance. Both the Virgin Islands Status Commission in the early 1990s, and the present Fifth Constitutional Convention, made requests for assistance in conducting a public education programme. In both cases, the requests were denied, as was the request for the authority to access United Nations assistance. Interestingly, previous Congressional legislation on status referenda for Puerto Rico would have the public educational programme funded from the rum excise tax rebate.

Conclusion

Of the three legitimate options of political equality, I would lean towards the option of free association. While I am confident that we have the capacity to govern ourselves as an independent state, just as any other small island states in the Caribbean with even smaller populations than our own, it is clear to me that our society is not presently prepared for such a qualitative leap at this time. Independence is a state of mind. We are not in that state of mind.

Free association would be an excellent compromise between those who wish to retain a political relationship with the United States, while also attaining more autonomous powers. It would also place us in a position for further political evolution. Because of the democratic deficiencies, including the continued vulnerability to unilateral decisions affecting us, I do not believe that it is in our interest to maintain the status quo. Long-term planning is difficult, at best, when the rules can be changed unilaterally at any time.

Thus, we should do all we can to replace the unincorporated territorial status with a more democratic model of governance where the power lies with the people.Barring any extraordinary political initiatives to address our political status in the next several years, however, we will observe in the year 2017 the centennial under United States jurisdiction as an unincorporated territory. The four previous efforts to draft a local constitution since the 1960s, and the three processes to deal with the issue of our political status since the 1980s, have been useful exercises, but they have not yielded a result. We therefore remain as one of the sixteen remaining non self-governing territories in the world eight years before the centennial in 2017. I have read that celebrations are being planned, as we speak. But by 2017:

• Will we remain as an un-incorporated dependency, albeit with a constitution?

• Will there be renewed emphasis on addressing the political status options, and will there be a final status determined?

• Or will we consider a dependency constitution, if successfully adopted, the end of our political development – notwithstanding the continued applicability of the Territorial Clause of the US Constitution?

• In a broader sense, are the minimum requirements of democratic legitimacy met by a political system of governance which maintains unilateral authority by a government in which the territory has no voting rights?

• Do our people have a problem with being equated with “territory or other property,” and referred to in legislation as offshore possessions, insular areas, and similar terms which are insensitive given the historical legacy of slavery?

Again, it is often better to know some of the questions than all of the answers. These are some of the questions which are fundamental to our future political and socio-economic development.

I would further ask whether our society is comfortable with the present arrangement as an unincorporated territory whose government, according to a federal court ruling, exists only by the “legislative grace of Congress?” If so, then there should be no surprise when laws, regulations and other decisions continue to be unilaterally applied, without the consent of the governed, and often against their wishes, with unknown economic repercussions.

But if an awareness emerges among the people that the dependency status has become anachronistic, then much work lies ahead. In the first instance, there would have to be a process developed to sensitize the society of the existing democratic deficiencies in our present status, how these deficiencies affect us in our daily lives and how upgrading the status would benefit us, and more importantly, future generations. Our young people are watching closely.

Such an exercise would lead to a viable, democratic model with a full measure of self-government for the 21st Century, based on internationally recognised standards of full political equality and democratic governance. Our choices are to act, or to acquiesce. We must decide, or I am afraid that our future may be decided for us.

A good place to start would be in defining the 'We.' Leba put it best in his newspaper column on this 161st commemoration of Emancipation Day when he said that “the descendents of the emancipated Africans have the duty to achieve the highest degree of self-determination and political equality.”

It is only from the base of our collective Caribbean identity that we can propel ourselves toward a natural political evolution as a society. This is the next phase of emancipation, and perhaps the most challenging phase since the struggle which began in 1848. The struggle continues. We must remove the barriers which have been artificially erected to fragment Caribbean people in our society. We must forge the strategic Caribbean alliance which is critical and essential in the building of a 21st Century Virgin Islands. We must embrace the richness of our collective identity. We can move forward from there.

Annual UN Decolonisation Review Begins

The convening of the 2009 session of the Special Committee on Decolonisation in June marked the beginning of the United Nations annual review of the sixteen territories formally listed as non self-governing. The Decolonisation Committee adopts recommendations for submission to the General Assembly. The committee also reviews the un-listed territory of Puerto Rico, and adopts a resolution on that territory which is not submitted to the General Assembly.

The UN began its substantive work with the convening of a Caribbean Regional Seminar on decolonisation held in St. Kitts and Nevis in May, 2009. The seminar was opened by the distinguished Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis Mrs. Astona Browne who delivered a dynamic statement on the'state of play' in the decolonisation process, with specific emphasis on the non-independent Caribbean. A press report on the opening statement of the Permanent Secretary is published below.

OTR will analyse the final report of the seminar following its adoption and release by the Special Committee. It should be noted that the rules governing the seminars in recent years have closed the attendance to only a select list of invitees, and have excluded observers, UN-accredited press (including OTR) and other interested parties. The rules also provide that the drafting of the final report be done only by the members of the Special Committee without direct input from the other participants in the seminar. A UN official declined to comment on the restrictiveness of the seminar guidelines.

To provide further analysis on the issues raised and the expert recommendations offered, OTR will publish relevant papers presented at that session by distinguished experts and other participants. An extensive interview with one of the experts at the St, Kitts Seminar will also be published shortly.

Upon the completion of the 2009 Special Committee session at the end of June will provide an analysis of the 2009 Committee recommendations, and will examine the prospects for progress.


_________________________________________________________

Implementation Remains Key to Decolonisation

BASSETERRE, ST. KITTS (CUOPM) – A senior foreign ministry official in St. Kitts and Nevis says the twin-island Federation regards the Caribbean Regional Seminar on Decolonization “as a mechanism to devise recommendations on the way forward to ensure that this right to self-determination, as a fundamental human right, is realised by the people of all of the remaining non self-governing territories so that their people can achieve full political equality consistent with recognised international standards.”

Speaking at the Opening Ceremony on the Caribbean Regional Seminar on Decolonization convened under the auspices of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said the issue of decolonisation continues to engage the interest of the eminent scholars of the region.

Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mrs. Astona Browne said Sir Fred Phillips, Dr. Carlyle Corbin, Sir Howard Fergus and others continue to work towards bringing clarity to the dynamic of the “new millennium colonialism” that is being witnessed today.

“Their critical analysis of the options of political equality available to the remaining small island territories is especially valuable to how the international community moves the decolonisation process forward. The invited experts to this seminar should shed considerable light on these issues over the next few days,” she told the opening ceremony Tuesday of the Caribbean Regional Seminar on Decolonization convened under the auspices of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.

Mrs. Browne said given the geographical proximity and cultural ties of the people of the Caribbean, it should not be surprising that the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) continues to regard the decolonisation process of the remaining territories as fundamental to Caribbean regional integration.

“Indeed, seven of the remaining sixteen (16) listed non self governing-territories are in the Caribbean, and the people of the CARICOM region recall the decolonisation exercise they underwent not that long ago. In fact, St. Kitts and Nevis achieved its independence in 1983, and this was the last territory in the region to do so,” she noted, adding:

“Our membership on the Special Committee on Decolonisation, together with sister countries of the OECS, signals our understanding of the process. As we reflect upon our own experience, as former island territories, the elements of the free associated statehood model which obtained between the West Indies Associated States and the United Kingdom was of particular value to us.”

Mrs. Browne said CARICOM has also endeavoured to include the non self-governing territories in its regional institutions.

“Three territories are members or associate members of the OECS, one is a full member and five are associate members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Additionally, five territories are members of the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB), while the official currency of Anguilla and Montserrat is the same Eastern Caribbean currency used by their independent neighbours.

Further, six listed territories are associate members of the United Nations Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee, and a number of the territories enjoy formal status with United Nations bodies such as UNESCO, ECLAC, FAO, UNDP and others. This continued integration of the territories in regional and international institutions serves to further inform their decision on self-determination, and the discussion at this seminar on this item of territorial participation in international institutions should be most revealing,” said Mrs. Browne, who is also the Permanent Secretary for National Security and Immigration.

She told delegates that the thrust of their discussions will no doubt be guided by the mandate of the Committee and notwithstanding the perception that the process of decolonization is not progressing at the desired pace.

We take note of the internal reforms enacted for several Caribbean territories which have sought to modernise aspects of their respective dependency arrangements, and we also acknowledge that these reforms were not intended to bring the dependency status to an end. Thus, it is the attainment of full self-determination for these territories which will remain in sharp focus according to the mandate of the General Assembly resolutions,” said Mrs. Browne.

“It has been opined that the issue of implementation continues to be the “Achilles heel” of the decolonisation process, especially in light of the Caribbean-inspired Plan of Implementation of the Decolonisation Mandate, endorsed by the General Assembly in 2006, but which has not been fully operationalised. I have no doubt that the expert analyses and robust work plans, in addition to seminar like the one hosted here this week, will guide the steady advancement of the work at hand and ultimately give rise to the desired outcome,” the Permanent Secretary said.

UN Conference on World Financial Crisis Postponed to 24-26 June 09

The United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development has been re-scheduled. The Conference will now convene from 24 - 26 June 2009. The venue, United Nations Headquarters in New York, will remain the same.

The Conference will be presided over by the President of the General Assembly, and will result in a concise outcome to be agreed by Member States.

OCTs Eligible for UN Summit on Economic Crisis

The United Nations is convening a three-day summit of world leaders from 1 to 3 June 2009 at its New York Headquarters to assess the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression. The aim is to identify emergency and long-term responses to mitigate the impact of the crisis, especially on vulnerable populations, and initiate a needed dialogue on the transformation of the international financial architecture, taking into account the needs and concerns of all Member States.

The United Nations summit of world leaders in June was mandated at the Follow-up International Conference on Financing for Development (ICFD), held in December 2008 in Doha, Qatar. Member States requested the General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann to organize the meeting “at the highest level”. The ICFD contained a provision for the participation of associate members of regional economic commissions at the 2008 Doha Conference, and in the original ICFD held in Monterrey, Mexico in 2002, in the capacity of observer. The June Summit has maintained that provision for the associate members.

As a matter of background, the utilisation of this category of participation for associate members of regional economic commissions in UN economic and social development conferences was first employed in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Brasil, and was the creation of the Working Group of Non-Independent Caribbean Countries of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) through its subsidiary body of the Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee (CDCC).

This category was later used to facilitate the direct participation of the associate Associate Member Countries (AMCs) of either ECLAC, or its counter part Economic Commission and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), in most UN world conferences in the economic and social sphere since 1992. The level of participation of the Associate Member Countries (AMCs) has been mixed, however, given the insufficiency of available information to the governments of the AMCs.

These issues were analysed in a targeted 2004 study, and a broader follow-up analysis in 2007, carried out for ECLAC on the access of associate member countries to the UN world conferences, and to the programmes and activities of the United Nations system as a whole. These studies were carried out by Independent Governance Expert Dr. Carlyle Corbin, former Minister of State for External Affairs of the Virgin Islands Government, and founding chair of the ECLAC Working Group of Non-Independent Caribbean Countries - later changed to the Working Group of Associate Member Countries.

The 2004 study focused specifically on the inclusion of Associate Member Countries (AMCs) of the United Nations regional economic commissions in United Nations world conferences, and in United Nations special sessions and summits, in the economic and social sphere. The identification of issues of particular concern to these countries emanating from the outcome of these respective United Nations proceedings was an important phase of the research.

The 2007 analysis provided a comprehensive background of the longstanding mandate and legislative authority for the participation of AMCs in the wider United Nations system in furtherance of enhanced international organization participation of associate member and other non-independent countries. The study also formulated a comprehensive plan of action for the further integration of the AMCs in the United Nations process emanating from the findings. It was the first such comprehensive study of its kind aimed at the inclusion of the non-independent countries in the UN system. Efforts are underway to update the two studies and to design modalities to disseminate the information to the AMCs.


These studies are available on the website of the Subregional Headquarters of ECLAC at: http://www.eclac.cl/portofspain/default.asp?idioma=IN

According to Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, President of the 63rd Session of the General Assembly, "the UN Summit on the economic crisis in June will provide the international community with "an historic opportunity — and a collective responsibility — to bring new stability and sustainability to the international economic financial order."

The Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs), most of which are associate members of either ECLAC or ESCAP, have an important opportunity to benefit from the international deliberations at the Summit given the impact of the crisis on their respective economies. They should actively participate in the proceedings at the highest level.

Further information on the Summit is available on the UN website at: http://www.un.org/ga/econcrisissummit/.


Eligible Associate Members to the UN Conference

American Samoa
Anguilla
Aruba
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Northern Mariana Islands
French Polynesia
Guam
Montserrat
Netherlands Antilles
New Caledonia
Puerto Rico
Turks and Caicos Islands
US Virgin Islands

Virgin Islands Self-Determination – A Pan African Perspective

As the United Nations begins its 2009 consideration of the remaining, mostly small island, non self-governing territories under international consideration, Virgin Islands writer and activist K. Leba Ola-Niyi provides a Pan African perspective on the self-determination process of that Caribbean dependent territory.


by K. Leba Ola-Niyi,
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands


In his book "America s` Virgin Islands," William Boyer wrote: "As an unincorporated territory, along with Guam, the Virgin Islands occupied the lowest rung of the American colonial ladder, a status that obligated the United States government to make yearly reports to the United Nations." An incon¬venient truth is that an unincor¬porated status is a colonial or non-self-governing territory. When we look at the UN list of 16 Non Self-Governing Territories, the U.S. Virgin Islands are one of such over¬seas territories that -have not yet been totally decolonized.

Let us be aware of the colonizers' policy of indirect rule. In his book "Virgin Islands," Gordon Lewis wrote: "Like all the Caribbean colonies, the Virgin Islands have been governed by the imported constitutional models of the respec¬tive metropolitan centers, first Copenhagen, then Washington. The governmental institutions of the present-day period are thus colonial replicas of those models with their legal-constitutional framework derived from the major metropolitan enabling acts - the Danish Colonial Law of 1906, the terms of the 1917 transfer, the 1917 Act of Congress passed by Congress to provide a temporary government, the first and second Organic Acts passed by Congress in 1936 and 1954, respectively, and most recently the Elective Gov¬ernor Act of 1968."

Thus, the administering power passed these legislations to effectively manage and control its possessions, both internally and externally. Local constitutional reforms are merely window dressing that retains the colonial paradigm and relationship between the federal government and its overseas territories. It will not transfer real power. Although the Danish rulers trans¬ferred these islands to the Ameri¬can colonialists for $25 million in gold coins, let us always recall and recommit ourselves to achieve the goals and principles of our libera¬tion struggle that began in 1672.

Our story tells many accounts of our struggle for freedom, self-determination, human rights, social justice, and dignity. History hon¬ors and respects the people and leaders who fight for their freedom by any means necessary. Our ancestors were determined to be the masters of their destiny rather than remain slaves or servants in this colonial territory.

The purchase of a people in 1917 was simply an act of U.S. imperialist adventure in the Caribbean. U.S. imperialism can be traced to the so-called Manifest Destiny and Monroe Doctrine. In other words, a white supremacist, capitalist, and expansionist element believed that they had the "divine" right and duty to conquer, control, colonize, and exploit the Caribbean, Central and South Americas. One of Washington's imperatives is to build a regional empire that includes colonial and neo-colonial territories.

This so-called Transfer was not about the liberation, freedom, self¬determination, democracy, and basic rights for the African inhabitants. Copenhagen transferred power and sovereignty to Washington. These islands served as a strategic military outpost to protect U.S. national interests in its so¬-called back yard. Consequently, an African freedom struggle led by Rothschild Francis and D. Hamil¬ton Jackson arose to address and end powerlessness, poverty, and prejudice under white naval autocracy.

Colonialismm is an enemy of all freedom-loving peoples. According to Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, colonialism is Western policy by which the administering power controls and rules dire and national sovereignty to the people of the Virgin Islands. Self-determination is our human right, value, and objective that can¬not be negotiated or compromised. Since our ancestors had abol¬ished slavery and serfdom in the 18th century, our vocation is to eradicate colonialism -old and new manifestations - in this century. We must organize, centralize, educate and agitate to complete the process of decolonization.

The 1960 UN Declaration on Decolonization affirmed that "all peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development". In addition, Article 73(b) of the UN Charter demands that the administering powers must promote the policy and condition for full self-government in their overseas territories. The United Nations must renew its commitment, merit, implement the General Assembly's resolution of 1960, 1514 (XV), and complete its decolonization mandate for the eradication of colonialism in the remaining 16 peripheral territories.

The international community, along with the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and African Union (AU) must extend solidarity and offer assistance to the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories. Therefore, we must come together to achieve the goals of African liberation. The instinctive desires or aspirations of our people must be fulfilled.

Have Tourism and Financial Services Failed the BVI?

The challenges faced by the British Virgin Islands tourism and financial services sectors in the present international economic climate are analysed by Virgin Islander Benito Wheatley, Program Board Associate at the Institute of Caribbean Studies in Washington, D.C. The paper is published below with the kind permission of Mr. Wheatley. The views expressed in the paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial opinion of Overseas Territories Review.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Fiscal year 2009 has started off on a less than optimistic note for the British Virgin Islands (BVI). In the tourism sector, industry reports estimate that tourist arrivals are down 15 to 20 percent in the first quarter and present a bleak forecast for the remainder of the year. In the financial services sector, data indicates that by the end of 2008 new international business company incorporations were down 20 percent, presumably on uncertainty about the future of the financial industry.

What these trends indicate is that the BVI is beginning to feel the negative effects of the global economic crisis, as the economies of its major tourism markets in the United States (US) and Europe enter into recessions and the global financial crisis prompts calls by international leaders for financial reform, including enhanced regulatory oversight and scrutiny of offshore financial centers. These developments have created unfavorable global economic and financial conditions for tourism and financial services industries in the BVI.

The nature of the current crises has limited the government and private sectors’ abilities to adjust the Territory’s economic position in the short-term or scale back the impending economic downturn that is beginning to take effect. In the interim, the private sector will have to make painful cutbacks, while the government considers stimulus measures to help propel the economy along during what is expected to be an economically challenging fiscal year.

The deteriorating economic situation raises important questions about the viability of the BVI’s economy and the durability of the twin pillars economic strategy pursued by BVI governments since the early 1980s: Is the BVI’s twin pillars (i.e. tourism and financial services) economic strategy sufficient to sustain economic growth? Are third, fourth and even fifth economic pillars necessary to ensure the Territory’s economic survival? What other sectors and industries should be developed in the interest of economic security? The answer to these questions and how the society’s leadership responds to today’s harsh international climate will largely determine the economic future of the BVI.

The viability of the twin pillars economic strategy is currently under test by the global economic and financial crises, which have exposed the strategy’s underlying weakness: over-reliance on the tourism and financial services sectors for economic growth and too narrow a focus on the United States and certain European and Asian markets. The BVI’s tourism and financial services sectors’ dependence upon favorable economic and financial conditions in North America, Europe, and Asia for economic growth make the Territory’s economy particularly vulnerable to economic shifts and financial swings in the world’s leading economies, as well as shifting attitudes toward financial regulation within their societies.

While the strategy has provided the BVI with robust economic growth during periods of economic expansion and growth in its target markets, it has lead to economic contractions during economic downturns or financial turbulence. Essentially, the twin pillars economic strategy is too narrow in scope and does not encourage diversification of the economy beyond tourism and financial services or the establishment of other sectors and industries that can provide economic growth and help mitigate the negative effects of global economic slowdowns, downturns, or recessions.

Initially, tourism and financial services were logical targets for the development of low capital-intensive industries in the BVI that could quickly generate employment and revenue for an under-resourced and under-developed society. However, after years of robust economic growth the society became comfortable with the consistent economic gains and financial returns generated by tourist arrivals and offshore banking. For far too long, government and the private sector operated under the assumption that the economies of North America, Europe, and Asia would grow indefinitely. This assumption, however, has been proven false by the global economic and financial crises that is wreaking havoc on the world’s leading economies, many of which are now in recession.

The dangers of an undiversified economy are all too clear as the crises have demonstrated after hundreds of layoffs in tourism sectors throughout the Caribbean and a series of international financial scandals that have intensified opposition by world leaders to offshore financial centers, often referred to as tax havens. In some Caribbean economies, tourism accounts for more than 50 percent of employment and government revenues, while financial services employs a significant portion of the region’s working population and contributes disproportionately to the operating budgets of various governments. In the BVI, it is the collective failure of the society as a whole to adequately diversify the economy that has left the Territory in its rather precarious economic position.

Diversification of the economy is the logical solution to insulating the Territory against future global calamities such as the global economic and financial crises. Notably, consecutive governments have dubbed agriculture the third economic pillar of the economy, but in reality this is not the case. The agricultural sector is not a major contributor to gross national product and output in the farming and animal husbandry industries is little above the smallholder level.

Despite public rhetoric about the importance of agriculture, the sector has received marginal support and investment when compared to the capital and other resources poured into the tourism and financial services sectors by government and the private sector. As it concerns food security, the development of a modern agricultural sector is paramount and should be vigorously pursued by the farming community with the support of government. However, despite its strategic importance, the agricultural sector is not an optimal candidate for a third economic pillar.

The problems of land scarcity, access to water, and labor costs place incredible constraints on commercial production and it is highly unlikely that the agricultural sector will achieve the level of output required to firmly establish the sector as an engine of economic growth for the Territory.

Exploration of other sectors is urgently needed to identify and develop other industries that can provide the immediate economic boost needed in the near-term to lift the Territory’s economy during the projected lean years of global economic recovery. One such sector is the growing back-office market. In the back-office sector, support-services industries perform back-office operations (i.e. accounting, communications, technical support etc.) for corporations, financial institutions, and technology firms seeking cost savings. India is a popular destination for the outsourcing of technical support and communications with its massive call center operations. The BVI has many natural advantages that would make it a strong competitor for back-office services, particularly in the outsourcing of finance, accounting, communications, and administrative office functions.

First, the BVI boasts a relatively well educated English-speaking population and an experienced workforce that has supported the financial services sector for the past 25 years. The Territory’s wealth of experience in the offshore banking industry would be highly attractive to back-office clients seeking to outsource finance and accounting functions to low cost centers.

Second, the BVI has the basic infrastructure required to conduct back-office operations. The islands are equipped with a modern communications network that boasts high speed internet, facsimile, video conferencing, cellular, and telephone services. This is complimented by the wide availability of commercial office space that offers all the amenities of the modern office. Notably, the government and BVI Electricity Corporation have committed to providing the islands with a first class electricity grid that can meet all the Territory’s power needs.

Third, the Territory’s geographical location places it within a comfortable distance from the United States, and its financial capital New York City in particular, and within the same time zone (Eastern Standard Time). The Territory’s international airport offers daily service to Puerto Rico and Antigua where connecting flights are available to the US, UK, and other international destinations. In addition, the Territory has relatively dependable local postal services and a variety of internationally renowned express mail carriers, including the US Postal Service, FedEx, UPS, and DHL.

Fourth, the BVI is politically stable and an Overseas Territory of Britain. The Territory’s political status and options for legal recourse would provide back-office clients with a real sense of security and a high degree of comfort in conducting business in the Territory.

Finally and most importantly, BVI residents can offer back-office services, at least in the fields of accounting and finance, at a relatively lower hourly rate or salary than their counterparts in the US and UK, where the cost of an accountant or financial analyst to perform basic functions is significantly higher. At present, mutual funds, hedge funds, investment banks, commercial banks, and various other financial institutions are under intense pressure to find cost savings in today’s poor financial climate. The cost of the mutual fund industry’s back-office operations located in Ireland, Luxembourg, and various regions of the United States, has risen significantly on labor costs and firms are now seeking cheaper alternatives elsewhere. The back-office sector presents the BVI with potential opportunities for the development a new industry, which should be explored and pursued if found to be commercially viable.

Whatever the sectors and industries identified for development, the key is that the BVI arguably requires additional economic pillars to diversify the economy and firmly buttress the Territory against external shocks such as the global economic and financial crises. How the society responds to the challenge of economic diversification will have a profound impact on the BVI’s economic future. Failure to act in these uncertain times will only jeopardize the wealth and prosperity so hard earned by BVIslanders and others over the course of a generation.