by Noah Tucker
21st Century Socialism
March 5th 2010
In the morning of 2nd April 1982, people in Britain listened to the news with bewilderment. UK territory was being invaded by a foreign power- and, even more astonishing, the invading country was Argentina. How on earth had a third class military power, in the southern hemisphere and on the other side of the Atlantic, managed to land its troops on a part of the British Isles? The experience of Steve Cahill, an Englishman who contributed his memory of that day to a BBC article on its twentieth anniversary, was typical:
"My first thought at the time was 'Where are the Falklands?' Like the majority of my generation at the time, I had never even heard of them. A quick look at an atlas confirmed that they were not just off the coast of Scotland, as I first imagined."
Unlike the people of Argentina, the majority in the UK had no previous awareness that Britain still maintained a remnant of empire off the south east coast of Latin America; but nevertheless within a very few days they were roused to militaristic fervor on behalf of the 1,820 inhabitants of that outpost, who were nearly all of British descent and wanted to remain subjects of Britain, not Argentina.
907 people, most of them very young men, were killed in the war that followed- equivalent to almost half the number of those on whose behalf the war was supposedly fought- a futher 1,965 were injured, many of them permanently disabled. Hundreds more of the combatants have since succumbed to mental illness, drug or alcohol addiction, and suicide, as a result of the psychological scars which they received. A report in the Independent on 25th March 2007 included the following paragraphs:
Mr McNally, then a gunner in the Royal Artillery, is still consumed by the events of 25 years ago on rain-sodden islands 8,000 miles from Britain. As the anniversary of the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands approaches next week, an act that prompted "Maggie's Army" to steam from England to the South Atlantic, Mr McNally lives day and night with the horrors of war. And he is not alone.
"We, like most people, didn't have a clue where the Falkland Islands were," said Mr. McNally. "I assumed they were somewhere off Scotland. We didn't take it seriously because we didn't have a clue what was going on. You are a soldier, but you don't envisage that you would actually have to go to war."
Like thousands of British service personnel who have fought in the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan, he has battled mental health problems for years, triggered by guilt over the moment his missile system malfunctioned and he was unable to prevent the death of his comrades on bombed and blazing ships.
"Soldiers were jumping in the water, their clothes on fire," Mr McNally said. "Many had limbs missing. The ship was in flames. All I could do was watch. I felt ashamed, embarrassed and guilty."
Stephen Rawlins, a proud squaddie, with a happy smile, was another who was never the same after he returned from the Falklands. On Remembrance Day 2000, he attended the memorial service at his local Cenotaph. Then he went home and killed himself. He was 38. His father David, 68, found him hanged at their home in the village of Llanbradach, in south Wales.
"He went to the war as a boy and he came back a man," Mr Rawlins said. "But as a man he thought that all of his emotions could be bottled up. He would not talk to me, but he'd sit up all night confiding in his mother. He would be screaming men's names in his sleep, shouting to them to get out."
More than 300 Falklands veterans have committed suicide since the end of the war. One of them, Charles "Nish" Bruce, an SAS veteran and freefall expert who served in the conflict, plunged 5,000 ft from a plane without a parachute in 2002.
A small minority in Britain opposed the war, arguing that the UK establishment wanted to hang on to the Malvinas / Falklands at least partly for strategic and economic reasons including the possibility of future oil extraction, and that Margaret Thatcher was keen for a military conflict to enhance her Conservative government's electoral prospects. Were the issue truly about the UK's duty to the colonists that they should have the right to be British, then this could be assured by offering them relocation to England, Scotland or Wales- with generous financial compensation terms which, given their small number, would be very affordable to the mother country.
The unprinciple of self-determination
Almost three decades later, new advances in petroleum prospecting and extraction technology have made drilling for oil in the area potentially profitable; the UK's justification for authorising drilling, however, is fundamentally similar to that which was used to win support for the war in 1982: the population of the Falklands (now risen to 3,140 civilian residents, plus 500 British soldiers) regard themselves as British, so the hydrocarbon resouces under the sea bed which surrounds the colony must therefore belong to Britain. Noting the unanimous support for Argentina's position by the 32 counties of South and Central America and the Caribbean at the 'Rio Group' meeting on 24th February, the BBC reported on the British response:
Its [the UK's] minister for the region, Chris Bryant, said that Britain had "no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands".
"It is underpinned by the principle of democratic self-determination. Falkland Islanders want to remain British," he added.
Earlier, Argentina had imposed a new requirement for shipping to get permission to go from there to the islands.
This was in response to the start of drilling for oil off the Falklands, within the exclusive economic zone claimed by the Falkland Islands government, with the support of the UK.
Were 'democratic self-determination' a genuine right for the inhabitants of the small but strategically important outposts around the world that Britain managed to retain in the twilight of its empire, one would suppose that it would be accorded universally to those inhabitants by the UK government. The sad fate of the Chagos islanders proves otherwise.
By the mid-1960s, the population of Britain's main remaining colonies were demanding that 'Britain must go'; and it was clear that the UK would have no choice but to allow Mauritius- as with the other countries that it controlled- to achieve independence. So the British government decided to detach the Chagos island archipelago- hitherto a part of Mauritius under the colonial administration- and hold onto it as British territory, insisting that the Mauritians would be allowed to leave the empire only on condition that Britain kept its ownership of the Chagos Islands.
The Chagos Islands became, like the Falkands and a dozen other small remnants of the British Empire around the world, a Crown Colony. (Later, in a terminological manoevre to deal with the fact that the tide of world opinion had turned against colonialism, the British Crown Colonies were re-named by an act of Parliament as the British Dependent Territories; and they were subsequently re-named again as the British Overseas Territories.)
In the process which followed, which was that of the forced expulsion of the population of the Chagos from the islands, the islanders were offered no recourse to self-determination. Dispossesed of their homes and their means of livelihood, the democratic choice offered to the Chagossians was to become slum-dwellers on the Mauritius mainland. For the inconvenience of having to accommodate these refugees, the government of Maurituis was compensated with the princely sum of three million pounds.
Like the Falklanders, the Chagossians were approximately two thousand in number. Unlike the Falklanders, they were dark skinned and not of British ancestry- they were the descendants of the African slaves and Indian workers who had been brought to the islands in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to labour on the coconut and copra plantations; and unlike the Falklanders, the perceived strategic interest of the British state lay not in keeping them in their homes but in expelling them from their homes. In the early 1970s, having accomplished the programme of cleansing the land from its population, Britain made good on a deal which it had negotiated with the United States of America, and the USA began constructing its naval and air force base on the largest of the Chagos islands, Diegio Garcia; by which the United States has since maintained its strategic command of the Indian Ocean.
No property rights
The Chagossians, who call themselves the Ilois people, did not give up their struggle for the right of return; and eventually the English courts agreed that they should be allowed to go back to the Chagos Islands, though not to Diegio Garcia, where most of them and their parents and grandparents had lived. But in 2008, the UK government successfully appealled that decision, persuading the highest lords of the English legal system that, despite the "unattractive aspects" of the dispossession of the Chagossians from their islands, the British financial and political interest, and even more imporantly, the USA's military interest, must prevail. Duncan Campbell noted in the Guardian in July 2008:
Islanders seeking to return to the homes from which they were removed to make way for a US military base nearly 40 years ago have no right to return, the law lords were told yesterday. Allowing the Chagossian islanders to go back to their Indian Ocean homes would be a "precarious and costly" operation, and the United States had said that it would also present an "unacceptable risk" to its base on Diego Garcia, the law lords heard.
The Foreign Office is appealing this week to the House of Lords against earlier judgments which have granted the Chagossians the right to return to the islands in the British Indian Ocean Territory. A group of islanders have arrived from Mauritius, where most of them have lived since being evicted, to hear the final chapter in their legal battle. Both the divisional court and the court of appeal have already found in favour of the Chagossians.
While there were "undeniably unattractive aspects" to what had happened to the islanders in the 1970s, that was no longer what the case was about, Jonathan Crow QC, for the foreign secretary, told lords Bingham, Hoffmann, Rodger, Carswell and Mance.
Democratic rights did not figure in the argument of Jonathan Crow QC, the lawyer representing the British government. Rather, he pointed out that the dispossessed islanders did not possess any property rights. Therefore, to allow these evicted people to return to their homes would be to concede to an act of "mass trespass":
The issue now was whether the government had been entitled in 2004 to issue orders in council forbidding the return of the islanders, he said. Britain took the Chagos islands from France in the Napoleonic wars and, under a 1971 immigration ordinance, removed the inhabitants compulsorily so that the main island in the archipelago, Diego Garcia, could be used as a US base.
Crow said that it had been regarded by the US since 9/11 as a "defence facility of the highest importance ... a linchpin for the UK's allies".
Although the judgments being contested do not grant the islanders the right to return to Diego Garcia itself, repopulation of the other islands would present an "unacceptable risk", the US believed.
"It has financial implications, political implications and defence implications," said Crow. "The Chagossians do not own any territory ... They have no property rights on the islands at all. What is being asserted is a right of mass trespass."
Today, the Chagos Islands have a population of about 3,200, comprising 1,650 US military personnel, 50 British military personnel, and 1,500 privatised military 'civilian contractors'. The name of the USA's military base on Diegio Garcia is Camp Justice.
Marriage of inconvenience
Despite the British government's steadfastness in preventing the return of the Chagossians, and the UK's many other actions in support of the US global strategic interest, there is no quid pro quo from the United States in the form of open endorsement of Britian's claim to the Falkland / Malvinas Islands. In an article entitlted 'Hillary Clinton slaps Britain in the face over the Falklands' in the web edition of the Daily Telegraph on 2nd March, Dr Nile Gardiner cited the following from the transcript of Secretary of State Clinton's joint Press conference with President Kirchner of Argentina, held the previous day:
QUESTION: (In Spanish) And for the Secretary, it’s about the Falklands. The – President Fernandez talked about possible friendly mediation. Would the U.S. be considered – would the U.S. (inaudible) consider some kind of mediation role between the UK and Argentina over the Falklands? Thank you.
PRESIDENT DE KIRCHNER: (Via interpreter) (Inaudible) what we have (inaudible) by both countries as a friendly country of both Argentina and the UK, so as to get both countries to sit down at the table and address these negotiations within the framework of the UN resolutions strictly. We do not want to move away from that in any letter whatsoever, any comma, of what has been stated by dozens of UN resolutions and resolutions by its Decolonization Committee. That’s the only thing we’ve asked for, just to have them sit down at the table and negotiate. I don’t think that’s too much, really, in a very conflicted and controversial world, complex in terms.
SECRETARY CLINTON: And we agree. We would like to see Argentina and the United Kingdom sit down and resolve the issues between them across the table in a peaceful, productive way.
QUESTION: (In Spanish) Interpreter: The journalist was just asking how the U.S. intends to negotiate to get the United Kingdom to sit at the table and address the Malvinas issue.
SECRETARY CLINTON: As to the first point, we want very much to encourage both countries to sit down. Now, we cannot make either one do so, but we think it is the right way to proceed. So we will be saying this publicly, as I have been, and we will continue to encourage exactly the kind of discussion across the table that needs to take place.
Dr Gardiner, who is a true believer in the US-UK special relationship, boiled with rage about the 'betrayal' of the British interest by its US ally:
Hillary Clinton’s statements at this press conference are highly significant, as they demonstrate a clear shift in US policy from neutrality (last week’s position) towards siding with the Argentine position of pressing for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands at the United Nations.
The Secretary of State, a highly skilled political operator, knows exactly what she is doing here. She is giving her full support for the official stance of Buenos Aires, despite the fact that Great Britain has made it clear that the sovereignty of the Falklands is non-negotiable. She makes no reference at all to the fact that Argentina recently threatened a blockade of the Falklands, or that its close ally Venezuela has been threatening war against Britain.
Hillary Clinton’s dire performance in Buenos Aires was not only an appalling display of appeasement towards a corrupt and authoritarian anti-American regime, which barely has the support of 20 percent of the Argentinian people. It was also an astonishing betrayal of the United Kingdom by her closest ally, and yet another slap in the face for Britain from the Obama administration.
These inaccurate and immoderate remarks reveal Nile Gardiner's frustration that his idealised concept of the US-UK relationship is revealed as as an illusion as soon as the strategic interests of the United States diverge from those of Britain. The USA, which already finds itself losing political and economic hegemony in the American continent, would succumb to further isolation should it identify itself with the UK's 'non-negotiable' position on the Falklands, because all the countries of South and Central America endorse Argentina's position of a negotiated transfer of sovereignty to Argentina. And beyond pure strategy, there is also history and ideology. The United States won its own independence from Britain, its European colonial ruler, by military means; and after having done so, proclaimed with pride that only itself, to the exclusion of any European power, had the right to interfere in and dominate the affairs of the southern part of the Americas.
Dr Gardiner, who is the Director of the Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, based in Washington, USA, ended his article with a lurid battle-cry:
Clinton has demonstrated, not the first time, strikingly poor judgment as Secretary of State. While currying favour with a third rate kleptocracy in Latin America, she is alienating America’s most loyal and valuable friend at a critically important time. She also underestimates the resolve of the British people, who will never negotiate the future of the Falkland Islands. If the Argentines want the Falklands they will have to fight for them, and if they choose to do so they will be emphatically defeated, just as they were in 1982. Hillary Clinton can cry for Argentina if she wants to, but the Falklands will be forever British.
But the truth is that the British, through their experiences as the USA's special ally in Iraq and Afghanistan, have had enough of war; and the Latin Americans, for their part, intend to persue political and diplomatic, rather than military means.
Hair of the dog
That the Latin Americans unanimously back Argentina in the dispute over the Malvinas is no wonder. For all that the islands were uninhabited by indigenous people when the Europeans- in turns French, British and Spanish- occupied, abandoned, re-took and fought over them during the period of European colonial expansion (though discovered artefacts prove that they had been visited by people from the South American mainland before the Europeans arrived); they are South American islands, not European Islands. When, after1776, the Malvinas were ruled by the Spanish, they were not ruled directly from Spain as a separate entity- they were administered from Buenos Aires as part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. After it won its independence from Spain, the nascent Argentinian state asserted that the Malvinas were part of its territory and established a settlement there; but Britain sent a naval expedition, which seized the islands from the Buenos Aires government in 1833.
Might was right in those days- and to a large extent this is still considered to be the case; the fact that the current inhabitants of the Falklands are descendants of British, rather than Latin American settlers, and therefore assert their 'Britishness', is owed entirely to that invasion of 177 years ago, and the subsequent maintennance of British control by the relatively superior military prowess of the UK; allied to Britain's superior status within the international community, represented by its position as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. MercoPress reported the observations of Brazil's president Lula da Silva on 24th February:
“Our attitude is one of solidarity with Argentina,” said the Brazilian president adding the question: “What is the geographical, political and economic explanation for England to be in the Malvinas?”
“What is the explanation for the United Nations never having that decision? It is not possible that Argentina is not the owner while England is, despite being 14,000 km away.”
For the Brazilian leader the reason this happens is the fact that Britain is a permanent member of the Security Council. He used the occasion to once again call for the admission of more members to the council, increasing its representativeness. Brazil wants to be one of the new members.
“Is it possible that Britain can do everything and while others can do nothing?” Lula da Silva went on. “We need to start pushing so that the UN Secretary reopens this debate.”
UN Security Council members respect international rulings “only when they are functional to their own interests,” he emphasized.
The 33 presidents present in Cancun, including Lula da Silva, signed a document supporting the Argentine position, recognizing Argentina’s sovereignty claim over the Falklands and condemning the current oil drilling round by British companies.
But what about the Falklanders? One would not wish them to suffer a similar fate to that of the Chagossians; and the fact that Britain upholds the 'principle of democratic self-determination' for the inhabitants of its small remaining colonies only when that accords with the UK's economic and strategic interests does not by itself prove that the claim of the people living on the Falklands / Malvinas islands should be given no moral or political credence. But what is that claim? They do not assert that they wish to be an independent nation- what they want is to be British subjects. Following from this, they have no special right which would trump a British decision on what to do with the land on which they live, and the natural resources which surround it- any more than do the people who live in the way of a proposed railway line, airport or power station. Their democratic position is that they, like any other group of a few thousand- or many more- UK citizens, have to accept the decisions of the elected British government.
For sure they have the right to campaign, or to seek recourse through the courts, but in the end they, if they insist on being British, must therefore abide by whatever choice is made by the British people as a whole, through their elected government. Should Britain decide to concede its colony off the coast of Argentina to the Argentinians, those who currently live there could choose to remain on the islands as 'ex-pat' Brits, or to relocate to England, Scotland or Wales with whatever financial compensation terms would be on offer; a small number of them might even decide to apply to become citizens of Argentina. That would be for them to decide, in the context of a negotiated solution.
Is the 60 million strong British bulldog really being wagged by its miniscule Falklands tail- or more precisely a hair on the tail, given that there are only 3,140 Falklanders? In the 21st Century, can a European power hide its colonial claim to the oil resources under the sea bed of South America by sheltering behind the 'rights' of its colonists?
Britain must go, and in the end it will have to go; the issue is one of how and when.
21 March 2010
18 March 2010
US Virgin Islands Presents Constitution to Congress
The President of the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the US Virgin Islands led an official delegation of four to present the territory's proposed constitution to the United States Congress. Convention President Gerard L. James II was accompanied by other convention members, Professor Lois Hassell Habtes, Adelbert M. Bryan and Gerard Emanuel, all of whom made presentations before the body. Also testifying on the measure from the territory was the elected governor John P. de Jongh and Minority Leader of the US Virgin Islands Legislature Raymond Usie Richards. Additional members of the Convention testifying were Douglas Brady and Eugene M. Petersen.
The specific Congressional body which conducted the hearing was the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources. The Subcommittee is chaired by Madeline Bordallo, the non-voting delegate to the US Congress.
Under the territory's dependency status, the proposed constitution must be submitted to the U.S. Government which would review the text and assess its consistency with the unilateral applicability of US law to the territory. The proposed constitution can be either amended by the US Congress, or returned to the territory unchanged, before it goes to the voters in the US Virgin Islands in a referendum. The political status of the territory would not be altered by adoption of the constitution.
________________________________________________________
Statement by Gerard Luz Amwur James II, President
Fifth Constitutional Convention of the U.S. Virgin Islands
to the Congressional Subcommittee on Insular Affairs
Good Morning Chairperson Bordallo, Committee members and all others present. My name is Gerard Luz Anwur James II. I am the President of the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the US Virgin Islands, elected at large by the people of our four island paradise which we proudly call home. It is my distinct honor to address this Committee regarding the adoption last May by our Convention of the proposed constitution for consideration by Congress.
I must first emphasize that the Convention is fully aware that our proposed constitution is not designed to usurp the sovereignty or supremacy of federal law and that the passage of our constitution will not, nor is it intended to, alter our political relationship with the United States. It represents a further step along the path toward a full measure of self-government.
This is our fifth attempt to attain greater self government since Congress passed PL 94-584 in 1976 which granted us the authority to draft our own constitution. When passed by referendum of the voters of the Virgin Islands it will replace the Revised Organic Act of 1954. The Organic Act has served as the governing law of the Virgin Islands for fifty six years with no input from the population it governs.
On June 12, 2007, a special election was held to select delegates from throughout the territory to draft the constitution. The keen interest of Virgin Islanders in this process was evident from the inception when voters elected delegates from a field of 135 candidates. Seventeen ran at large with the remaining candidates running from their respective jurisdictions. Thirty delegates were elected, and served as drafters of the constitution. The elected delegates were composed of a former Governor, four former senators, two sitting senators (elected during the term of the convention), a former District Court Judge, three practicing attorneys, farmers, professors, teachers and political activists.
Upon convening in December of 2007, the Convention formed twelve committees which were charged with conducting public hearings on the areas which are now part of our proposed constitution. The Convention was initially mandated by enabling Virgin Islands legislation to finalize a draft constitution by October 6, 2008, but the period was later extended.
The work of our Convention was impeded at the outset for six months by a court challenge to the results of the election by an unsuccessful candidate, and further delayed in mid-stream as the convention awaited the balance of the operating funds appropriated by the Legislature. The level of funding was itself an impediment with the Fifth Constitutional Convention receiving significantly less funding then the Fourth Constitutional Convention which met some thirty years ago.
This caused several inordinate delays in the drafting process and necessitated an extension of the time frame for submission to our governor. Despite these constraints, the Convention conducted a series of well publicized public hearings, committee hearings and plenary sessions comprising hundreds of hours of testimony and debate and many volumes of transcribed records. These meetings were attended by Virgin Islanders from all walks of life including but not limited to students, political activists, several religious leaders, as well as private citizens. We also consulted with representatives of a wide range of leaders of several local organizations and institutions including the President and department heads of the University of the Virgin Islands.
Unfortunately, insufficient resources and time constraints resulted in our inability to conduct an adequate public relations campaign. Also, the hard work of the Convention was often sensationalized and marginalized by the media’s focus on specific issues and individuals, rather than on our substantive work.
Through it all, we are proud to report that at the end of this protracted process, in May of last year, the convention was able to reach the required majority consensus and our proposed constitution passed with a two-thirds vote of 20 delegates. The document was transmitted to our Governor on May 31, 2009, meeting our extended deadline.
A major area of public discussion during this process was extensive debate on the crafting of the definition of a Virgin Islander. According to the 1917 treaty, through which the territory was purchased by the United States from Denmark, the political rights and citizenship of the inhabitants of the territory at the time of transfer would subsequently be determined by the US Congress. The citizenship of the islands’ population at the time of the transfer, which was predominately comprised of former enslaved Africans and their descendents, was not determined until ten years later. Article III of the proposed constitution defining Ancestral Native Virgin Islander was based on federal law emerging from that period (See Section 306 INA (8 U.S.C. 1406). It is also consistent with the definition of native populations in the constitutions of other un-incorporated territories.
The proposed constitution provides a broader definition of a Native Virgin Islander as a person born in the territory, or a descendent of a native. The delegates felt that theinclusion of this definition was imperative for several historical reasons.
From the early seventies we have experienced a dramatic decline of our native-born population. According to a 2007 study conducted by the University of the Virgin Islands as of 2005 the percentage was approximately 51.3 %. This decline has significant implications for the self-identity of our people.
The proposed constitution also provides that only Ancestral or Native Virgin Islanders are eligible to serve as governor and lieutenant governor, and as members of a proposed future political status advisory commission. These provisions address the unique culture and political backdrop of our islands.
Additionally, a provision to exempt Ancestral Virgin Islanders from paying property tax has been included. This provision is designed to protect the disenfranchised native population from significant externally motivated commercial land speculation which continues to result in the erosion of natives’ ability to retain and purchase property. It is also consistent with several relevant General resolutions, most recently operative paragraph 9 of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 63/108, which mandates that all necessary steps be taken to protect the property rights of the peoples of the territories on the United Nations list of non self-governing territories. The Virgin Islands, along with American Samoa and Guam, remain on that list today.
Similar native rights provisions are part of the constitutions of other U.S. administered territories, specifically those of American Samoa and the Northern Marianas, both of which have a comparable island geographical make up, and the same unincorporated political status as the U.S. Virgin Islands.
We strongly feel that these provisions are not discriminatory, and do not violate federal law as it is presently applied to the Virgin Islands and supports a compelling state interest. My fellow delegates’ testimony will address these issues in greater detail. Further elaboration is contained in our response to the Department of Justice analysis which has been submitted for your consideration and review. Throughout out history our shores have remained open to people of all cultures and ethnicities. The Virgin Islands has long been known as the ‘American Paradise.” The proposed constitution is our sincere effort attempt to insure that our beloved territory remains our “Virgin Islands Home.”
Thank you again for your time and your thoughtful review of our Constitution.
The specific Congressional body which conducted the hearing was the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources. The Subcommittee is chaired by Madeline Bordallo, the non-voting delegate to the US Congress.
Under the territory's dependency status, the proposed constitution must be submitted to the U.S. Government which would review the text and assess its consistency with the unilateral applicability of US law to the territory. The proposed constitution can be either amended by the US Congress, or returned to the territory unchanged, before it goes to the voters in the US Virgin Islands in a referendum. The political status of the territory would not be altered by adoption of the constitution.
________________________________________________________
Statement by Gerard Luz Amwur James II, President
Fifth Constitutional Convention of the U.S. Virgin Islands
to the Congressional Subcommittee on Insular Affairs
Good Morning Chairperson Bordallo, Committee members and all others present. My name is Gerard Luz Anwur James II. I am the President of the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the US Virgin Islands, elected at large by the people of our four island paradise which we proudly call home. It is my distinct honor to address this Committee regarding the adoption last May by our Convention of the proposed constitution for consideration by Congress.
I must first emphasize that the Convention is fully aware that our proposed constitution is not designed to usurp the sovereignty or supremacy of federal law and that the passage of our constitution will not, nor is it intended to, alter our political relationship with the United States. It represents a further step along the path toward a full measure of self-government.
This is our fifth attempt to attain greater self government since Congress passed PL 94-584 in 1976 which granted us the authority to draft our own constitution. When passed by referendum of the voters of the Virgin Islands it will replace the Revised Organic Act of 1954. The Organic Act has served as the governing law of the Virgin Islands for fifty six years with no input from the population it governs.
On June 12, 2007, a special election was held to select delegates from throughout the territory to draft the constitution. The keen interest of Virgin Islanders in this process was evident from the inception when voters elected delegates from a field of 135 candidates. Seventeen ran at large with the remaining candidates running from their respective jurisdictions. Thirty delegates were elected, and served as drafters of the constitution. The elected delegates were composed of a former Governor, four former senators, two sitting senators (elected during the term of the convention), a former District Court Judge, three practicing attorneys, farmers, professors, teachers and political activists.
Upon convening in December of 2007, the Convention formed twelve committees which were charged with conducting public hearings on the areas which are now part of our proposed constitution. The Convention was initially mandated by enabling Virgin Islands legislation to finalize a draft constitution by October 6, 2008, but the period was later extended.
The work of our Convention was impeded at the outset for six months by a court challenge to the results of the election by an unsuccessful candidate, and further delayed in mid-stream as the convention awaited the balance of the operating funds appropriated by the Legislature. The level of funding was itself an impediment with the Fifth Constitutional Convention receiving significantly less funding then the Fourth Constitutional Convention which met some thirty years ago.
This caused several inordinate delays in the drafting process and necessitated an extension of the time frame for submission to our governor. Despite these constraints, the Convention conducted a series of well publicized public hearings, committee hearings and plenary sessions comprising hundreds of hours of testimony and debate and many volumes of transcribed records. These meetings were attended by Virgin Islanders from all walks of life including but not limited to students, political activists, several religious leaders, as well as private citizens. We also consulted with representatives of a wide range of leaders of several local organizations and institutions including the President and department heads of the University of the Virgin Islands.
Unfortunately, insufficient resources and time constraints resulted in our inability to conduct an adequate public relations campaign. Also, the hard work of the Convention was often sensationalized and marginalized by the media’s focus on specific issues and individuals, rather than on our substantive work.
Through it all, we are proud to report that at the end of this protracted process, in May of last year, the convention was able to reach the required majority consensus and our proposed constitution passed with a two-thirds vote of 20 delegates. The document was transmitted to our Governor on May 31, 2009, meeting our extended deadline.
A major area of public discussion during this process was extensive debate on the crafting of the definition of a Virgin Islander. According to the 1917 treaty, through which the territory was purchased by the United States from Denmark, the political rights and citizenship of the inhabitants of the territory at the time of transfer would subsequently be determined by the US Congress. The citizenship of the islands’ population at the time of the transfer, which was predominately comprised of former enslaved Africans and their descendents, was not determined until ten years later. Article III of the proposed constitution defining Ancestral Native Virgin Islander was based on federal law emerging from that period (See Section 306 INA (8 U.S.C. 1406). It is also consistent with the definition of native populations in the constitutions of other un-incorporated territories.
The proposed constitution provides a broader definition of a Native Virgin Islander as a person born in the territory, or a descendent of a native. The delegates felt that theinclusion of this definition was imperative for several historical reasons.
From the early seventies we have experienced a dramatic decline of our native-born population. According to a 2007 study conducted by the University of the Virgin Islands as of 2005 the percentage was approximately 51.3 %. This decline has significant implications for the self-identity of our people.
The proposed constitution also provides that only Ancestral or Native Virgin Islanders are eligible to serve as governor and lieutenant governor, and as members of a proposed future political status advisory commission. These provisions address the unique culture and political backdrop of our islands.
Additionally, a provision to exempt Ancestral Virgin Islanders from paying property tax has been included. This provision is designed to protect the disenfranchised native population from significant externally motivated commercial land speculation which continues to result in the erosion of natives’ ability to retain and purchase property. It is also consistent with several relevant General resolutions, most recently operative paragraph 9 of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 63/108, which mandates that all necessary steps be taken to protect the property rights of the peoples of the territories on the United Nations list of non self-governing territories. The Virgin Islands, along with American Samoa and Guam, remain on that list today.
Similar native rights provisions are part of the constitutions of other U.S. administered territories, specifically those of American Samoa and the Northern Marianas, both of which have a comparable island geographical make up, and the same unincorporated political status as the U.S. Virgin Islands.
We strongly feel that these provisions are not discriminatory, and do not violate federal law as it is presently applied to the Virgin Islands and supports a compelling state interest. My fellow delegates’ testimony will address these issues in greater detail. Further elaboration is contained in our response to the Department of Justice analysis which has been submitted for your consideration and review. Throughout out history our shores have remained open to people of all cultures and ethnicities. The Virgin Islands has long been known as the ‘American Paradise.” The proposed constitution is our sincere effort attempt to insure that our beloved territory remains our “Virgin Islands Home.”
Thank you again for your time and your thoughtful review of our Constitution.
16 March 2010
Amer. Samoa Governor Supports Free Association
As discussions intensify in American Samoa on the process of political and constitutional evolution, the territory's elected Governor Togiola T.A. Tulafono has expressed his preference for the development of free association as a future political status option. In a statement to a United States Congressional Subcommittee a the end of February, the Governor suggested that a formal agreement between the territory and the United States may be required to provide the territory with the neccesary flexibility to engage the international system. OTR provides the relevant excerpts from Governor Tulafono's Congressional testimony.
In March at a Constitutional Convention forum in the territory, the Governor indicated that he favoured the political status of free association which would provide American Samoa with the authority to move forward. A Samoa News article on Governor Tulafono's position on the future political development is also provided below.
_________________________________________________________
Presentation by H.E. Togiola T.A. Tulafono
Governor of American Samoa
to the Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife
Committee on Natural Resources
House of Representatives
United States Congress,
February 24, 2010
(Excerpts)
Comments on issues important to our fiscal future but not necessarily large fiscal items themselves
This brings me to my final point, and that is that the Federal Government must begin giving more serious thought to the political status of several of its territories. It has already made a start at this with passage of HR 3940 clarifying the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to assist the US non-self-governing territories (colonies) of American Samoa, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands. This would take the form of grants, research, planning assistance, studies, and agreements with Federal agencies, to facilitate public education programs regarding political status options for their respective territories the United States. This bill passed the House of Representatives December 7, 2009. The Senate has yet to address the matter. American Samoa’s political status concerns are as follows:
1. The US Congress is now applying Federal laws to these territories. In some cases these laws concern issues that would be part of a political status
negotiation.
2. These Federal laws are often passed without consultations with the territories.
3. These Federal laws often ignore consideration of the economic or social
impacts upon the territories, often with devastating results (e.g., the
federalization of the minimum wage and immigration).
Therefore, the US Congress is arbitrarily determining the political status of US territories one law at a time without giving these territories any voice in their own self determination. Furthermore, the United States has an obligation to negotiate a modern agreement with American Samoa. The argument that the US Congress can do anything it wants with American Samoa is based in part on the notion that American Samoa willingly gave itself to the US. This is false. The treaties in fact state that Germany, Great Britain, and the United States seized control of the Samoan Islands because of “dissensions, internal disturbances and civil war.”
American Samoa is not just a piece of property (real estate) owned by the US. It is a political entity joined to the US by special circumstances and deserves to be taken seriously in considering the terms of that relationship with the US, its political status. This is based on events suggesting that Congress is gradually establishing that political status on a piecemeal basis.
I am not questioning, the US Congress’ constitutional authority over the territories. However, there are international considerations as well. The UN is obligated by its charter to identify and decolonize territories throughout the world. American Samoa is currently one of only sixteen colonies remaining in the world. The UN recognizes three methods by which territories may become decolonialized. They may become:
1. A sovereign independent state (Independence).
2. Freely associated with an independent state (Compact)
3. Integrated with an independent state (Incorporation).
Presently, American Samoa fits none of the three and is a colony by this definition. This may require some formal agreement between the US and American Samoa, not entirely unlike that of the covenant between the US and the CNMI. Or, the UN might be satisfied with the political status quo if it is approved by the people of American Samoa through a democratic process (i.e., a vote of the people or the legislature.)
In fairness, neither party has been anxious to change the status quo since the
arrangement seemed mutually agreeable to both, and especially since American Samoa had some serious catching up to do in education, self-government and other areas since 1900.
Much has changed over the years. American Samoa has become virtually self-governing in the process, becoming modernized with much assistance from the United States. However, American Samoa’s government remains a creation of the US executive office and exists at the pleasure of that office and the Congress.
I do not want to be misunderstood on this. We are Americans. We have been
Americans for over a century. We have defended America with our service and our lives. Our dedication to our country is not diminished because we raise the issue of our political relationship or the need for due process in the formalization of that relationship.
Again and again, in political status commissions over the last five decades
American Samoans have expressed a preference for the status quo in its
relationship with the US. I am convinced that they would agree that at this stage of our relationship some formalization of our relationship is necessary as a matter of basic fairness and to meet our international obligations. This is especially the case today as Congress continues to address territorial issues on an ad hoc basis.
I thank you for your kind attention and consideration.
___________________________________________________________
Togiola says American Samoa should have same relationship with US as Palau
Samoa News
By Tina Mata’afa
tina@samoanews.com
March 15, 2010
Gov. Togiola Tulafono believes the best political status for American Samoa is to have the same relationship with the United States as Palau does, noting American Samoa’s current status does not allow us to seek foreign aid outside the US. Togiola made the statement when he spoke at the American Samoa Community College Constitutional Convention forum last week.
Called “the million dollar question” by moderator Tapaau Dr. Daniel Aga, Togiola was asked: “What form of political status do you believe is best for the people of American Samoa?”
The Governor noted that is not the opinion of his office, but his own personal belief that “an autonomous governance” with the benefit of US passports and federal dollars such as those enjoyed by Palau “would be the best for us.”
“The second thing that I need to say about that choice ... from my perspective is the fact that we are resisted from seeking assistance from other countries because we are not allowed under our structure with the United States to do so,” he added. He said when he managed the Mini Games in 1997, he wanted to solicit assistance from Taiwan, but the US State Department told him he couldn’t do it.
“It’s one of those things because we are small territory of the United States and these are policies that are handed to us,” Togiola stated. “If we have self governance ... autonomy, we can do what we want and we have access to foreign aid that is far greater and broader than what our United States government give us.” He said he suggested that the Future Political Status Study Commission (FPSSC) look at the Palau agreement with the US.
“I think that’s the best agreement of all these self governing states,” Togiola said. “That agreement allows Palauans to have free access to the United States” as they do not need visas and hold US Passports but are afforded protection by the US.
Palau gained independence from the United Nations trusteeship administered by the United States on Oct. 1, 1994 and entered a Compact of Free Association with the United States, explains Wikipedia.com.
The Compact of Free Association between the United States and Palau sets forth the free and voluntary association of their governments, and is primarily focused on the issues of government relations, economic relations, and security and defense relations, adds Wikipedia.
Palau has no independent military, and relies on the US for its defense and under the Compact, the US military has been granted access to the islands for 50 years.
Togiola pointed out that under the agreement, Palau and the US every 15 years, negotiate a structure of fiscal assistance “where they will agree how much assistance Palau will need over the next 15 years.” He said those monies are put into a trust fund from which the Palau government draws funds to supplement local revenue.
“And they have total access to the military ... they enter the military of the United States and can go as far as they want,” the Governor added. “A structure like that is beneficial for us ... at the same time Palau asked Japan to build them a bridge ... Japan built a bridge free of charge in Palau because of foreign aid.” He said it was a $10 million bridge that even rivals the Golden Gate Bridge of San Francisco.
Togiola said there would also be control of educational resources and access to the European Union with such an agreement with the US. He put the question back to students and told them to ask themselves what kind of political status would be best for American Samoa.
FPSCC, in its Recommendation No. 1 said “American Samoa shall continue as unorganized and unincorporated territory and that a process of negotiation with the US Congress for a permanent political status be initiated.”
In responding to questions on the process by which American Samoa would negotiate its permanent political status, Togiola explained that the Constitutional Convention set for June will determine “what changes will go into the present constitution.”
The students’ question was: the FPSSC Recommndation No. 1 states that “American Samoa shall continue as unorganized and unincorporated territory and that a process of negotiation with the US Congress for a permanent political status be initiated.”
a) Please explain the “process of negotiation” for a permanent political status;
b) After the Constitutional Convention, what happens next?
c) How will the people of American Samoa participate in the process?
PROCESS OF CHANGE
The first step is for new recommendations from the Convention to go to the Fono, Togiola said. He added that the present constitution requires that all amendments must be put forth in a joint resolution. If the resolution passes, he explained it is then handed to the people in a referendum. The governor, he said, places the referendum on the ballot in the next election.
“And then the people will vote yes or no,” said Togiola. “If they agree with all the changes that are being made, then the yes may prevail. If the people don’t agree, then it may not prevail.” If the people vote yes, he continued, the governor then submits it to the Secretary of Interior to present to the US Congress. Under US Law, the Governor noted, the AS Constitution cannot be valid or enforceable unless approved by Congress.
“If this recommendation ... that says let’s maintain present status quo, but let’s ask Congress for authorization for us to enter into negotiations with the United States for a different political status, once Congress approves that ... most likely the governor and the legislature will appoint a negotiating team that will then negotiate with the Unites States— probably the Department of Interior and State Department ...”
He said it was Interior Department that negotiated contracts with compact states such as the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. “If this is approved, a team from American Samoa will be meeting with representatives of the United States to discuss those things,” said Togiola.
Togiola said the process “is not going to be a short or quick process ... in some of the Micronesian states, it took almost 10, 12 years to negotiate agreements. So we’re not looking to this to end in the year 2014 or 2016, it’s probably going to be longer than that.” He says there’s probably “a million issues” that have to be worked out.
In March at a Constitutional Convention forum in the territory, the Governor indicated that he favoured the political status of free association which would provide American Samoa with the authority to move forward. A Samoa News article on Governor Tulafono's position on the future political development is also provided below.
_________________________________________________________
Presentation by H.E. Togiola T.A. Tulafono
Governor of American Samoa
to the Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife
Committee on Natural Resources
House of Representatives
United States Congress,
February 24, 2010
(Excerpts)
Comments on issues important to our fiscal future but not necessarily large fiscal items themselves
This brings me to my final point, and that is that the Federal Government must begin giving more serious thought to the political status of several of its territories. It has already made a start at this with passage of HR 3940 clarifying the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to assist the US non-self-governing territories (colonies) of American Samoa, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands. This would take the form of grants, research, planning assistance, studies, and agreements with Federal agencies, to facilitate public education programs regarding political status options for their respective territories the United States. This bill passed the House of Representatives December 7, 2009. The Senate has yet to address the matter. American Samoa’s political status concerns are as follows:
1. The US Congress is now applying Federal laws to these territories. In some cases these laws concern issues that would be part of a political status
negotiation.
2. These Federal laws are often passed without consultations with the territories.
3. These Federal laws often ignore consideration of the economic or social
impacts upon the territories, often with devastating results (e.g., the
federalization of the minimum wage and immigration).
Therefore, the US Congress is arbitrarily determining the political status of US territories one law at a time without giving these territories any voice in their own self determination. Furthermore, the United States has an obligation to negotiate a modern agreement with American Samoa. The argument that the US Congress can do anything it wants with American Samoa is based in part on the notion that American Samoa willingly gave itself to the US. This is false. The treaties in fact state that Germany, Great Britain, and the United States seized control of the Samoan Islands because of “dissensions, internal disturbances and civil war.”
American Samoa is not just a piece of property (real estate) owned by the US. It is a political entity joined to the US by special circumstances and deserves to be taken seriously in considering the terms of that relationship with the US, its political status. This is based on events suggesting that Congress is gradually establishing that political status on a piecemeal basis.
I am not questioning, the US Congress’ constitutional authority over the territories. However, there are international considerations as well. The UN is obligated by its charter to identify and decolonize territories throughout the world. American Samoa is currently one of only sixteen colonies remaining in the world. The UN recognizes three methods by which territories may become decolonialized. They may become:
1. A sovereign independent state (Independence).
2. Freely associated with an independent state (Compact)
3. Integrated with an independent state (Incorporation).
Presently, American Samoa fits none of the three and is a colony by this definition. This may require some formal agreement between the US and American Samoa, not entirely unlike that of the covenant between the US and the CNMI. Or, the UN might be satisfied with the political status quo if it is approved by the people of American Samoa through a democratic process (i.e., a vote of the people or the legislature.)
In fairness, neither party has been anxious to change the status quo since the
arrangement seemed mutually agreeable to both, and especially since American Samoa had some serious catching up to do in education, self-government and other areas since 1900.
Much has changed over the years. American Samoa has become virtually self-governing in the process, becoming modernized with much assistance from the United States. However, American Samoa’s government remains a creation of the US executive office and exists at the pleasure of that office and the Congress.
I do not want to be misunderstood on this. We are Americans. We have been
Americans for over a century. We have defended America with our service and our lives. Our dedication to our country is not diminished because we raise the issue of our political relationship or the need for due process in the formalization of that relationship.
Again and again, in political status commissions over the last five decades
American Samoans have expressed a preference for the status quo in its
relationship with the US. I am convinced that they would agree that at this stage of our relationship some formalization of our relationship is necessary as a matter of basic fairness and to meet our international obligations. This is especially the case today as Congress continues to address territorial issues on an ad hoc basis.
I thank you for your kind attention and consideration.
___________________________________________________________
Togiola says American Samoa should have same relationship with US as Palau
Samoa News
By Tina Mata’afa
tina@samoanews.com
March 15, 2010
Gov. Togiola Tulafono believes the best political status for American Samoa is to have the same relationship with the United States as Palau does, noting American Samoa’s current status does not allow us to seek foreign aid outside the US. Togiola made the statement when he spoke at the American Samoa Community College Constitutional Convention forum last week.
Called “the million dollar question” by moderator Tapaau Dr. Daniel Aga, Togiola was asked: “What form of political status do you believe is best for the people of American Samoa?”
The Governor noted that is not the opinion of his office, but his own personal belief that “an autonomous governance” with the benefit of US passports and federal dollars such as those enjoyed by Palau “would be the best for us.”
“The second thing that I need to say about that choice ... from my perspective is the fact that we are resisted from seeking assistance from other countries because we are not allowed under our structure with the United States to do so,” he added. He said when he managed the Mini Games in 1997, he wanted to solicit assistance from Taiwan, but the US State Department told him he couldn’t do it.
“It’s one of those things because we are small territory of the United States and these are policies that are handed to us,” Togiola stated. “If we have self governance ... autonomy, we can do what we want and we have access to foreign aid that is far greater and broader than what our United States government give us.” He said he suggested that the Future Political Status Study Commission (FPSSC) look at the Palau agreement with the US.
“I think that’s the best agreement of all these self governing states,” Togiola said. “That agreement allows Palauans to have free access to the United States” as they do not need visas and hold US Passports but are afforded protection by the US.
Palau gained independence from the United Nations trusteeship administered by the United States on Oct. 1, 1994 and entered a Compact of Free Association with the United States, explains Wikipedia.com.
The Compact of Free Association between the United States and Palau sets forth the free and voluntary association of their governments, and is primarily focused on the issues of government relations, economic relations, and security and defense relations, adds Wikipedia.
Palau has no independent military, and relies on the US for its defense and under the Compact, the US military has been granted access to the islands for 50 years.
Togiola pointed out that under the agreement, Palau and the US every 15 years, negotiate a structure of fiscal assistance “where they will agree how much assistance Palau will need over the next 15 years.” He said those monies are put into a trust fund from which the Palau government draws funds to supplement local revenue.
“And they have total access to the military ... they enter the military of the United States and can go as far as they want,” the Governor added. “A structure like that is beneficial for us ... at the same time Palau asked Japan to build them a bridge ... Japan built a bridge free of charge in Palau because of foreign aid.” He said it was a $10 million bridge that even rivals the Golden Gate Bridge of San Francisco.
Togiola said there would also be control of educational resources and access to the European Union with such an agreement with the US. He put the question back to students and told them to ask themselves what kind of political status would be best for American Samoa.
FPSCC, in its Recommendation No. 1 said “American Samoa shall continue as unorganized and unincorporated territory and that a process of negotiation with the US Congress for a permanent political status be initiated.”
In responding to questions on the process by which American Samoa would negotiate its permanent political status, Togiola explained that the Constitutional Convention set for June will determine “what changes will go into the present constitution.”
The students’ question was: the FPSSC Recommndation No. 1 states that “American Samoa shall continue as unorganized and unincorporated territory and that a process of negotiation with the US Congress for a permanent political status be initiated.”
a) Please explain the “process of negotiation” for a permanent political status;
b) After the Constitutional Convention, what happens next?
c) How will the people of American Samoa participate in the process?
PROCESS OF CHANGE
The first step is for new recommendations from the Convention to go to the Fono, Togiola said. He added that the present constitution requires that all amendments must be put forth in a joint resolution. If the resolution passes, he explained it is then handed to the people in a referendum. The governor, he said, places the referendum on the ballot in the next election.
“And then the people will vote yes or no,” said Togiola. “If they agree with all the changes that are being made, then the yes may prevail. If the people don’t agree, then it may not prevail.” If the people vote yes, he continued, the governor then submits it to the Secretary of Interior to present to the US Congress. Under US Law, the Governor noted, the AS Constitution cannot be valid or enforceable unless approved by Congress.
“If this recommendation ... that says let’s maintain present status quo, but let’s ask Congress for authorization for us to enter into negotiations with the United States for a different political status, once Congress approves that ... most likely the governor and the legislature will appoint a negotiating team that will then negotiate with the Unites States— probably the Department of Interior and State Department ...”
He said it was Interior Department that negotiated contracts with compact states such as the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. “If this is approved, a team from American Samoa will be meeting with representatives of the United States to discuss those things,” said Togiola.
Togiola said the process “is not going to be a short or quick process ... in some of the Micronesian states, it took almost 10, 12 years to negotiate agreements. So we’re not looking to this to end in the year 2014 or 2016, it’s probably going to be longer than that.” He says there’s probably “a million issues” that have to be worked out.
15 March 2010
New Anguilla Government Addresses Financial Sector
Anguillanews.com
13/03/2010
Joint Statement of Chief Minister and Governor of Anguilla
Anguilla to shortly sign TIEAs with Germany and Australia and had also initiated discussions with the French authorities about a TIEA with France.
The Valley, Anguilla - Joint Statement: Anguilla’s new Executive Council held their first discussion on financial services, a key economic sector in Anguilla, on 11 March. They noted the importance of the sector to Anguilla: it is responsible for approximately 6% of employment and typically generates around 12% of Anguilla’s GDP.
Before the elections the Government set out, in the AUM manifesto, their commitment to strengthen and promote this important sector. They also pledged to ensure that Anguilla is firmly established on the “white list” of countries engaged in international financial services. The government have also pledged to update the institutional, legal and regulatory framework governing the international financial services sector. The Governor, who has oversight of the regulation of international financial services under the Constitution, fully supports all these aims and will be working in partnership with the Government to take them forward.
In this context EXCO noted that the Chief Minister would shortly be signing Tax Information Exchange Agreements with Germany and Australia to bring the total of TIEAs signed by Anguilla to a thirteen. The Chief Minister had also initiated discussions with the French authorities about a TIEA with France.
At the EXCO meeting the Hon Hubert Hughes, Chief Minister and Finance Minister, and HE Alistair Harrison, Governor of Anguilla, agreed to establish a Taskforce to ensure that Anguilla meets the highest international standards for financial services, thereby enhancing Anguilla’s competitiveness as a financial services provider.
The Taskforce, chaired by a senior representative of the Ministry of Finance, will develop a scorecard recording Anguilla’s compliance with international standards and a timeline for action. The Taskforce will review the recommendations of the Foot report, published in late 2009, in relation to financial regulation, fighting financial crime and improved tax transparency. The report usefully sets out benchmarks against which Anguilla can assess compliance with international norms. The Taskforce will consult fully with representatives of the industry as it pursues its work and will report in three months.
The Foot report also emphasised that accurate revenue forecasting and close monitoring of public expenditure become even more critical in difficult economic times. The Government of Anguilla is working hard to make improvements in these areas and is exploring ways to diversify sources of revenue, control public expenditure and ensure value for money so that Anguilla has sufficient reserves in place to withstand external shocks.
Anguillanews.com Note:
The Task Force membership will be representatives of the Ministry of Finance, Governor’s Office, Anguilla Financial Services Commission and the Attorney General’s Chambers.
Editor's Context:
Anguilla is among several countries blacklisted by France as countries it considers to be tax havens and that Paris would impose heavy taxes on its domestic firms that have operations in countries on the list. Other regional countries on the French off-shore blacklist include Grenada, Belize, Dominica, Montserrat, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia and St Vincent and the Grenadines. The blacklisted countries are Anguilla, Belize, Brunei, Costa Rica, Dominica, Grenada, Guatemala, the Cook Islands, Marshall Islands, Liberia, Montserrat, Nauru, Niue, Panama, Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines.
13/03/2010
Joint Statement of Chief Minister and Governor of Anguilla
Anguilla to shortly sign TIEAs with Germany and Australia and had also initiated discussions with the French authorities about a TIEA with France.
The Valley, Anguilla - Joint Statement: Anguilla’s new Executive Council held their first discussion on financial services, a key economic sector in Anguilla, on 11 March. They noted the importance of the sector to Anguilla: it is responsible for approximately 6% of employment and typically generates around 12% of Anguilla’s GDP.
Before the elections the Government set out, in the AUM manifesto, their commitment to strengthen and promote this important sector. They also pledged to ensure that Anguilla is firmly established on the “white list” of countries engaged in international financial services. The government have also pledged to update the institutional, legal and regulatory framework governing the international financial services sector. The Governor, who has oversight of the regulation of international financial services under the Constitution, fully supports all these aims and will be working in partnership with the Government to take them forward.
In this context EXCO noted that the Chief Minister would shortly be signing Tax Information Exchange Agreements with Germany and Australia to bring the total of TIEAs signed by Anguilla to a thirteen. The Chief Minister had also initiated discussions with the French authorities about a TIEA with France.
At the EXCO meeting the Hon Hubert Hughes, Chief Minister and Finance Minister, and HE Alistair Harrison, Governor of Anguilla, agreed to establish a Taskforce to ensure that Anguilla meets the highest international standards for financial services, thereby enhancing Anguilla’s competitiveness as a financial services provider.
The Taskforce, chaired by a senior representative of the Ministry of Finance, will develop a scorecard recording Anguilla’s compliance with international standards and a timeline for action. The Taskforce will review the recommendations of the Foot report, published in late 2009, in relation to financial regulation, fighting financial crime and improved tax transparency. The report usefully sets out benchmarks against which Anguilla can assess compliance with international norms. The Taskforce will consult fully with representatives of the industry as it pursues its work and will report in three months.
The Foot report also emphasised that accurate revenue forecasting and close monitoring of public expenditure become even more critical in difficult economic times. The Government of Anguilla is working hard to make improvements in these areas and is exploring ways to diversify sources of revenue, control public expenditure and ensure value for money so that Anguilla has sufficient reserves in place to withstand external shocks.
Anguillanews.com Note:
The Task Force membership will be representatives of the Ministry of Finance, Governor’s Office, Anguilla Financial Services Commission and the Attorney General’s Chambers.
Editor's Context:
Anguilla is among several countries blacklisted by France as countries it considers to be tax havens and that Paris would impose heavy taxes on its domestic firms that have operations in countries on the list. Other regional countries on the French off-shore blacklist include Grenada, Belize, Dominica, Montserrat, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia and St Vincent and the Grenadines. The blacklisted countries are Anguilla, Belize, Brunei, Costa Rica, Dominica, Grenada, Guatemala, the Cook Islands, Marshall Islands, Liberia, Montserrat, Nauru, Niue, Panama, Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines.
12 March 2010
Climate change and its possible security implications
Excerpts from the Report of the United Nations Secretary General
United Nations Document A/64/350
Threat of loss of territory and statelessness
...
71. In the case of some small island developing States, sea-level rise presents perhaps the ultimate security threat, jeopardizing the very existence of small low-lying countries such as the Maldives, where 80 per cent of land is less than one metre above sea level and could therefore disappear over the next 30 years. In 2005, Papua New Guinea’s Carteret Islands reportedly became the first low-lying islands to evacuate their population because of climate change, resettling 2,600 islanders to the larger Bougainville Island. The Carterets are among the hardest hit islands in the Pacific and may be completely submerged by as early as 2015.
Given the particular vulnerability of Pacific small island developing States, a single extreme weather event can suddenly exceed a nation’s capacity to respond, rendering whole islands, particularly low-lying atolls, uninhabitable. Many island States face the prospect of loss of significant amounts of territory to sea-level rise and inundation, and some face the prospect of complete submersion, with the resultant threat of statelessness of their populations.
72. In view of the fact that statelessness has not yet arisen, however, the international law principle of prevention of statelessness would be applicable and the threats implied by mass statelessness for the concerned populations could be minimized. Multilateral comprehensive agreements would be the ideal preventive mechanism, providing where, and on what legal basis, affected populations would be permitted to move elsewhere, as well as their status.
73. Climate change poses a fundamental threat to cultural survival for those societies whose territories and ways of life are threatened by sea-level rise and inundation, as noted by small island developing States. Some Member States have noted that other cultures, for example, those of indigenous peoples, may be at risk from destruction or radical alteration of ecosystems and habitat by climate change. Such peoples may also face challenges in using migration as a coping strategy as a result of discrimination in receiving locations. Thus the impacts of climate change on vulnerable societies will need to be addressed not only as an issue of sovereignty and statelessness but also as a threat to cultural identity.
Box III
Small island developing States and international legal issues regarding statelessness
Islands becoming uninhabitable or disappearing as a result of sea level rise raise the issue of the legal status of the citizens and legal rights of these States, including over fisheries.
With the disappearance of territory, one of the key constituting elements of statehood, it is not clear that these States would continue to exist as such. The same would apply if the territory would be uninhabitable to such an extent that the entire population and the Government would be forced to relocate to other States. In the event that statehood is deemed to have ceased in such a scenario, the populations concerned would be left stateless unless they acquired other nationalities. Even where the States continued to exist in legal terms and their Governments attempted to function from the territory of other States, it is unclear that they would be able to ensure the rights which flow from citizenship.
Legal and political arrangements may be necessary for the protection of affected populations. One option is the acquisition of land within another State, by purchase or a treaty of cession.
There is precedence for such an option: in the late nineteenth century, many Icelanders left Iceland for environmental and social reasons. They entered into an agreement with the Canadian Government and were given land in which they could form a provisional Government, and were given both Canadian and Icelandic citizenship. Eventually, the settlement was fully integrated into Canada. This example shows that there are international mechanisms by which stateless migrants can be protected and accommodated.
United Nations Document A/64/350
Threat of loss of territory and statelessness
...
71. In the case of some small island developing States, sea-level rise presents perhaps the ultimate security threat, jeopardizing the very existence of small low-lying countries such as the Maldives, where 80 per cent of land is less than one metre above sea level and could therefore disappear over the next 30 years. In 2005, Papua New Guinea’s Carteret Islands reportedly became the first low-lying islands to evacuate their population because of climate change, resettling 2,600 islanders to the larger Bougainville Island. The Carterets are among the hardest hit islands in the Pacific and may be completely submerged by as early as 2015.
Given the particular vulnerability of Pacific small island developing States, a single extreme weather event can suddenly exceed a nation’s capacity to respond, rendering whole islands, particularly low-lying atolls, uninhabitable. Many island States face the prospect of loss of significant amounts of territory to sea-level rise and inundation, and some face the prospect of complete submersion, with the resultant threat of statelessness of their populations.
72. In view of the fact that statelessness has not yet arisen, however, the international law principle of prevention of statelessness would be applicable and the threats implied by mass statelessness for the concerned populations could be minimized. Multilateral comprehensive agreements would be the ideal preventive mechanism, providing where, and on what legal basis, affected populations would be permitted to move elsewhere, as well as their status.
73. Climate change poses a fundamental threat to cultural survival for those societies whose territories and ways of life are threatened by sea-level rise and inundation, as noted by small island developing States. Some Member States have noted that other cultures, for example, those of indigenous peoples, may be at risk from destruction or radical alteration of ecosystems and habitat by climate change. Such peoples may also face challenges in using migration as a coping strategy as a result of discrimination in receiving locations. Thus the impacts of climate change on vulnerable societies will need to be addressed not only as an issue of sovereignty and statelessness but also as a threat to cultural identity.
Box III
Small island developing States and international legal issues regarding statelessness
Islands becoming uninhabitable or disappearing as a result of sea level rise raise the issue of the legal status of the citizens and legal rights of these States, including over fisheries.
With the disappearance of territory, one of the key constituting elements of statehood, it is not clear that these States would continue to exist as such. The same would apply if the territory would be uninhabitable to such an extent that the entire population and the Government would be forced to relocate to other States. In the event that statehood is deemed to have ceased in such a scenario, the populations concerned would be left stateless unless they acquired other nationalities. Even where the States continued to exist in legal terms and their Governments attempted to function from the territory of other States, it is unclear that they would be able to ensure the rights which flow from citizenship.
Legal and political arrangements may be necessary for the protection of affected populations. One option is the acquisition of land within another State, by purchase or a treaty of cession.
There is precedence for such an option: in the late nineteenth century, many Icelanders left Iceland for environmental and social reasons. They entered into an agreement with the Canadian Government and were given land in which they could form a provisional Government, and were given both Canadian and Icelandic citizenship. Eventually, the settlement was fully integrated into Canada. This example shows that there are international mechanisms by which stateless migrants can be protected and accommodated.
11 March 2010
Cayman Islands to Join United Nations Committee
Bermuda to Follow?
OTR News Service
By
Maria Rodriguez, International Correspondent
The application of the Cayman Islands for associate membership in the United Nations (UN) Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee (CDCC) is scheduled for consideration at the 23rd Session of that United Nations organisation on 18th March 2010. The session will be held in Grenada.
The CDCC is a permanent subsidiary body of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) comprised of virtually all independent and non-independent Caribbean countries of the hemisphere. The CDCC was created in 1975 to concentrate on the specific development needs of island countries, including the non self-governing territories as well as the associated countries of the region.
According to the terms of reference of the UN regional economic commissions, non-independent countries must first gain associate membership in the parent body ECLAC prior to its accession to the CDCC. The Cayman Islands previously attained associate membership in ECLAC at its 32nd Session in 2008 held in the Dominican Republic, becoming the penultimate non-independent country to join. The Cayman Islands is now proceeding with its separate membership application for the CDCC.
Of the ten Non-Independent Countries of the hemisphere, only Bermuda has yet to attain associate membership in ECLAC and CDCC, but indications are that their accession to both United Nations bodies is in train, and could be realised at the ECLAC 33rd Session scheduled for Brazil in June, 2010.
In 1990, the countries of the CDCC created the Working Group of Non-Independent Caribbean Countries NICCs), and over time, a work programme was developed for these countries primarily aimed at increasing their level of participation in programmes and activities of the United Nations system which could assist them in their socio-economic development process. The Group was formally renamed “Working Group of Associate Member Countries” in 2004 by resolution of the CDCC member countries.
Territorial Participation in UN System
Several expert studies were completed for ECLAC by past CDCC Chairman and founder of the Working Group of NICCs Dr. Carlyle Corbin, the former Minister of State for External Affairs of the US Virgin Islands. The most recent analysis, completed by Dr. Corbin in 2007 was the 68-page “ Plan of Action for the Further Integration of Associate Member Countries in the United Nations System including its specialised agencies.” The research remains the most comprehensive study to date on the role of the wider United Nations system in assisting the development process of non-independent countries, including those in the Caribbean as well as Pacific regions.
The findings of the study recognised that the interest of the non-independent countries in participation in United Nations programmes and activities had been encouraging, but had not been sustainable owing in part to the insufficiency of information on areas of participation available to the governments of the associate member countries. This is in spite of the annual resolutions of the UN Economic and Social Council, and the General Assembly, respectively, in favour of UN support to the territories, and was attributed to the lack of systematic dissemination of information of such support.
The study acknowledged that ECLAC “had contributed to increasing access of AMCs to United Nations programmes and activities in the economic and social sphere by conducting various analyses on widening and deepening the participation of these countries in the broader United Nations system, mainly through encouraging the extension of formal status to these countries to participate in relevant United Nations world conferences, and General Assembly summits and special sessions.”
An important feature of the analysis was a review of support to the non-independent countries from the United Nations programmes, funds and specialised agencies, along with an examination of the prevailing criteria for the participation of these countries.
Present Associate Members
The present associate members of ECLAC are the British-administered dependent territories of Cayman Islands, Montserrat, British Virgin Islands and Anguilla. The disposition of the associate membership of the Turks and Caicos Islands in both ECLAC and CDCC since the abolition by the British of the elected government of that territory in 2009 is being questioned in some quarters, as calls have become more frequent for the suspension of the territory until elected government is restored.
Additional associate members in the Caribbean region include the United States-administered dependent territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands which achieved associate membership in 1992 and 1984, respectively. Puerto Rico subsequently served as only the second associate member to chair ECLAC, from 2004 -2006, while the US Virgin Islands was twice chair of the CDCC in 1988-89 and again from 2004-06. The remaining associate members are the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba (the first associate member to chair ECLAC).
When the present dismantling process of the Netherlands Antilles is given final effect, it is likely that the Commission would provide for Curacao to replace the Antilles as an associate member (similar to the replacement of the UN membership of the former Soviet Union with the Russian Federation). In this vein, it would be likely that the newly separated Sint Maarten would proceed with a request for associate membership in its own right in the two UN organisations, and in other relevant UN and international bodies.
The associate member countries of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) include the French administered dependencies of New Caledonia and French Polynesia. The US-administered dependencies of American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands are also ESCAP associate members along with the New Zealand associate states of the Cook Islands and Niue, and the Chinese special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macao.
As Corbin wrote in “Islands at the Crossroads - Non-Independent Countries in the United Nations (2001), “the incorporation into France of Guadeloupe and its dependencies, Martinique and Guadeloupe (and Reunion) as overseas departments in the hemisphere would preclude their categorisation as non-independent countries” and therefore negate their eligibility for separate representation in United Nations and other international bodies, unlike the Pacific overseas countries of France which have sufficient autonomy for independent representation through their associate membership in ESCAP and other bodies. This is evidenced by the membership of France in the Association of Caribbean States in representative of these overseas departments. Such ‘representation’ of the territory by the cosmopole would not be tolerated, however, under UN procedures.
Associate Member Countries in UN Review
The Cayman Islands along with the other associate member countries should look forward to a number of upcoming events I which they are eligible to participate. By resolution of 2009, the UN General Assembly agreed to extend observer status to associate member countries of ECLAC and ESCAP in the five-year review of the Mauritius Strategy for Implementation (MSI)of the international programme of action on the sustainable development of small island developing states. The review is scheduled for UN Headquarters in September, 2010.
This category of participation for associate member countries dates back to the 1992 International Conference on Environment and Development, and was extended to these countries for most of the major UN global conferences and special sessions between 1992 and 2005 as a direct result of the advocacy of the Working Group of Associate Member Countries of ECLAC. Corbin’s 2004 study for ECLAC, “The Participation of Associate Member Countries in United Nations World Conferences” provided much needed-historical context to this emerging trend.
Associate Member Countries (AMCs) of ECLAC will now have the opportunity to participate in the United Nations process of the High Level Review of the International Meeting to Review the Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States held in Mauritius in 2005. Last fall, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on the subject which, inter alia, “Invites the participation of association members of regional commissions in the high level review…in the same capacity specified for their participation…” at the Mauritius meeting. Observer status had been extended to the associate members in Mauritius, and the highest level of participation from the Caribbean and Pacific were in attendance.
The first step in the process is the Caribbean Regional Review meeting of the Mauritius Strategy to be convened in Grenada from 16 - 17 March 2010. The AMCs of the Pacific will have the same opportunity to participate in the regional conference of the Pacific during the same period.
The Cayman Islands and the other associate member countries have the opportunity to make their views known on issues related to their socio economic and sustainable development. In a broader sense, these countries will also have the opportunity to enhance their governance capacity through increased international organisation participation. As Corbin wrote in 1991, “(non-independent countries) should not be precluded from direct participation in the very international institutions which would not only facilitate their decolonisation, but which would assist in their socio-economic development process.”
(Carlos Otero also contributed to this article).
OTR News Service
By
Maria Rodriguez, International Correspondent
The application of the Cayman Islands for associate membership in the United Nations (UN) Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee (CDCC) is scheduled for consideration at the 23rd Session of that United Nations organisation on 18th March 2010. The session will be held in Grenada.
The CDCC is a permanent subsidiary body of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) comprised of virtually all independent and non-independent Caribbean countries of the hemisphere. The CDCC was created in 1975 to concentrate on the specific development needs of island countries, including the non self-governing territories as well as the associated countries of the region.
According to the terms of reference of the UN regional economic commissions, non-independent countries must first gain associate membership in the parent body ECLAC prior to its accession to the CDCC. The Cayman Islands previously attained associate membership in ECLAC at its 32nd Session in 2008 held in the Dominican Republic, becoming the penultimate non-independent country to join. The Cayman Islands is now proceeding with its separate membership application for the CDCC.
Of the ten Non-Independent Countries of the hemisphere, only Bermuda has yet to attain associate membership in ECLAC and CDCC, but indications are that their accession to both United Nations bodies is in train, and could be realised at the ECLAC 33rd Session scheduled for Brazil in June, 2010.
In 1990, the countries of the CDCC created the Working Group of Non-Independent Caribbean Countries NICCs), and over time, a work programme was developed for these countries primarily aimed at increasing their level of participation in programmes and activities of the United Nations system which could assist them in their socio-economic development process. The Group was formally renamed “Working Group of Associate Member Countries” in 2004 by resolution of the CDCC member countries.
Territorial Participation in UN System
Several expert studies were completed for ECLAC by past CDCC Chairman and founder of the Working Group of NICCs Dr. Carlyle Corbin, the former Minister of State for External Affairs of the US Virgin Islands. The most recent analysis, completed by Dr. Corbin in 2007 was the 68-page “ Plan of Action for the Further Integration of Associate Member Countries in the United Nations System including its specialised agencies.” The research remains the most comprehensive study to date on the role of the wider United Nations system in assisting the development process of non-independent countries, including those in the Caribbean as well as Pacific regions.
The findings of the study recognised that the interest of the non-independent countries in participation in United Nations programmes and activities had been encouraging, but had not been sustainable owing in part to the insufficiency of information on areas of participation available to the governments of the associate member countries. This is in spite of the annual resolutions of the UN Economic and Social Council, and the General Assembly, respectively, in favour of UN support to the territories, and was attributed to the lack of systematic dissemination of information of such support.
The study acknowledged that ECLAC “had contributed to increasing access of AMCs to United Nations programmes and activities in the economic and social sphere by conducting various analyses on widening and deepening the participation of these countries in the broader United Nations system, mainly through encouraging the extension of formal status to these countries to participate in relevant United Nations world conferences, and General Assembly summits and special sessions.”
An important feature of the analysis was a review of support to the non-independent countries from the United Nations programmes, funds and specialised agencies, along with an examination of the prevailing criteria for the participation of these countries.
Present Associate Members
The present associate members of ECLAC are the British-administered dependent territories of Cayman Islands, Montserrat, British Virgin Islands and Anguilla. The disposition of the associate membership of the Turks and Caicos Islands in both ECLAC and CDCC since the abolition by the British of the elected government of that territory in 2009 is being questioned in some quarters, as calls have become more frequent for the suspension of the territory until elected government is restored.
Additional associate members in the Caribbean region include the United States-administered dependent territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands which achieved associate membership in 1992 and 1984, respectively. Puerto Rico subsequently served as only the second associate member to chair ECLAC, from 2004 -2006, while the US Virgin Islands was twice chair of the CDCC in 1988-89 and again from 2004-06. The remaining associate members are the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba (the first associate member to chair ECLAC).
When the present dismantling process of the Netherlands Antilles is given final effect, it is likely that the Commission would provide for Curacao to replace the Antilles as an associate member (similar to the replacement of the UN membership of the former Soviet Union with the Russian Federation). In this vein, it would be likely that the newly separated Sint Maarten would proceed with a request for associate membership in its own right in the two UN organisations, and in other relevant UN and international bodies.
The associate member countries of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) include the French administered dependencies of New Caledonia and French Polynesia. The US-administered dependencies of American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands are also ESCAP associate members along with the New Zealand associate states of the Cook Islands and Niue, and the Chinese special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macao.
As Corbin wrote in “Islands at the Crossroads - Non-Independent Countries in the United Nations (2001), “the incorporation into France of Guadeloupe and its dependencies, Martinique and Guadeloupe (and Reunion) as overseas departments in the hemisphere would preclude their categorisation as non-independent countries” and therefore negate their eligibility for separate representation in United Nations and other international bodies, unlike the Pacific overseas countries of France which have sufficient autonomy for independent representation through their associate membership in ESCAP and other bodies. This is evidenced by the membership of France in the Association of Caribbean States in representative of these overseas departments. Such ‘representation’ of the territory by the cosmopole would not be tolerated, however, under UN procedures.
Associate Member Countries in UN Review
The Cayman Islands along with the other associate member countries should look forward to a number of upcoming events I which they are eligible to participate. By resolution of 2009, the UN General Assembly agreed to extend observer status to associate member countries of ECLAC and ESCAP in the five-year review of the Mauritius Strategy for Implementation (MSI)of the international programme of action on the sustainable development of small island developing states. The review is scheduled for UN Headquarters in September, 2010.
This category of participation for associate member countries dates back to the 1992 International Conference on Environment and Development, and was extended to these countries for most of the major UN global conferences and special sessions between 1992 and 2005 as a direct result of the advocacy of the Working Group of Associate Member Countries of ECLAC. Corbin’s 2004 study for ECLAC, “The Participation of Associate Member Countries in United Nations World Conferences” provided much needed-historical context to this emerging trend.
Associate Member Countries (AMCs) of ECLAC will now have the opportunity to participate in the United Nations process of the High Level Review of the International Meeting to Review the Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States held in Mauritius in 2005. Last fall, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on the subject which, inter alia, “Invites the participation of association members of regional commissions in the high level review…in the same capacity specified for their participation…” at the Mauritius meeting. Observer status had been extended to the associate members in Mauritius, and the highest level of participation from the Caribbean and Pacific were in attendance.
The first step in the process is the Caribbean Regional Review meeting of the Mauritius Strategy to be convened in Grenada from 16 - 17 March 2010. The AMCs of the Pacific will have the same opportunity to participate in the regional conference of the Pacific during the same period.
The Cayman Islands and the other associate member countries have the opportunity to make their views known on issues related to their socio economic and sustainable development. In a broader sense, these countries will also have the opportunity to enhance their governance capacity through increased international organisation participation. As Corbin wrote in 1991, “(non-independent countries) should not be precluded from direct participation in the very international institutions which would not only facilitate their decolonisation, but which would assist in their socio-economic development process.”
(Carlos Otero also contributed to this article).
06 March 2010
Political Parties In Turks and Caicos Merge For March Against UK Take Over
South Florida Caribbean News 6th March 2010
TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS - Statement from Mr Douglas Parnell, leader of the PDM ) People's Democratic Movement) Party in Turks and Caicos regarding the move for both parties to march on Monday (Commonwealth Day public holiday) against the UK direct rule and the impending constitutional reform on the horizon. The reform has been rejected by indigenous people because it excludes them.
In a democracy where there are differing political and other views, occasions of UNITY are rare. Some persons have asked “why UNITE now?”
What is the purpose of uniting and what will we accomplish? Constitutionally, we are in a neutered state and the weapons to disenfranchise Turks and Caicos Islanders from our rights have long been formed. My faith and hope is that through a process of unleashing the largest show of UNITY ever witnessed in the Turks and Caicos Islands we can defeat our common opponent- a spirit of vengeance, fear and ignorance perpetrated by a system of governance and of minority forces who are against the interest and rights of Turks and Caicos Islanders, who are fighting to diminish our rights and privileges and who are seeking to unjustly bind our country with greater levels of destructive policies that will not bring about the change needed to spiritually, politically, economically and socially develop our country. Put simply, we have to stand to stop our voice from being silenced and our people overshadowed.
We are marching for our rights to determine what makes up our Constitution. We are marching for our rights to determine who is entitled to the voting franchise. We are marching for our rights to determine the type of democracy we seek to be under. We are marching to protect the rights for our future Turks and Caicos Islanders. We are marching for our rights to determine, as a people, who we will allow to work and reside in our country. We are marching for the rights of all our people. We are marching for a return of our rights as a people.
If we do not come together now we will lose our rights as a people to chart our own destiny. If we do not come together now our new constitution will not represent the wishes of Turks and Caicos Islanders and can be forced upon us. If we do not come together now we can lose our country forever. This is not a situation that we can afford to sit and do nothing about. This is not a situation that confronts my party alone. It confronts us all, as a people. I have called for our people to come together. This is not an endorsement of PNP plans, policies or persons.
This is about the Turks and Caicos people which include all of us, PDM AND PNP alike. We must act in UNITY on Monday March 8th. UNITY shows our strength. The March in March presents our people with a rare opportunity to show to ourselves and equally to show the world that we stand together when confronted with common challenges. I am therefore, again, calling on all persons of the TCI to answer the call for UNITY by supporting the Unity March this Monday 8th of March. I have read the press release issued by the Leader of the PNP where he accepts this timely call to support the UNITY March on a day when we shall come together as ONE people of the TCI. This period calls for mature citizenship and mature dialogue and a mature response to our challenges.
In light of his response and the response from all segments of my party for a UNITED front against these devices that seek to separate us from our rights, divide us as a people and install mechanisms in Government that are unrepresentative of our democracy and our people I ask for us to refer to this day as UNITY DAY; A day where we can all come together, setting aside our differences, and embracing our similarities and common heritage to begin charting the course and starting the work as ONE People, One Nation with one Purpose.
MAY GOD GUIDE AND PROTECT OUR BEAUTIFUL TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS.
TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS - Statement from Mr Douglas Parnell, leader of the PDM ) People's Democratic Movement) Party in Turks and Caicos regarding the move for both parties to march on Monday (Commonwealth Day public holiday) against the UK direct rule and the impending constitutional reform on the horizon. The reform has been rejected by indigenous people because it excludes them.
In a democracy where there are differing political and other views, occasions of UNITY are rare. Some persons have asked “why UNITE now?”
What is the purpose of uniting and what will we accomplish? Constitutionally, we are in a neutered state and the weapons to disenfranchise Turks and Caicos Islanders from our rights have long been formed. My faith and hope is that through a process of unleashing the largest show of UNITY ever witnessed in the Turks and Caicos Islands we can defeat our common opponent- a spirit of vengeance, fear and ignorance perpetrated by a system of governance and of minority forces who are against the interest and rights of Turks and Caicos Islanders, who are fighting to diminish our rights and privileges and who are seeking to unjustly bind our country with greater levels of destructive policies that will not bring about the change needed to spiritually, politically, economically and socially develop our country. Put simply, we have to stand to stop our voice from being silenced and our people overshadowed.
We are marching for our rights to determine what makes up our Constitution. We are marching for our rights to determine who is entitled to the voting franchise. We are marching for our rights to determine the type of democracy we seek to be under. We are marching to protect the rights for our future Turks and Caicos Islanders. We are marching for our rights to determine, as a people, who we will allow to work and reside in our country. We are marching for the rights of all our people. We are marching for a return of our rights as a people.
If we do not come together now we will lose our rights as a people to chart our own destiny. If we do not come together now our new constitution will not represent the wishes of Turks and Caicos Islanders and can be forced upon us. If we do not come together now we can lose our country forever. This is not a situation that we can afford to sit and do nothing about. This is not a situation that confronts my party alone. It confronts us all, as a people. I have called for our people to come together. This is not an endorsement of PNP plans, policies or persons.
This is about the Turks and Caicos people which include all of us, PDM AND PNP alike. We must act in UNITY on Monday March 8th. UNITY shows our strength. The March in March presents our people with a rare opportunity to show to ourselves and equally to show the world that we stand together when confronted with common challenges. I am therefore, again, calling on all persons of the TCI to answer the call for UNITY by supporting the Unity March this Monday 8th of March. I have read the press release issued by the Leader of the PNP where he accepts this timely call to support the UNITY March on a day when we shall come together as ONE people of the TCI. This period calls for mature citizenship and mature dialogue and a mature response to our challenges.
In light of his response and the response from all segments of my party for a UNITED front against these devices that seek to separate us from our rights, divide us as a people and install mechanisms in Government that are unrepresentative of our democracy and our people I ask for us to refer to this day as UNITY DAY; A day where we can all come together, setting aside our differences, and embracing our similarities and common heritage to begin charting the course and starting the work as ONE People, One Nation with one Purpose.
MAY GOD GUIDE AND PROTECT OUR BEAUTIFUL TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS.
04 March 2010
Former Turks & Caicos Premier Calls for National Unity
Turks and Caicos Sun
By Hayden Boyce, Publisher & Editor-in-Chief
04 March 2010
Former Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands, Michael Misick is calling on all Turks and Caicos Islanders, churches and political parties to put differences aside and “unite to fight the common enemy, the British.”
In a press statement released on Tuesday, March 2, Misick said: “They (the British) have divided and conquered us. Let’s show that we are wise and we will not be defeated. We are after all one people, there is strength in unity and if we unite we can peacefully defeat the British Empire as the great Indian statesman Mahatma Gandhi did. He once stated, referring to the British”they cannot take away our self-respect if we do not give it to them.”
Misick, who resigned as Premier in March 2009, blasted the British for staging what he described as a “modern day coup” in the Turks and Caicos Islands while the rest of the world was not watching.
He added: “All of the democratic institutions have been suspended. The Governor (Gordon Wetherell) is now the executive, the legislative. He sits on a panel that decides who should be prosecuted. He appoints judges and so his position is no different than that of the strong man that made a recent coup in Niger or any other recent coup around the world. In fact, it’s worst because even in Honduras after the coup they left the parliament in place. “
Misick noted that the suspension of democracy in the Turks and Caicos Islands happened without any condemnation from the Commonwealth, the United Nations, and the United States of America under the watch of President Barack Obama or any other international body other than CARICOM.
“This is wrong,” he said. “Gordon brown launched his campaign in the UK with the slogan fairness for all. I ask what about fairness for the Turks and Caicos Islands people. I call on Gordon Brown and request that the UN Secretary General and President Barack Obama, the president of the free world, request that democracy is returned to Turks and Caicos Islands immediately and election held without delay.”
The former Premier, who led the Turks and Caicos Islands since 2003, said that in the Governor’s half-yearly report he continues to make it seem as though the former PNP government mismanaged the government’s finances and that this was one of the reasons for the intervention.
“I refute that notion which is a matter for the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands to decide at the election polls. The fact of the matter is that during the six years of my administration the Turks and Caicos Islands has experienced unprecedented growth, increasing the GDP from US$100Million to over US$750Million,” the former Premier continued.
“We spent hundreds of millions of dollars on infrastructure from roads, to schools, to parks, to sports stadiums, the causeway between North and Middle Caicos, South Caicos airport terminal and the two new hospitals in Grand Turk and Providenciales that will open soon, just to name a few. We spent tens of millions of dollars on scholarships, educating thousands of young people to come home and take their rightful place. We have also spent tens of millions of dollars on health care for our people making sure no one dies because they could not afford to be treated.
We gave thousands of acres of land to our people to empower them and I make no apologies for what we have done. Our record speaks for itself.”
He added: “We attracted billions of dollars in foreign investment in the hotel sector and one of the most modern cruise ship ports in the entire world. A record that transformed a sleeping group of small islands to one on the way to becoming an economic power house in the region and placing it firmly on the map as one of the foremost high end destinations in the world, “the envy of the Caribbean. My people let us not forget the good times that my PNP government brought to you and you’re families. Let us not sit idly by and let the few British elite re-write history - we all know what happened. We all experienced it.”
By Hayden Boyce, Publisher & Editor-in-Chief
04 March 2010
Former Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands, Michael Misick is calling on all Turks and Caicos Islanders, churches and political parties to put differences aside and “unite to fight the common enemy, the British.”
In a press statement released on Tuesday, March 2, Misick said: “They (the British) have divided and conquered us. Let’s show that we are wise and we will not be defeated. We are after all one people, there is strength in unity and if we unite we can peacefully defeat the British Empire as the great Indian statesman Mahatma Gandhi did. He once stated, referring to the British”they cannot take away our self-respect if we do not give it to them.”
Misick, who resigned as Premier in March 2009, blasted the British for staging what he described as a “modern day coup” in the Turks and Caicos Islands while the rest of the world was not watching.
He added: “All of the democratic institutions have been suspended. The Governor (Gordon Wetherell) is now the executive, the legislative. He sits on a panel that decides who should be prosecuted. He appoints judges and so his position is no different than that of the strong man that made a recent coup in Niger or any other recent coup around the world. In fact, it’s worst because even in Honduras after the coup they left the parliament in place. “
Misick noted that the suspension of democracy in the Turks and Caicos Islands happened without any condemnation from the Commonwealth, the United Nations, and the United States of America under the watch of President Barack Obama or any other international body other than CARICOM.
“This is wrong,” he said. “Gordon brown launched his campaign in the UK with the slogan fairness for all. I ask what about fairness for the Turks and Caicos Islands people. I call on Gordon Brown and request that the UN Secretary General and President Barack Obama, the president of the free world, request that democracy is returned to Turks and Caicos Islands immediately and election held without delay.”
The former Premier, who led the Turks and Caicos Islands since 2003, said that in the Governor’s half-yearly report he continues to make it seem as though the former PNP government mismanaged the government’s finances and that this was one of the reasons for the intervention.
“I refute that notion which is a matter for the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands to decide at the election polls. The fact of the matter is that during the six years of my administration the Turks and Caicos Islands has experienced unprecedented growth, increasing the GDP from US$100Million to over US$750Million,” the former Premier continued.
“We spent hundreds of millions of dollars on infrastructure from roads, to schools, to parks, to sports stadiums, the causeway between North and Middle Caicos, South Caicos airport terminal and the two new hospitals in Grand Turk and Providenciales that will open soon, just to name a few. We spent tens of millions of dollars on scholarships, educating thousands of young people to come home and take their rightful place. We have also spent tens of millions of dollars on health care for our people making sure no one dies because they could not afford to be treated.
We gave thousands of acres of land to our people to empower them and I make no apologies for what we have done. Our record speaks for itself.”
He added: “We attracted billions of dollars in foreign investment in the hotel sector and one of the most modern cruise ship ports in the entire world. A record that transformed a sleeping group of small islands to one on the way to becoming an economic power house in the region and placing it firmly on the map as one of the foremost high end destinations in the world, “the envy of the Caribbean. My people let us not forget the good times that my PNP government brought to you and you’re families. Let us not sit idly by and let the few British elite re-write history - we all know what happened. We all experienced it.”
03 March 2010
Turks & Caicos Political Parties Unite to “Reclaim Democracy”
March 8 Demonstration for return to elected government
By Gemma Handy
Turks & Caicos Weekly News
2/26/2010
Strident PDM (Peoples Democratic Movement) calls for Islanders to cast aside political affiliation and join a unity march to restore self-government have received backing from the PNP (Peoples National Party). PDM leader Doug Parnell threw down the gauntlet last week to fellow citizens embittered by the return of direct British rule urging them to join a clamorous demonstration on March 8.
The open invitation has earned cross-party support with PNP leader Galmo Williams accepting the clarion call for action. Mr Williams declared it time to “put aside differences” in a statement released on Tuesday.
“The Progressive National Party supports the statement of the leader of the People’s Democratic Movement made at their press conference of last Thursday calling for a unity march of Turks and Caicos Islanders on March 8,” he said.
“As leader of the PNP I take this opportunity to publicly accept Mr Parnell’s open invitation to join and participate in this march for national unity on behalf of the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands.
“Our prayer is that God would bless our country as we unite and put aside our differences for the betterment of all of our people,” he added. The former Premier has been a vehement opponent of direct UK rule from the outset.
The march will begin at 9am outside the Gustarvus Lightbourne Sports Complex in Providenciales.It will culminate at the court offices with ‘open mic’ speeches to give a voice to Islanders who feel muzzled since the axing of local elected representatives.
Mr Parnell told the Weekly News he was expecting a high turnout: “People want to march; at this juncture, this is what they are looking for. It is both timely and appropriate. People want to express themselves and this gives them the opportunity to do so.”The party leader said the aim was for TC Islanders to determine their own fate and not have one imposed on them.
The demonstration is being spearheaded by deputy leader Clarence Selver who said it was “time to stand up and speak up.”
“We are marching for unity, for the common wellbeing of the people of this country and for the reclamation of democracy and the return of accountability and responsibility in Government,” (he pointed out). Mr Selver said the event was also a formal display of opposition to escalating violent crime, a “lack of transparency” on issues of national importance, potential job cuts in the civil service and proposals to allow non-Belongers to vote.
PDM chiefs say that general elections – slated for summer 2011 – should be held imminently “to avoid further deterioration of the economy” and job losses. They dubbed the suspension of the constitution as “regressive” and said the TCI’s long-term stability and prosperity hinged on a locally elected Government.
The party is also demanding indigenous people be properly consulted during the forthcoming constitutional review.
By Gemma Handy
Turks & Caicos Weekly News
2/26/2010
Strident PDM (Peoples Democratic Movement) calls for Islanders to cast aside political affiliation and join a unity march to restore self-government have received backing from the PNP (Peoples National Party). PDM leader Doug Parnell threw down the gauntlet last week to fellow citizens embittered by the return of direct British rule urging them to join a clamorous demonstration on March 8.
The open invitation has earned cross-party support with PNP leader Galmo Williams accepting the clarion call for action. Mr Williams declared it time to “put aside differences” in a statement released on Tuesday.
“The Progressive National Party supports the statement of the leader of the People’s Democratic Movement made at their press conference of last Thursday calling for a unity march of Turks and Caicos Islanders on March 8,” he said.
“As leader of the PNP I take this opportunity to publicly accept Mr Parnell’s open invitation to join and participate in this march for national unity on behalf of the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands.
“Our prayer is that God would bless our country as we unite and put aside our differences for the betterment of all of our people,” he added. The former Premier has been a vehement opponent of direct UK rule from the outset.
The march will begin at 9am outside the Gustarvus Lightbourne Sports Complex in Providenciales.It will culminate at the court offices with ‘open mic’ speeches to give a voice to Islanders who feel muzzled since the axing of local elected representatives.
Mr Parnell told the Weekly News he was expecting a high turnout: “People want to march; at this juncture, this is what they are looking for. It is both timely and appropriate. People want to express themselves and this gives them the opportunity to do so.”The party leader said the aim was for TC Islanders to determine their own fate and not have one imposed on them.
The demonstration is being spearheaded by deputy leader Clarence Selver who said it was “time to stand up and speak up.”
“We are marching for unity, for the common wellbeing of the people of this country and for the reclamation of democracy and the return of accountability and responsibility in Government,” (he pointed out). Mr Selver said the event was also a formal display of opposition to escalating violent crime, a “lack of transparency” on issues of national importance, potential job cuts in the civil service and proposals to allow non-Belongers to vote.
PDM chiefs say that general elections – slated for summer 2011 – should be held imminently “to avoid further deterioration of the economy” and job losses. They dubbed the suspension of the constitution as “regressive” and said the TCI’s long-term stability and prosperity hinged on a locally elected Government.
The party is also demanding indigenous people be properly consulted during the forthcoming constitutional review.
02 March 2010
British After Oil in its Caribbean Overseas Territories?
By TCIwatch
The UK has been using much force recently upon its overseas territories. In the UK's South Atlantic strong hold, the Falkland Islands, the UK's insistence on oil drilling off the coast of the islands has Argentina standing its ground. The waters where the UK is drilling is quite under dispute and such dispute has not been worked out. Nonetheless, the UK continues its plans and has installed oil drilling rigs in the waters.
In other territories, the UK is also making plans to restore its rights over autonomous countries with existing constitutions and local governments. The UK has accused five (5) of its Caribbean territories of poor governance and/or local government corruption with foreign investors.
Turks and Caicos is the first island territory to have its constitution fall to the UK, in August 2009. The people of Turks and Caicos watch helplessly as their islands are converted back to UK rule without any input from them. The UK is also changing the voting and constitution to allow resident UK citizens a general vote as well as a vote as to local government affairs. General elections in 2011 will only be honored by the UK if the UK approves the leader, as announced by FCO director, Colin Roberts. This gives many the impression that the approved leader would be merely a UK proxy with UK citizens voting to bolster UK's agenda. Both political parties in Turks and Caicos are outraged by UK's removal of local leadership and UK's plans to move forward without a democratic vote from the people.
The UN condemns UK's actions in Turks and Caicos, calling it clear colonialism. It further explains that the act of a foreign government entity forcing its values on a weaker population cannot be justified in any way.
As The UK Activist Stuart Yates pointed out in his writings, the UK's presence in Turks and Caicos is shrouded in secrecy and cannot be described as anything less than a coup. The UK took over governance of these Caribbean islands without any election or consensus from the people living in the islands.
Is it plausible that all five UK territories are corrupt with foreign investors? Many have theorized that the UK is trying to take back so-called Crown land, land for which the UK claims as its own from conquering the islands in the first place from local indigenous people. The foreign investors all had purchased and developed Crown land, this is plausible.
Recently, there has been cause to ask some more pointed questions. If the UK is not after Crown land as it states, could it be something else?
The UK claims that it is helping Turks and Caicos sort through debt and former local government corruption. This has many suspicious, as the former UK-installed governors never reported any local government abuse and warnings were never provided.
The UK demands that it does not wish to be there as it is a burden on their own government to support Turks and Caicos. This assertion by the UK is false. The UK not only destroyed the reputations and caused the closing of several high-end resorts that were generating revenue, it also destroyed family home developments built on so-called Crown land. The UK sky-rocketed taxes and failed to bring any aid or resources with them. The UK also facilitated a loan to be paid by the people of Turks and Caicos, in large part to repay the UK for its services.
Due to the unfortunate tragedy in Haiti earlier this year, the world discovered that Haiti has untapped oil reserves worth billions of dollars. Geologist Daniel Mathurin made a comparison, “Haiti’s oil reserves are larger than those of Venezuela. An Olympic pool compared to a glass of water is the comparison.” We're just learning about it now, but the UK has known about it for some time now.
Indeed, Haiti is 90 miles South of Turks and Caicos. This begs the question, UK's real purpose for collapsing local governments in its autonomous countries in the Caribbean. What does the UK really want with Turks and Caicos? Could the answer be right under our noses; err... ahem ... feet?
The UK has been using much force recently upon its overseas territories. In the UK's South Atlantic strong hold, the Falkland Islands, the UK's insistence on oil drilling off the coast of the islands has Argentina standing its ground. The waters where the UK is drilling is quite under dispute and such dispute has not been worked out. Nonetheless, the UK continues its plans and has installed oil drilling rigs in the waters.
In other territories, the UK is also making plans to restore its rights over autonomous countries with existing constitutions and local governments. The UK has accused five (5) of its Caribbean territories of poor governance and/or local government corruption with foreign investors.
Turks and Caicos is the first island territory to have its constitution fall to the UK, in August 2009. The people of Turks and Caicos watch helplessly as their islands are converted back to UK rule without any input from them. The UK is also changing the voting and constitution to allow resident UK citizens a general vote as well as a vote as to local government affairs. General elections in 2011 will only be honored by the UK if the UK approves the leader, as announced by FCO director, Colin Roberts. This gives many the impression that the approved leader would be merely a UK proxy with UK citizens voting to bolster UK's agenda. Both political parties in Turks and Caicos are outraged by UK's removal of local leadership and UK's plans to move forward without a democratic vote from the people.
The UN condemns UK's actions in Turks and Caicos, calling it clear colonialism. It further explains that the act of a foreign government entity forcing its values on a weaker population cannot be justified in any way.
As The UK Activist Stuart Yates pointed out in his writings, the UK's presence in Turks and Caicos is shrouded in secrecy and cannot be described as anything less than a coup. The UK took over governance of these Caribbean islands without any election or consensus from the people living in the islands.
Is it plausible that all five UK territories are corrupt with foreign investors? Many have theorized that the UK is trying to take back so-called Crown land, land for which the UK claims as its own from conquering the islands in the first place from local indigenous people. The foreign investors all had purchased and developed Crown land, this is plausible.
Recently, there has been cause to ask some more pointed questions. If the UK is not after Crown land as it states, could it be something else?
The UK claims that it is helping Turks and Caicos sort through debt and former local government corruption. This has many suspicious, as the former UK-installed governors never reported any local government abuse and warnings were never provided.
The UK demands that it does not wish to be there as it is a burden on their own government to support Turks and Caicos. This assertion by the UK is false. The UK not only destroyed the reputations and caused the closing of several high-end resorts that were generating revenue, it also destroyed family home developments built on so-called Crown land. The UK sky-rocketed taxes and failed to bring any aid or resources with them. The UK also facilitated a loan to be paid by the people of Turks and Caicos, in large part to repay the UK for its services.
Due to the unfortunate tragedy in Haiti earlier this year, the world discovered that Haiti has untapped oil reserves worth billions of dollars. Geologist Daniel Mathurin made a comparison, “Haiti’s oil reserves are larger than those of Venezuela. An Olympic pool compared to a glass of water is the comparison.” We're just learning about it now, but the UK has known about it for some time now.
Indeed, Haiti is 90 miles South of Turks and Caicos. This begs the question, UK's real purpose for collapsing local governments in its autonomous countries in the Caribbean. What does the UK really want with Turks and Caicos? Could the answer be right under our noses; err... ahem ... feet?
01 March 2010
Sports Autonomy for Territories Meets International Politics
Despite their non-independent political status, most overseas countries and territories (OCTs)enjoy membership in the international Olympic movement. Thus, it is not uncommon to see athletes from British, French and US – administered small island territories participating in major international athletic competitions, including regional events such as the Central American and Caribbean Games, the Pan American Games, and in the Olympics itself.
Matters can be a bit more complex, however, when a territory actually plays host to such an athletic event, and must adhere to all of the international requirements of any other host country as far as entry of the athletes from the invited countries and other requirements. In the British-administered territories in the Caribbean, where the territorial government exercises administrative control over immigration, this is not as much of an issue. But unlike their fellow OCTs, the US-administered territories do not control their borders, and, thus, cannot not control entry for the athletes and their respective delegations.
Enter international politics, and in this case, the dynamic of Cuba-United States relations. The 2010 Central American and Caribbean Games are scheduled to be held in the city of Mayaguez in Puerto Rico, a US-administered territory which does not have control to regulate entry of the visiting delegations. This has not allowed the Puerto Rico government, as the host country, to provide the usual guarantees for the participation of the Cuban athletes and delegation – despite the best efforts of the Puerto Rico government authorities. Sadly, this has resulted in the withdrawal of the Cuban teams from the competition. The following announcement provides detail on the decision.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Cuba Withdrawals from Central American and Caribbean Games Scheduled for Puerto Rico
Announcement by the Cuban Olympic Committee and the Cuban Sports Institute
26 February 2010
From July 17 to August 1, the 21st Central American and Caribbean Games take place in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. These games, recognized as the oldest multidisciplinary sports event in the world, are part of the Olympic series. With the objective of participating in them, more than 2,000 Cuban athletes have remained at their different centers, training intensively in order to be part of their teams.
Since the 1970 edition, Cuba has taken first place in the seven Central American Games in which it has participated, has accumulated in its history a total of 3,071 medals, 1,630 of them gold, 825 silver, and 616 bronze, and has historically attended these Games with its best athletes and teams, in a clear demonstration of the respect it has for sports and for the fraternal countries in our region.
For this year’s Games, we have a strong selection which could win our country first place once again, in Mayaguez 2010.Our accumulated experiences in events held in Puerto Rican territory have not been good.
Members of the delegations who participated in the Central American and Caribbean Games of San Juan 1966 and Ponce 1993, and the classifying round of the First World Classic in 2006 still remember with just displeasure the constant aggression, provocations and insults, and the constant pressure to which they were subjected by Cuban counterrevolutionary groups which act with impunity and which have made terrorism, intolerance and fascism in its U.S. variety a way of life that is well-paid and sponsored by different U.S. administrations.
The venue was granted to Mayaguez during the Extraordinary General Assembly of the ODECABE, which took place in Havana in May 2004. The vote was 22 for and 16 against. At that same assembly, Cuba clearly expressed our country’s position, its demands and the obligations expected of the ODECABE and Puerto Rico.
Since that same year of 2004, we have been alerting the authorities of the Organizing Committee for the Games, the Central American and Caribbean Sports Organization (ODECABE) and the Puerto Rican Olympic Committee (COPUR) that the 21st Games, to be held in the city of Mayaguez, should comply fully with what is established by the regulations for this type of competition and that Cuba would not accept any kind of discriminatory treatment.
One example of that: solely in the period of October 2007 to February 2010, more than 45 meetings, conferences, calls and exchanges of correspondence took place between the Cuban Olympic Committee and Puerto Rican sports authorities, and the Central American and Caribbean Sports Organization (ODECABE), all aimed at clearly specifying Cuba’s positions and its desire to participate in the Games, if our just requirements were met.
Cuba’s requirements were:
— Visas for its entire delegation, based on what is established in the ODECABE Statute; permission to land in an appropriate airport in Puerto Rican territory, and the assurance that aircraft of the Cubana de Aviación airline would not be confiscated, as well as guarantees for bringing in and taking out sports equipment and all other necessary equipment for the competition.
— That the conditions of housing, internal transportation and other facilities would be the same as those assigned to the other delegations, and that access would be given to the press and other members of the support group which the other athletic embassies also have.
— That conditions of security and tranquility would be established, avoiding pressure and provocations.
Moreover, that Cuba also would not allow in any way for its delegation, upon arriving in Puerto Rico, to be subjected to treatment reserved for citizens from countries considered to be terrorist. The United States government has given us that status arbitrarily and unjustly; the Cuban sports movement opportunely expressed its full backing for the statement issued by our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, vigorously rejecting that aggression from the empire.
When we demanded visas for all of the delegation’s members, we did so based on the ODECABE Statute, an entity that organizes the Games, which establishes in its Chapter X, Article 40 the following:
"…The National Olympic Committee that aspires to hold the Games should deliver an official declaration from its national and city government expressing that they accept the responsibility to host the Games, and that the Central Government is obliged to grant entry to the country with the CENTRAL AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN IDENTITY CARD (TIC) and a valid passport…."
That legal commitment is being trampled upon.
The Statute, as everybody knows, regulates the entity’s operation with respect to third parties, and establishes the rights and obligations of members and their relations. To allow them to be violated is to propitiate the legal division of the organization and its weakening.
We thank the Puerto Rican sports authorities for their willingness to pay for non-Cuban charter airplanes for our delegation to visit the Games. It is an elegant gesture, but we cannot accept it. We repeatedly demanded to travel to Puerto Rico as members of the ODECABE, with all of our rights. We are a country of dignified, combative and truly patriotic athletes who do not have to be concealed in order to attend an event in which they play a leading role, or as non-desirable people who have to be admitted through the back door, hiding their place of origin. We are proud of our flag and our people, and consequently, we cannot accept such humiliation.
Cuba has only been demanding its rights as a member country of the ODECABE; any venue of the Central American and Caribbean Games would have guaranteed those rights without any difficulty whatsoever.
Mayaguez, however, although it has wanted to, has not been able to ensure those conditions. Puerto Rico, as a Free Associated State, is dependent on the government of the United States of America, and is governed by U.S. federal laws. We have publicly recognized the continuous, tireless efforts of the Puerto Rican sports authorities and people, but the response provided by the U.S. government to their many efforts has been silence or the issuance of documents written in completely ambiguous terms, very much in tone, by the way, with the current style of U.S. diplomacy; they contain no response to our country’s requests.
The Cuban side has had patience, ethics, and the desire to cooperate in eradication of obstacles and hindrances, and to participate together with our brothers and sisters from Central America and the Caribbean in the 21st Games, but months and years have passed without receiving answers. The reasonable waiting period, after four extensions conceded by the Cuban sports movement to the organizers of Mayaguez 2010, has run out.
After thoroughly evaluating every step taken and the position taken once again by the U.S. government of creating obstacles and not agreeing to just requests, the Cuban Olympic Committee and the Cuban Sports Institute (INDER), have decided to officially announce that Cuba will not participate in the Mayaguez 2010 Central American and Caribbean Games.
The International Olympic Committee, the National Olympic Committees, institutions, organizations and sports federations, and the world community, too, should take note of this occurrence, and evaluate to what extent venues can continue to be given to a country which, in its foreign policy and diplomacy, is creating elements that are aggressive and in violation of international law.
City of Havana. February 26, 2010
Cuban Olympic Committee
National Sports Institute.
(Translated by Granma International)
Matters can be a bit more complex, however, when a territory actually plays host to such an athletic event, and must adhere to all of the international requirements of any other host country as far as entry of the athletes from the invited countries and other requirements. In the British-administered territories in the Caribbean, where the territorial government exercises administrative control over immigration, this is not as much of an issue. But unlike their fellow OCTs, the US-administered territories do not control their borders, and, thus, cannot not control entry for the athletes and their respective delegations.
Enter international politics, and in this case, the dynamic of Cuba-United States relations. The 2010 Central American and Caribbean Games are scheduled to be held in the city of Mayaguez in Puerto Rico, a US-administered territory which does not have control to regulate entry of the visiting delegations. This has not allowed the Puerto Rico government, as the host country, to provide the usual guarantees for the participation of the Cuban athletes and delegation – despite the best efforts of the Puerto Rico government authorities. Sadly, this has resulted in the withdrawal of the Cuban teams from the competition. The following announcement provides detail on the decision.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Cuba Withdrawals from Central American and Caribbean Games Scheduled for Puerto Rico
Announcement by the Cuban Olympic Committee and the Cuban Sports Institute
26 February 2010
From July 17 to August 1, the 21st Central American and Caribbean Games take place in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. These games, recognized as the oldest multidisciplinary sports event in the world, are part of the Olympic series. With the objective of participating in them, more than 2,000 Cuban athletes have remained at their different centers, training intensively in order to be part of their teams.
Since the 1970 edition, Cuba has taken first place in the seven Central American Games in which it has participated, has accumulated in its history a total of 3,071 medals, 1,630 of them gold, 825 silver, and 616 bronze, and has historically attended these Games with its best athletes and teams, in a clear demonstration of the respect it has for sports and for the fraternal countries in our region.
For this year’s Games, we have a strong selection which could win our country first place once again, in Mayaguez 2010.Our accumulated experiences in events held in Puerto Rican territory have not been good.
Members of the delegations who participated in the Central American and Caribbean Games of San Juan 1966 and Ponce 1993, and the classifying round of the First World Classic in 2006 still remember with just displeasure the constant aggression, provocations and insults, and the constant pressure to which they were subjected by Cuban counterrevolutionary groups which act with impunity and which have made terrorism, intolerance and fascism in its U.S. variety a way of life that is well-paid and sponsored by different U.S. administrations.
The venue was granted to Mayaguez during the Extraordinary General Assembly of the ODECABE, which took place in Havana in May 2004. The vote was 22 for and 16 against. At that same assembly, Cuba clearly expressed our country’s position, its demands and the obligations expected of the ODECABE and Puerto Rico.
Since that same year of 2004, we have been alerting the authorities of the Organizing Committee for the Games, the Central American and Caribbean Sports Organization (ODECABE) and the Puerto Rican Olympic Committee (COPUR) that the 21st Games, to be held in the city of Mayaguez, should comply fully with what is established by the regulations for this type of competition and that Cuba would not accept any kind of discriminatory treatment.
One example of that: solely in the period of October 2007 to February 2010, more than 45 meetings, conferences, calls and exchanges of correspondence took place between the Cuban Olympic Committee and Puerto Rican sports authorities, and the Central American and Caribbean Sports Organization (ODECABE), all aimed at clearly specifying Cuba’s positions and its desire to participate in the Games, if our just requirements were met.
Cuba’s requirements were:
— Visas for its entire delegation, based on what is established in the ODECABE Statute; permission to land in an appropriate airport in Puerto Rican territory, and the assurance that aircraft of the Cubana de Aviación airline would not be confiscated, as well as guarantees for bringing in and taking out sports equipment and all other necessary equipment for the competition.
— That the conditions of housing, internal transportation and other facilities would be the same as those assigned to the other delegations, and that access would be given to the press and other members of the support group which the other athletic embassies also have.
— That conditions of security and tranquility would be established, avoiding pressure and provocations.
Moreover, that Cuba also would not allow in any way for its delegation, upon arriving in Puerto Rico, to be subjected to treatment reserved for citizens from countries considered to be terrorist. The United States government has given us that status arbitrarily and unjustly; the Cuban sports movement opportunely expressed its full backing for the statement issued by our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, vigorously rejecting that aggression from the empire.
When we demanded visas for all of the delegation’s members, we did so based on the ODECABE Statute, an entity that organizes the Games, which establishes in its Chapter X, Article 40 the following:
"…The National Olympic Committee that aspires to hold the Games should deliver an official declaration from its national and city government expressing that they accept the responsibility to host the Games, and that the Central Government is obliged to grant entry to the country with the CENTRAL AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN IDENTITY CARD (TIC) and a valid passport…."
That legal commitment is being trampled upon.
The Statute, as everybody knows, regulates the entity’s operation with respect to third parties, and establishes the rights and obligations of members and their relations. To allow them to be violated is to propitiate the legal division of the organization and its weakening.
We thank the Puerto Rican sports authorities for their willingness to pay for non-Cuban charter airplanes for our delegation to visit the Games. It is an elegant gesture, but we cannot accept it. We repeatedly demanded to travel to Puerto Rico as members of the ODECABE, with all of our rights. We are a country of dignified, combative and truly patriotic athletes who do not have to be concealed in order to attend an event in which they play a leading role, or as non-desirable people who have to be admitted through the back door, hiding their place of origin. We are proud of our flag and our people, and consequently, we cannot accept such humiliation.
Cuba has only been demanding its rights as a member country of the ODECABE; any venue of the Central American and Caribbean Games would have guaranteed those rights without any difficulty whatsoever.
Mayaguez, however, although it has wanted to, has not been able to ensure those conditions. Puerto Rico, as a Free Associated State, is dependent on the government of the United States of America, and is governed by U.S. federal laws. We have publicly recognized the continuous, tireless efforts of the Puerto Rican sports authorities and people, but the response provided by the U.S. government to their many efforts has been silence or the issuance of documents written in completely ambiguous terms, very much in tone, by the way, with the current style of U.S. diplomacy; they contain no response to our country’s requests.
The Cuban side has had patience, ethics, and the desire to cooperate in eradication of obstacles and hindrances, and to participate together with our brothers and sisters from Central America and the Caribbean in the 21st Games, but months and years have passed without receiving answers. The reasonable waiting period, after four extensions conceded by the Cuban sports movement to the organizers of Mayaguez 2010, has run out.
After thoroughly evaluating every step taken and the position taken once again by the U.S. government of creating obstacles and not agreeing to just requests, the Cuban Olympic Committee and the Cuban Sports Institute (INDER), have decided to officially announce that Cuba will not participate in the Mayaguez 2010 Central American and Caribbean Games.
The International Olympic Committee, the National Olympic Committees, institutions, organizations and sports federations, and the world community, too, should take note of this occurrence, and evaluate to what extent venues can continue to be given to a country which, in its foreign policy and diplomacy, is creating elements that are aggressive and in violation of international law.
City of Havana. February 26, 2010
Cuban Olympic Committee
National Sports Institute.
(Translated by Granma International)
24 February 2010
Implications of Pending Federal Legislation on US Territories
Press Release February 22, 2010
Panel Discussion on Federal Political Status Legislation
A panel discussion on the Implications of Pending Federal Legislation on the Self-Determination of the US Virgin Islands will be held from 5:30 to 7:30 PM (Thursday) on February 25, 2010 at the NWW Great Hall University on the St. Croix Campus of the University of the Virgin Islands. The activity is being conducted by the United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands in conjunction with the Student Affairs Office of the University of the Virgin Islands.
A similar forum was held by UNAVI on March 20, 2010 in St. Thomas in conjunction with the Virgin Islands Cultural Heritage Institute.
The panelists in the St. Croix session will explore several legislative measures which have been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives designed to advance political development in U.S. territories, including a measure to fund educational programs in the territories on political status options. This bill was approved by the House of Representatives last December, and is awaiting Senate action.
A similar measure authorizing a federally-sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico, leading to a referendum on political status options, will also be examined. The Puerto Rico bill is awaiting final passage by the US House of Representatives.
The implications of the proposed constitutional amendment extending the presidential vote to the territories and the District of Columbia, and legislation for greater territorial representation in the U.S. House of Representatives, will also be reviewed by the panelists.
Participants are:
Gerard Emanuel, former Director of the Virgin Islands Status Commission
Genevieve Whitaker, Attorney
Amaris Chew, Virgin Islands Youth Activist
A Representative of Congressional Delegate Donna Christensen
Moderator: Dr. Carlyle Corbin, International Advisor on Governance
Panel Discussion on Federal Political Status Legislation
A panel discussion on the Implications of Pending Federal Legislation on the Self-Determination of the US Virgin Islands will be held from 5:30 to 7:30 PM (Thursday) on February 25, 2010 at the NWW Great Hall University on the St. Croix Campus of the University of the Virgin Islands. The activity is being conducted by the United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands in conjunction with the Student Affairs Office of the University of the Virgin Islands.
A similar forum was held by UNAVI on March 20, 2010 in St. Thomas in conjunction with the Virgin Islands Cultural Heritage Institute.
The panelists in the St. Croix session will explore several legislative measures which have been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives designed to advance political development in U.S. territories, including a measure to fund educational programs in the territories on political status options. This bill was approved by the House of Representatives last December, and is awaiting Senate action.
A similar measure authorizing a federally-sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico, leading to a referendum on political status options, will also be examined. The Puerto Rico bill is awaiting final passage by the US House of Representatives.
The implications of the proposed constitutional amendment extending the presidential vote to the territories and the District of Columbia, and legislation for greater territorial representation in the U.S. House of Representatives, will also be reviewed by the panelists.
Participants are:
Gerard Emanuel, former Director of the Virgin Islands Status Commission
Genevieve Whitaker, Attorney
Amaris Chew, Virgin Islands Youth Activist
A Representative of Congressional Delegate Donna Christensen
Moderator: Dr. Carlyle Corbin, International Advisor on Governance
21 February 2010
Argentina Protests to United Nations on British Oil Drilling in Malvinas Waters
A/64/653
General Assembly
Distr.: General
8 February 2010
English
Original: Spanish
Sixty-fourth session (United Nations General Assembly)
Agenda item 23
Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
Letter dated 3 February 2010 from the Permanent Representative of Argentina to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
On instructions from my Government, I have the honour to transmit herewith a copy of the note of protest dated 2 February 2010 submitted by the Government of the Republic of Argentina to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, rejecting the British attempt to authorize hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation activities in areas of the Argentine continental shelf around the Malvinas Islands under the illegitimate occupation of the United Kingdom (see Annex). I should be grateful if you would arrange for this note and its annex to be circulated as a document of the General Assembly under agenda item 23.
(Signed) Jorge Argüello
Ambassador, Permanent Representative
Annex to the letter dated 3 February 2010 from the Permanent Representative of Argentina to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
2 February 2010
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship of the Argentine Republic presents its compliments to the Embassy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and wishes to refer to the drilling activities which are about to begin to the north of the Malvinas Islands.
In this regard, the Government of the Argentine Republic firmly rejects the British attempt to authorize the carrying out of hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation activities in the area of the Argentine continental shelf under illegitimate British occupation.
The unilateral act subject of this protest follows, besides, the succession of British unilateral acts which led the Argentine Government, among other reasons, to terminate as of 27 March 2007 the Argentine-British Joint Statement on “Cooperation on Off-Shore Activities in the Southwest Atlantic” agreed under the sovereignty formula on 27 September 1995, which referred to the exploitation of hydrocarbons in the area subject to the sovereignty dispute.
This new unilateral act by the United Kingdom is incompatible with what has been established by resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25 of the United Nations General Assembly, all of which recognize the existence of the sovereignty dispute referred to as the “Question of the Malvinas Islands” and call on the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful solution to the dispute. In particular, it is incompatible with resolution 31/49, which calls on the two parties to
refrain from taking decisions that would imply introducing unilateral modifications in the situation while the islands are going through the process recommended by the resolutions of the United Nations.
The Argentine Government reiterates to the British Government all expressions of rejection on this matter, among others the press release of 18 September 1992 against the British unilateral decision to open a tender for prospecting areas of the Argentine continental shelf; the note of 17 December 1992 whereby the Argentine Government reiterated the press release referred to; and the note of 5 October 2000 formally protesting the British attempt to enact legislation on exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons in the areas of the Argentine continental shelf.
The Argentine Republic reaffirms its sovereignty rights over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia Islands and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas which are an integral part of its national territory.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship of the Argentine Republic avails itself of the opportunity to reiterate to the Embassy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the assurances of its highest consideration.
General Assembly
Distr.: General
8 February 2010
English
Original: Spanish
Sixty-fourth session (United Nations General Assembly)
Agenda item 23
Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
Letter dated 3 February 2010 from the Permanent Representative of Argentina to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
On instructions from my Government, I have the honour to transmit herewith a copy of the note of protest dated 2 February 2010 submitted by the Government of the Republic of Argentina to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, rejecting the British attempt to authorize hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation activities in areas of the Argentine continental shelf around the Malvinas Islands under the illegitimate occupation of the United Kingdom (see Annex). I should be grateful if you would arrange for this note and its annex to be circulated as a document of the General Assembly under agenda item 23.
(Signed) Jorge Argüello
Ambassador, Permanent Representative
Annex to the letter dated 3 February 2010 from the Permanent Representative of Argentina to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
2 February 2010
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship of the Argentine Republic presents its compliments to the Embassy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and wishes to refer to the drilling activities which are about to begin to the north of the Malvinas Islands.
In this regard, the Government of the Argentine Republic firmly rejects the British attempt to authorize the carrying out of hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation activities in the area of the Argentine continental shelf under illegitimate British occupation.
The unilateral act subject of this protest follows, besides, the succession of British unilateral acts which led the Argentine Government, among other reasons, to terminate as of 27 March 2007 the Argentine-British Joint Statement on “Cooperation on Off-Shore Activities in the Southwest Atlantic” agreed under the sovereignty formula on 27 September 1995, which referred to the exploitation of hydrocarbons in the area subject to the sovereignty dispute.
This new unilateral act by the United Kingdom is incompatible with what has been established by resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25 of the United Nations General Assembly, all of which recognize the existence of the sovereignty dispute referred to as the “Question of the Malvinas Islands” and call on the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful solution to the dispute. In particular, it is incompatible with resolution 31/49, which calls on the two parties to
refrain from taking decisions that would imply introducing unilateral modifications in the situation while the islands are going through the process recommended by the resolutions of the United Nations.
The Argentine Government reiterates to the British Government all expressions of rejection on this matter, among others the press release of 18 September 1992 against the British unilateral decision to open a tender for prospecting areas of the Argentine continental shelf; the note of 17 December 1992 whereby the Argentine Government reiterated the press release referred to; and the note of 5 October 2000 formally protesting the British attempt to enact legislation on exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons in the areas of the Argentine continental shelf.
The Argentine Republic reaffirms its sovereignty rights over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia Islands and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas which are an integral part of its national territory.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship of the Argentine Republic avails itself of the opportunity to reiterate to the Embassy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the assurances of its highest consideration.
17 February 2010
Dutch Deny Voting Rights to Curacao, Sint Maarten
Daily Herald
First, Second Chambers say ‘no’ to voting rights
THE HAGUE--The Dutch Parliament’s First and Second Chambers are not in favour of giving residents of future Countries Curaçao and St. Maarten active voting rights in Dutch Parliamentary elections. With the exception of the one-member OSF faction in the First Chamber, all First and Second Chamber parties present at Tuesday’s joint meeting of the Permanent Committee for Antillean and Aruban Affairs NAAZ stated that they were against granting active voting rights to the islands.
The factions stated this in response to a recommendation of the Democratic Deficit Committee. The Committee, chaired by Netherlands Antilles Deputy Minister Plenipotentiary in The Hague Mavis Brooks-Salomon, had suggested allowing Dutch citizens of the two countries active voting rights as a means of reducing the democratic deficit within the Kingdom. The BES islands Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba will automatically acquire voting rights in the Second Chamber elections when they become part of the Netherlands on October 10.
(OTR Editors Note: The new status of 'public entity' being crafted for the BES islands by the Dutch would not provide for a full measure of self-government through political integration as required by international instruments, and is tantamount to annexation. The Dutch have thus far blocked Bonaire's efforts to have a referendum (originally scheduled for 14th March) so that the people could make an informed decision on a range of options consistent with international law).
The (Democratic Deficit) Committee had analysed the democratic deficit and come up with suggestions that were made in a report called “Choosing for the Kingdom,” presented on November 11, 2009.
The Dutch Caribbean partners within the Kingdom generally believe that the Netherlands plays a too dominant role in the Kingdom, especially because decisions relating to the Kingdom are made by the Netherlands.
Benefit
“We don’t see any benefit in granting voting rights,” said Member of the Second Chamber Bas Jan van Bochove of the governing Christian Democratic Party CDA. “We are not in favour of active voting rights,” said Member of the Second Chamber John Leerdam of the Labour Party PvdA, which forms part of the coalition. “We have our doubts as to whether this is even possible,” said Christian Union (CU), the smallest coalition partner, represented by member of the Second Chamber Cynthia Ortega-Martina.
Opposition parties agreed with the ruling parties on this one. Member of the Second Chamber Johan Remkes of the liberal democratic VVD party said “no” to the Committee’s recommendation. “I don’t think it would be proportional,” said Remkes, referring to the small size of the islands compared to the Netherlands.
“Active voting rights are not the solution to the problem of the democratic deficit,” said Member of the Second Chamber Ronald van Raak of the Socialist Party (SP). Member of the Second Chamber Hero Brinkman of the Party for Freedom PVV said things should be placed in the right context, with the Netherlands having a population of some 16.5 million.
Member of the First Chamber Jan Laurier of the green left party GroenLinks said his faction couldn’t give a definite “yes” or “no” to the recommendation on voting rights.
Little brother trauma
Only Henk ten Hoeve of the OSF faction in the First Chamber supported the Committee’s suggestion. He agreed that active voting rights would reduce the democratic deficit, since the people of the islands would feel more involved in the Dutch Parliament. Ten Hoeve noted that the Antillean electorate was very small compared to that of the Netherlands. Ten Hoeve said voting rights would positively contribute to reducing what he called the “little brother trauma.”
Liaisons from the Antilles and Aruba Parliaments, and in future, from the Parliaments of the three Dutch Caribbean countries, as well as video-conferencing – other suggestions of the Committee – would have less effect in reducing the “little brother trauma,” said Ten Hoeve. The other parties agreed that video-conferencing was not a bad suggestion, but all doubted that it would work. “It will only work for five minutes,” envisioned Bas Jan van Bochove.
However, parties did acknowledge the importance of communicating between the parliaments, but doing so through liaisons was considered a bad idea. “Liaisons are superfluous and would only lead to more bureaucracy,” said Ronald van Raak.
Parliamentary meetings
The semi-annual Parliamentary Consultation in the Kingdom POK should be done away with immediately, agreed most parties. “POK is dead and we should not make any efforts to revive it,” said Johan Remkes. “Whatever happens, no more POK,” said Hero Brinkman. John Leerdam and Cynthia Ortega-Martijn said POK in its current form obviously didn’t work, just as the Committee had stated. Leerdam and Ortega-Martijn said parties on both sides of the ocean should discuss how to better structure their contacts before definitely killing POK.
“You should not throw out your old shoes before you have new ones,” said Leerdam. “We should give the meetings more content and work with themes,” said Ortega-Martijn.
Brinkman said that meetings between the Parliaments, if they were to continue, had to be public. “We are very much in favour of transparency,” said Brinkman. Remkes and Van Bochove agreed that contact meetings between the Parliaments, in any case, needed to be shortened to one or two days. “Meetings have to be leaner and meaner,” said Remkes.
State of the Kingdom
All parties supported the Committee’s recommendation to have an annual so-called State of the Kingdom, presented by the Kingdom Council of Ministers. In this State of the Kingdom, Government would reflect on developments in the Kingdom. “It will lead to more pondering about the quality of our Kingdom,” said Jan Laurier. Van Raak warned that the State of the Kingdom should not be overdone. “We should not make a big circus out of it,” he said.
Parties showed much appreciation for the work of the Committee and described the report as “good” and “broad.” It was agreed that the First and Second Chambers would continue their deliberations on the report until after State Secretary of Kingdom Relations Ank Bijleveld-Schouten had submitted the formal response to the report on behalf of the Dutch Government.
(OTR Editors Note: The constitutional crisis in Bonaire and the Dutch resistance to the self-determination of the people of that island, is the subject of a forthcoming article in OTR's sister publication Overseas Territories Report, and will be published on this site in due course).
First, Second Chambers say ‘no’ to voting rights
THE HAGUE--The Dutch Parliament’s First and Second Chambers are not in favour of giving residents of future Countries Curaçao and St. Maarten active voting rights in Dutch Parliamentary elections. With the exception of the one-member OSF faction in the First Chamber, all First and Second Chamber parties present at Tuesday’s joint meeting of the Permanent Committee for Antillean and Aruban Affairs NAAZ stated that they were against granting active voting rights to the islands.
The factions stated this in response to a recommendation of the Democratic Deficit Committee. The Committee, chaired by Netherlands Antilles Deputy Minister Plenipotentiary in The Hague Mavis Brooks-Salomon, had suggested allowing Dutch citizens of the two countries active voting rights as a means of reducing the democratic deficit within the Kingdom. The BES islands Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba will automatically acquire voting rights in the Second Chamber elections when they become part of the Netherlands on October 10.
(OTR Editors Note: The new status of 'public entity' being crafted for the BES islands by the Dutch would not provide for a full measure of self-government through political integration as required by international instruments, and is tantamount to annexation. The Dutch have thus far blocked Bonaire's efforts to have a referendum (originally scheduled for 14th March) so that the people could make an informed decision on a range of options consistent with international law).
The (Democratic Deficit) Committee had analysed the democratic deficit and come up with suggestions that were made in a report called “Choosing for the Kingdom,” presented on November 11, 2009.
The Dutch Caribbean partners within the Kingdom generally believe that the Netherlands plays a too dominant role in the Kingdom, especially because decisions relating to the Kingdom are made by the Netherlands.
Benefit
“We don’t see any benefit in granting voting rights,” said Member of the Second Chamber Bas Jan van Bochove of the governing Christian Democratic Party CDA. “We are not in favour of active voting rights,” said Member of the Second Chamber John Leerdam of the Labour Party PvdA, which forms part of the coalition. “We have our doubts as to whether this is even possible,” said Christian Union (CU), the smallest coalition partner, represented by member of the Second Chamber Cynthia Ortega-Martina.
Opposition parties agreed with the ruling parties on this one. Member of the Second Chamber Johan Remkes of the liberal democratic VVD party said “no” to the Committee’s recommendation. “I don’t think it would be proportional,” said Remkes, referring to the small size of the islands compared to the Netherlands.
“Active voting rights are not the solution to the problem of the democratic deficit,” said Member of the Second Chamber Ronald van Raak of the Socialist Party (SP). Member of the Second Chamber Hero Brinkman of the Party for Freedom PVV said things should be placed in the right context, with the Netherlands having a population of some 16.5 million.
Member of the First Chamber Jan Laurier of the green left party GroenLinks said his faction couldn’t give a definite “yes” or “no” to the recommendation on voting rights.
Little brother trauma
Only Henk ten Hoeve of the OSF faction in the First Chamber supported the Committee’s suggestion. He agreed that active voting rights would reduce the democratic deficit, since the people of the islands would feel more involved in the Dutch Parliament. Ten Hoeve noted that the Antillean electorate was very small compared to that of the Netherlands. Ten Hoeve said voting rights would positively contribute to reducing what he called the “little brother trauma.”
Liaisons from the Antilles and Aruba Parliaments, and in future, from the Parliaments of the three Dutch Caribbean countries, as well as video-conferencing – other suggestions of the Committee – would have less effect in reducing the “little brother trauma,” said Ten Hoeve. The other parties agreed that video-conferencing was not a bad suggestion, but all doubted that it would work. “It will only work for five minutes,” envisioned Bas Jan van Bochove.
However, parties did acknowledge the importance of communicating between the parliaments, but doing so through liaisons was considered a bad idea. “Liaisons are superfluous and would only lead to more bureaucracy,” said Ronald van Raak.
Parliamentary meetings
The semi-annual Parliamentary Consultation in the Kingdom POK should be done away with immediately, agreed most parties. “POK is dead and we should not make any efforts to revive it,” said Johan Remkes. “Whatever happens, no more POK,” said Hero Brinkman. John Leerdam and Cynthia Ortega-Martijn said POK in its current form obviously didn’t work, just as the Committee had stated. Leerdam and Ortega-Martijn said parties on both sides of the ocean should discuss how to better structure their contacts before definitely killing POK.
“You should not throw out your old shoes before you have new ones,” said Leerdam. “We should give the meetings more content and work with themes,” said Ortega-Martijn.
Brinkman said that meetings between the Parliaments, if they were to continue, had to be public. “We are very much in favour of transparency,” said Brinkman. Remkes and Van Bochove agreed that contact meetings between the Parliaments, in any case, needed to be shortened to one or two days. “Meetings have to be leaner and meaner,” said Remkes.
State of the Kingdom
All parties supported the Committee’s recommendation to have an annual so-called State of the Kingdom, presented by the Kingdom Council of Ministers. In this State of the Kingdom, Government would reflect on developments in the Kingdom. “It will lead to more pondering about the quality of our Kingdom,” said Jan Laurier. Van Raak warned that the State of the Kingdom should not be overdone. “We should not make a big circus out of it,” he said.
Parties showed much appreciation for the work of the Committee and described the report as “good” and “broad.” It was agreed that the First and Second Chambers would continue their deliberations on the report until after State Secretary of Kingdom Relations Ank Bijleveld-Schouten had submitted the formal response to the report on behalf of the Dutch Government.
(OTR Editors Note: The constitutional crisis in Bonaire and the Dutch resistance to the self-determination of the people of that island, is the subject of a forthcoming article in OTR's sister publication Overseas Territories Report, and will be published on this site in due course).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)