Adapted from UN press releases and interviews with non self-governing territory representatives, experts and diplomats from UN member States who participated in the Seminar.
The United Nations (UN) Special Committee on Decolonisation held its annual regional seminar in Noumea, New Caledonia, from 18 to 20 May 2010. The seminar, hosted by the Territorial Government of New Caledonia in concurrence with France as the administering Power, was conducted within the framework of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001-2010). It was chaired by Donatus Keith St. Aimee, the Chairman of the Special Committee.
This year marks the end of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, as well as the fiftieth anniversary of the General Assembly Decolonisation Declaration. A key objective of the seminar was to help the Special Committee assess progress made in the decolonisation process in today’s world, with a particular emphasis on the Pacific region.
In this connection, the participants heard the views of representatives of non self-governing territories so as to reconfirm the commitment of the international community towards achieving the decolonisation objectives in the remainder of the Decade and especially the chartering of the way forward. The deliberations served as a basis for conclusions and recommendations which will be considered by the Special Committee at its forthcoming substantive session in June and subsequently transmitted to the UN General Assembly.
Participants included a delegation of the Special Committee and other United Nations Member States; representatives from governments of the non-self-governing territories, administering Powers, organisations of civil society based in the Territories, as well as a number of experts from both the Pacific and the Caribbean regions.
The current membership of the Special Committee consists of the following 29 Member States: Antigua and Barbuda; Bolivia; Chile; China; Congo; Côte d’Ivoire; Cuba; Dominica; Ecuador; Ethiopia; Fiji; Grenada; India; Indonesia; Iran; Iraq; Mali; Nicaragua; Papua New Guinea; Russian Federation; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Sierra Leone; Syria; Timor-Leste; Tunisia; United Republic of Tanzania; and Venezuela.
DAY ONE
Opening Session
In a message to open the Pacific Regional Seminar, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged all involved to undertake “fresh and creative efforts” towards full implementation of decolonisation. In a message delivered by Laura Vaccari, Chief of the Decolonisation Unit of the of the UN Department of Political Affairs, the Secretary-General described Timor-Leste’s successful quest for independence and two referenda held in Tokelau as highlights of the preceding Decade. “Nonetheless, 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories remain on the [United Nations] list,” the Secretary-General said. “It is essential for the people concerned to understand the options regarding their political status and to be able to exercise their right to freely choose their future.”
Welcoming the seminar particpants, Special Committee Chairman Donatus St. Aimee (Saint Lucia) said that the Seminar was the last of the series planned for the Second Decade and as such was an important opportunity to assess the implementation of its mandate. He noted that the Seminar was being held in a Territory that was going through a challenging and complex process of determining its political future, in close cooperation with the administering Power, France. “The Special Committee regards the hosting of the Seminar as a significant manifestation of the improved cooperation between the administering Power and the [Special] Committee in advancing the decolonisation process in general and in the Pacific region in particular,” he said.
Welcoming participants on behalf of the Government of New Caledonia, President M. Philippe Gomes said all the Territory’s major political actors — the High Commissioner of France, the President and Vice-President of the Congress, and the Presidents of the Assemblies of the three Provinces — welcomed the holding of the Seminar in New Caledonia. He said New Caledonia’s current path towards self-determination had not been easy and that was one of the reasons why holding the Seminar in the Territory was important — so the Special Committee could confirm through first-hand discussions and exchanges the process and manner in which the process was taking place.
Also welcoming participants, the High Commissioner of France, representing the Administering Power, said that the support his country had provided for the event highlighted its commitment to the United Nations in the area of decolonisation. He expressed hope that the visit would help the Special Committee measure socio-economic progress in the Territory and the willingness of the community to build a common destiny based on shared values.
Substantive Sessions
The two meetings held on Day 1 of the Seminar following the opening session focused on the resolution of the remaining challenges for Non-Self-Governing Territories in the Pacific — American Samoa, Guam, New Caledonia, Pitcairn and Tokelau.
DONATUS ST. AIMEE (St. Lucia), Special Committee Chairman, said in his keynote address that 50 years since the Declaration’s adoption, and after two Decades for the Eradication of Colonialism, the fact that 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories remained on the list suggests the need for “creative thinking” to move forward. “At this seminar we are going to assess the socio-economic and political developments in the Territories with a view to working out, in cooperation with the administering Powers and representatives of the Territories, a realistic, action-oriented programme of work on a case-by-case basis for the way forward in advancing the decolonisation process.”
He expressed hope that the Seminar would give participants from Non-Self-Governing Territories the type of information and options available to make an informed choice. “Because it is not for the [United Nations] to determine the best outcomes,” he continued. “The [United Nations] is primarily concerned with whether choices are made freely by the people, based on appropriate information and understanding.” The Special Committee wished to listen closely to what the peoples concerned had to say, in the hope of offering proposals to the General Assembly, on a case by case basis, he said.
“Each [non-self-governing territory] still on the [United Nations] decolonisation list has a unique mix of circumstances, often involving quite complex political issues,” he said. “It is essential that ‘creative thinking’ that is sensitive to the circumstances is used by all concerned in addressing these issues, as there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution.”
As an example relevant to the Pacific, he noted that the wishes of small island States needed to reflect their unique vulnerabilities in terms of survival in the modern world. “Today, major issues of sustainability — in economic, environmental and social terms — confront everyone, but especially smaller, more vulnerable societies,” he said.
The Chair noted that, in 2010, it was the responsibility of the Special Committee to bring those issues to the forefront, and the challenge for everyone was to think within the context of present realities and sustainable futures. The Seminar would assess the progress of decolonisation actions at the international level, measures undertaken by the United Nations in cooperation with the administering Powers, as well as the impact of developmental activities and programmes carried out by the Organisation’s specialized agencies and other bodies, as well as non-governmental organisations in the Territories.
“We also need to evaluate the Committee’s role in following the impact of the economic and social developments on the constitutional and political advancement of the [Non-Self-Governing Territories], as well as its efforts aimed at ensuring the full cooperation of the administering Powers in this matter,” he said. “I trust that after these deliberations we can come up with a plan for the way forward, as neither the work of the Special Committee nor the process of decolonisation end with this Seminar or with the Second Decade. There is clearly the need for additional work, focused work, if we are to come up with some success stories and move into the future,” he concluded.
Remaining Challenges in the Pacific Region
PHILIPPE GOMES, President of the Government of New Caledonia, opened the substantive discussion by recalling that the Territory had been close to civil war in 1986, before both sides had “resumed the thread of dialogue” and taken the chance to return to peace. The Matignon and Nouméa Accords had engaged the Territory’s people on the path of declared and assumed decolonisation, he said.
Describing New Caledonia’s “unique” process, he said it was based on several principles, including the recognition of the identity and legitimacy of both the original Kanak peoples and those who had come later from elsewhere. The process affirmed the complex history that all the people of New Caledonia shared, and brought them together around a common destiny. “We have a rendezvous with ourselves for a shared future,” the President concluded.
VICTOR TUTUGORO of the Political Bureau of the pro-independence Front de Libération National Kanak Socialistse (FLNKS) expressed his appreciation on behalf of the Territory’s indigenous peoples for bringing the Seminar to New Caledonia, and for the attention given by the United Nations since its addition to the decolonisation list in 1986.
He said that, in spite of efforts, achieving economic, social and community balance in New Caledonia remained a major challenge, pointing to many indicators showing that development in the provinces of Northern and Loyalty Islands lagged behind that of Southern Province. At the conclusion of the Second International Decade, it was worth considering an extension into a third Decade, given that the Kanak people, and others around the world, still needed the assistance of the Special Committee and the United Nations system to pursue decolonisation to its end.
There followed a general discussion on the decolonisation process in the Pacific, and New Caledonia in particular, with participants particularly focused on socio-economic issues.
The Chairman noted that the colonial legacy was often one of uneven development, with former colonial cities and centres often starting from a “higher base” of social and economic infrastructure development than surrounding districts, and thereby creating challenges for post-decolonisation administrations.
The importance of education also featured strongly in discussion, with several participants noting that it was not only a driver of economic development but also a mechanism for ensuring the protection of minority or indigenous languages and cultures.
In the context of New Caledonia, the President added that despite a free school system where graduation numbers were rising, indicators for Kanak students remained a challenge. He outlined a number of initiatives designed to better adapt the school system to social, cultural and geographical challenges, noting that education was one of the legislative competencies being transferred to the New Caledonia legislature.
Several experts and representatives of civil society presented papers on decolonisation processes underway worldwide including the Pacific territories of Guam and Pitcairn along with Gibraltar and various territories in the Caribbean region. in order to inform and enhance the Special Committee’s work in relation to New Caledonia and the Pacific more broadly.
EDWARD P. WOLFERS, Expert from Australia, described the concepts of self-determination and decolonisation as close in meaning but not interchangeable. Discussing the history of the decolonisation process in the Pacific, he drew particular attention to the “home-grown” peculiarities of constitution-making in Samoa and Papua New Guinea, noting that those processes did not owe their authority to the laws of the former colonial Power. Rather, they embodied the exchange of experiences and ideas, involving as they did various forms of regional cooperation and collaboration. In conclusion, he made a number of recommendations relating to clarifying the role of self-determination in achieving decolonisation and providing greater transparency and accountability in all aspects of the process in order to ensure that the relevant information reached the people in the remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories.
SARIMIN JACQUES BOENGKIH of the Agence Kanak de Developpement said that, with the transfer of power, New Caledonia could exercise some level of self-governance. With the Territory on a path to becoming an independent State, it needed good governance as well as educational programmes focusing on raising public awareness among the indigenous peoples. He underlined that New Caledonia was eligible for assistance from United Nations agencies, and requested their help with economic and social development.
YOKO ORYU, an Expert from Japan, provided a comparative analysis of the decolonisation processes in the French overseas departments in the Caribbean and that of New Caledonia, stressing that the growing prominence of the issue in the latter Territory was creating increasing discussion in the international community.
HOPE A. CRISTOBEL of the Guahan and Chamorro Studies Association, deplored the situation of Guam’s Chamorro people who had been dispossessed of their land and were losing their identity as a result of a United States military build-up in the Territory. She proposed that the Special Committee give the utmost priority to Chamorro self-determination, in conformity with the relevant United Nations documents.
HERBERT FORD of the Pitcairn Islands Study Centre recounted the recent transformations and current challenges facing the people of Pitcairn, including the restructuring of its governance system and the provision of human rights protections under a new constitution, ratified in March 2010. He said the independence option was hardly possible for Pitcairn in light of its dependence on supplies from New Zealand and its subsistence on garden produce and fishing. He highlighted as possible ways forward for Pitcairn the other self-determination options of United Nations trusteeship, or retaining a connection with New Zealand similar to that administering Power’s relationship with Tokelau.
CARLYLE CORBIN, Independent Expert from the Caribbean (US Virgin Islands) presented “An Analysis of Implementation of the United Nations Decolonisation Mandate during the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001-2010) and Future Strategies for Completion.” The analysis was a follow-up to Dr. Corbin’s “Mid-Term Assessment of the Level of Implementation of the Plan of Action of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001-2005) presented to the UN Caribbean Regional Seminar in St. Vincent and the Grenadines in 2005. He had done the initial assessment of the implementation of the decolonisation mandate of the first International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (1991-2000) in presentations to the Pacific Regional Seminar in the Marshall Islands, and to the Caribbean Regional Seminar in Cuba in 2001, respectively.
In the paper, he outlined the legislative authority for the two international decades which were designed to focus attention on implementing the decolonisation mandate. In this connection, he alluded to the actions called for in the decolonisation resoluitions of the UN General Assembly and of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) during the two decades, along with the recommendations of the representatives of nthe territories offered at the regional seminars during the period.
He emphasized the importance of disseminating information and the potential role that United Nations information centres could play in that regard. He recalled that the UN General Assembly had recognised self-determination as a human rights issue, and had advocated for collaboration between the Special Committee and relevant United Nations bodies including the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, among others. He said the Seminars were possibly the most important outcomes of the two Decades since they allowed a cross-fertilization of ideas. He also called attention to the disconnection between United Nations resolutions requiring action on decolonisation, and the budgetary and resource allocations needed to ensure implementation of those resolutions.
On future strategies, he called for a new decade which would focus non implementation of the excellent actions already adopted by the international community with an updated plan of action based on the involvement of the wider UN system of organisations which all have a role to play. He also supported a more consistent role of outside actors, including the designation of an Independent Expert/Special Rapporteur, similar to the methodology of the Human Rights Council, who would undertake critical analyses of the situation on the ground in the individual territories. He noted that the Expert would dialogue with the members of the Special Committee in an interactive dialogue similar to that utilised by the Third Committee of the General Assembly.
JOSEPH BOSSANO, Opposition Leader of Gibraltar, also raised the issue of disseminating information on decolonisation, saying it was insufficient to adequately advance the process unless it was supported by dialogue among all parties. He said the Special Committee could play a more consistent role in following up on the issues and concerns raised at the Seminars.
DAY TWO
Pacific Region
The Special Committee continued its deliberations on Day 2 with discussions on challenges in the Pacific, Caribbean and elsewhere, as well as the broader role of the United Nations in the decolonisation process.
TOGIOLA TULAFANO, Governor of American Samoa, made the first presentation of the day, recalling that, in the past, the Territory had requested the Special Committee to remove it from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories because its “unincorporated” and “unorganized” status was akin to that of a self-governing Territory. While it held the same position today, the time had come for a more definitive work plan to force a more collaborative approach between the Territory and the administering Power, the United States, in moving forward on issues of political status, local autonomy, self-governance and economic development.
He noted the affinity of the Territory’s people with the administering Power, manifested in a significant number of American Samoans serving in the United States armed forces. He also emphasized that the territory exercised control over its own immigration and customs (unlike other non self-governing territories under US administration). However, there was cause for worry that control over these two administrative competencies could be taken away by the US through “federalisation.” He cited the example of US “federalisation” of immigration and labour controls previously exercised by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
[The CNMI is a US – administered non self-governing territory in the Pacific which is not on the UN list, but whose weakened autonomy would place it below the threshold of full internal self-government. – OTR]
The American Samoa governor also commented on the unilateral application of US federal minimum wage laws to the territory which have caused serious, perhaps irreparable, economic damage. He lamented that the absence of federal technical assistance and expertise to help American Samoans truly understand the effect of federal laws on the Territory’s economy and its form of government further exacerbated the situation.
Those issues could be resolved by applying a clearly specified, consistent principle as to how the Territory would be treated in the future, he said. To that end, a constitutional committee was preparing proposals to be taken up by the Territory’s Constitutional Convention in June. He expressed hope that the questions of self-governance, self-determination and increased local autonomy would be at the top of the list. He also stressed the importance of providing assistance and training on issues critical to the Pacific region. In that connection, he requested the Special Committee to make visit American Samoa during its Constitutional Convention.
FAIPULE KURESA NASAU, Ulu of Tokelau said the outcome of the second referendum on free association with New Zealand, which had not met the two-thirds majority, may have been the result of concerns that self-determination might have meant severing ties with the Government and people of New Zealand, which Tokelau did not want to do. Remaining on the list of non self-governing territories, Tokelau was very conscious of its right to self-determination and aspired to return to that issue in the near future, he said. For the time being, however, self-determination considerations must take second place to the pressing needs of economic development, he said, expressing hope that the upcoming negotiations on the next economic support arrangement would conclude successfully and help address those needs.
DAVID PAYTON, Director, Office of the Administrator of Tokelau (New Zealand), elaborated on the Territory’s situation, stressing his country’s commitment to delivering quality services and infrastructure, including transport, power, education and health. Highlighting the difficulty of delivering services to Tokelau due to its remoteness and small population of less than 1,500 people, he asked how the principles of equity and viability could be applied to the process of decolonisation.
He said there was a need to think hard about how to proceed in Tokelau, bearing in mind the difficult situation in which Niue now found itself following its move to free association with New Zealand several years ago. “It is likely to be necessary for Tokelau’s leaders to make hard decisions and set priorities that will require some preferred activities to be set aside,” he said. He said that finding the right balance will determine the well-being of Tokelau and its people. “Decolonisation will be a factor in this dynamic process, but only a small part of it,” he concluded.
Caribbean Region
STEVE MCFIELD, representative of the Cayman Islands, said a new Constitution had been formally promulgated in November 2009, establishing the post of Premier for the fist time, among other changes. The Constitution had been approved by a large majority in a special referendum. As affirmed during the general elections of May 2009, the territorial government had no popular mandate to pursue full political independence, he said, adding that its attendance at the Seminar should be seen as an attempt to make its position clear and distinct.
CARLYLE CORBIN, Independent Expert, presented a paper on “Challenges to the Attainment of Full Self-Government for Caribbean Non-Self-Governing Territories under United States Administration.” He said that there were important similarities to be taken into account among the dependency governance models among the Caribbean and Pacific territories under US administration. In this connection, he made reference to Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands in the Caribbean, and American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands in the Pacific.
Discussing the US Virgin Islands, he said that a 1993 referendum on political status options had provided “an excessive number of seven alternatives” which had contributed to a lack of clarity on the part of the electorate resulting in the failure to achieve the required 50 per cent of registered voters, with the territory reverting to the status quo by default. More recently, a Constitutional Convention had produced a draft constitution in 2010 which was “not designed to address the colonial status nor provide any serious devolution of authority” as was the case with the 1993 political status process. He advised that the proposed constitution was presently under consideration of the US Congress for approval.
Highlighting the importance of education in the decolonisation process, he said other measures currently before Congress included a bill on funding educational programmes on political status options in American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands, as well as a referendum measure for Puerto Rico.
Other Non-Self-Governing Territories
FADEL KAMAL, Representative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (Polisario Front) speaking on the question of Western Sahara, said it was regrettable that the fiftieth anniversary of the Decolonisation Declaration, and the end of the Second International Decade, had passed by without the Saharawi people exercising their right to self-determination. “The Saharawi people rightly feel that their legitimate aspirations have been overtaken by political expediency and a meek United Nations system that is seemingly unwilling or unable to deliver on its promise,” he said.
He said the United Nations must ensure that Morocco abided by its obligations to respect the basic human rights of Saharawis, and should consider options for international administration of the natural resources and associated revenues of Western Sahara pending a political solution. He suggested further that the Special Committee send a delegation to Western Sahara to assess the situation, as part of a renewed effort to monitor the decolonisation process and implement the Organisation’s “sacred trust” to the Saharawi people. “It is clear that the only viable solution to the question of Western Sahara is to ensure that the Saharawi people have the opportunity to decide freely and democratically their future […] through the organisation of a free, fair and transparent referendum under the auspices of the United Nations,” he concluded.
KHADDAD EL MOUSSAOUI, Vice-President, Royal Advisory Council on Saharan Affairs (Morocco), presented an outline of the “Moroccan Initiative for negotiating an autonomy status of the Sahara region”, saying it “guarantees to the people of Western Sahara, their position and role, without any discrimination or exclusion, to freely play in organs and institutions that provide exclusive democratic management of the Western Sahara internal affairs, through autonomous legislative and executive powers, and resources financial control […]. Morocco also guarantees them active participation in the economic and socio-cultural areas within a sovereign Kingdom.”
He said the other parties to the dispute over Western Sahara had adopted a “radical attitude”, noting in particular a “narrow interpretation of the principle of self-determination”. In that respect, and in hopes of seeing the political process continue in peace, Morocco wished to see the other parties engaging in intense and substantial negotiations. Reaffirming Morocco’s attachment to the process of negotiations and its support for the efforts of the Secretary-General and his Personal Envoy, he restated his country’s “determination to pursue its commitments aiming at achieving a political negotiated solution on the basis of the ‘Moroccan Autonomy Initiative.”
MOHAMED SOFIANE BERRAH (Algeria), began his presentation by underscoring the importance of reminding the Special Committee of its raison d’etre — monitoring the implementation of the Declaration and assisting Non-Self-Governing Territories as they pursued any of the three self-determination options (independence, free association and integration – OTR). Today, colonialism appeared to have lost its “character of despicability”, he said, recalling that United Nations resolutions condemned colonialism while the goal of the Special Committee was to eradicate it. Any socio-economic benefits that colonisation may have bought to the peoples of the Territories should not justify the fact of colonisation itself, he stressed.
On the question of Western Sahara, he said it was only fair that the Territory’s people enjoy international protection. That could be achieved by extending the mandate of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) to include human rights monitoring and reporting.
He went on to say that the process of negotiations over Western Sahara “cultivates hope for a peaceful solution”, emphasizing, however, that dialogue was not an end in itself and must lead to conclusions and results if peace was to be achieved in the region. In light of major ongoing challenges, Algeria would support the idea of a Third Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, in hopes that it would help bring about an end to decolonisation once and for all.
EMMA EDWARDS, Member, Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) recalled that the islanders had repeatedly expressed their firm view that “we are content with our current relationship with Britain”, noting that, for a variety of reasons, the options of full independence, free association or integration with an independent State were not suitable for the Territory. “We are happy with the status quo, and do not like being told by others what to do.” The Falkland Islands were currently not ready for independence, “but we do express our right of self-determination […] with almost all of the people of the Falkland Islands wishing to remain and enjoy our British Overseas Territory status.”
Outlining aspects of the “healthy democracy” enjoyed by the Territory, she said they included elections in November 2009, and a new Constitution, which had entered into force in January 2009, and enhanced local democracy, established a greater degree of internal self-government and provided mechanisms for transparency and accountability. While the Territory’s small economy “took a hit” during the financial crisis, it remained strong, she said, citing a number of programmes and initiatives in the areas of transport, telecommunications, energy production, health care and education which benefited the islanders.
MARIA FERNANDA CANAS (Argentina) said that, although her country had consistently supported the applicability of the self-determination principle to peoples under colonial rule, that was not the case in the “Question of the Malvinas Islands,” which affected the territorial integrity of Argentina. “This question refers to the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas, and clearly differs from traditional colonial cases,” she emphasized.
Recalling that the United Nations had rejected the applicability of the self-determination principle to the Malvinas question, she said the UN classified it as a “special and particular” form of colonialism constituting a sovereignty dispute to be resolved by negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom, taking into account the interests of the islanders. “We have committed ourselves to taking into account their interests,” she said, adding that Argentina would do that by enshrining a commitment to their way of life and interests in the Constitution and calling on the United Kingdom to resume negotiations to solve the dispute. “The Argentine commitment to recover the Islands […] is not some sudden passion but a long-sustained national concern that stretches back more than 177 years,” she concluded.
CARLOS ARAGON DE LA SERNA (Spain) said: “I regret to inform the participants in this Seminar that […] we unfortunately cannot provide the Special Committee with any good news regarding the decolonisation of Gibraltar.” Arguing that Gibraltar’s new Constitutional Order of 2006 did not entail any change in its international status, he noted that “colonialism by consent does not mean that the resulting political arrangements are any less colonial”, and that the new constitutional text did not affect the legal validity of the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht. “My Government is therefore opposed to any attempt to see Gibraltar removed from the UN list of territories that are undergoing the decolonisation process,” he said.
United Nations doctrine rightly led the Special Committee to differentiate between Non-Self-Governing Territories subject to a decolonisation process where there was a dispute over sovereignty, such as Gibraltar, and those where there was no such dispute. Further, he said, “the mandate of the United Nations […] invites the United Kingdom and Spain to find a negotiated solution taking into account the interests of the population of the colony.” Despite Spain’s willingness, he said, “the United Kingdom has consistently ignored our appeals to resume conversations to find a definitive solution to the question of Gibraltar”.
JOSEPH BOSSANO, the Opposition Leader of Gibraltar, said the territorial government did not attend the Special Committee’s Seminars because it considered itself already decolonised. One of the Seminar’s main aims was to hear the views of non-self-governing peoples, he said, calling for more time to be given to their representatives rather than Member States. The Seminar was an opportunity for the Special Committee to reach out to those people without the filter of the administering Power. Discussing the historical basis of the dispute over Gibraltar, he said the Treaty of Utrecht had been signed in 1713, and he suggested it was time that Member States considered new ideas and solutions that would reflect the current world.
Role of United Nations System
SALA GEORGINA BONIN, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Multi-Country Office, Samoa, began by outlining the agency’s work in supporting the self-determination process in Tokelau, part of its broader work supporting Tokelau under a special relations agreement signed with New Zealand in the 1980s. She said the main areas of UNDP’s support for Tokelau’s self-determination included governance-reform initiatives to help the Territory’s home-grown government structure and direct assistance for the first and second referendums on the Treaty of Free Association with New Zealand in 2006 and 2007.
Following the referendums, New Zealand and Tokelau had agreed to a “pause” on that front, opting to focus on other development priorities and the Millennium Development Goals, she said, noting that UNDP continued to provide assistance under its Country Programme Action Plan on issues relating to equitable economic growth and poverty reduction, good governance and human rights, crisis prevention and recovery, sustainability, environmental management and the cross-cutting issue of gender equality.
CARLYLE CORBIN, Independent Expert, presented a paper entitled “The Role of the United Nations System in Providing Developmental Assistance to the Non self-governing territories.” He focuses attention on the importance of participation by Non-Self-Governing Territories in the work of the United Nations system, noting that it was critical in developing their readiness to assume the powers of self-government. That was especially true because many of the Territories’ economies required a heightened measure of human resource development in relation to their engagement in the globalised economy. He emphasised that the UN mandate for assistance to the territories from the UN system dated back to 1946 with resolutions of the UN General Assembly routinely adopted but unevenly implemented.
He noted that virtually all Non-Self-Governing Territories, in the Pacific and Caribbean regions, were associate members of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), respectively. He also pointed out that by virtue of this associate membership these territories were also provided observer status in major United Nations conferences and special sessions in the social and economic sphere.
He pointed out that many United Nations programmes, funds and specialized agencies allowed some form of participation through membersdhip, associate membership or observer status, while other UN bodies did not, noting that participation by the Non-Self-Governing Territories “has not fully become standard United Nations practice”. In particular, he said the Economic and Social Council should revisit the resolution it had earlier declined to approve, which called for the Territories to participate directly in its functional commissions in areas such as statistical analysis, sustainable development and other socio-economic related areas relating to their ongoing development processes. “The absence of a role […] in the work of the Commission on Sustainable Development is especially glaring, given that the issues of the vulnerabilities of small island States are considered in that body,” he concluded.
DAY 3
The final day of the seminar focused on the way forward. DONATUS ST. AIMEE ( Saint Lucia), Chairman of the Special Committee, noted the importance of nation-building as an essential prerequisite to successful self-determination. He said economic and social development, as well as education about self-determination processes and options, should be in place before any decision on self-determination was taken. “If this process hasn’t taken place before you exercise your right to self-determination, then you may spend an enormous amount of resources undertaking that task afterwards,” he cautioned. “That is why sometimes it may not be a bad idea to have a period of reflection to see if all the people who live in the Territory are all on the same track and committed to that process.”
JOSEPH BOSSANO, Opposition Leader of Gibraltar, said the real problem with the Territories remaining on the United Nations list was that, for many of them, neither full independence nor full integration with another State was a feasible option, which left only free association with another State as the only available one. Given the many different forms that free association could take, it was worth asking how to define a form of free association that could demonstrate a Territory’s readiness for a full measure of self-government. Citing the question of Gibraltar as an example, he concluded by arguing that, when it comes to Territories over which there was a sovereignty dispute, it was necessary to avoid “the controversial discussion about which link (with another State) and focus on the nature of the link, and whether the Territory is ready for such a link.”
The Chairman noted that a major problem was a lack of indicators and benchmarks to show what stage of the decolonisation process a Territory had reached. The Special Committee could begin thinking about that, he said. While holding a referendum was one physical manifestation of progress towards decolonisation, and the growth of gross domestic product (GDP) may be one manifestation of economic development, there may be a need for a more formal structure to allow the Special Committee to measure more accurately the readiness of a particular Territory and its people as they moved along the path to self-determination, he said.
HERY SARIPUDIN ( Indonesia) said that, since 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories were yet to be de-listed, his country fully supported the idea of a Third International Decade. It should be a “decade of more work” rather than a “decade of continuing talk”, he said, adding that there was a need to consider establishing a comprehensive, pragmatic and realistic process for assessing self-determination processes and options, taking into account the specific circumstances of each Territory.
The Chairman noted that a great deal of discussion on decolonisation focused on the political role of the administering Power which, while obviously important, should not be seen as the only facet of the process. Encouraging private sector actors in a Territory to be good corporate citizens was also vital. “If they don’t reflect a sense of goodwill, it makes the job of the administering Power and the local authorities much more difficult,” he said. “If we can encourage the private sector to become good corporate citizens, and if the population can see that resources are being used for their benefit, then this contributes to a sense of trust and nation-building.”
CARLYLE CORBIN, Independent expert, said a number of good ideas had emerged from the present Seminar and previous ones, so there was no shortage of ideas on the way forward. A Third Decade may be appropriate, but it should be a decade of “implementation” wherein the pursuit of decolonisation was “renewed” rather than “reaffirmed” as usual.
He made reference to the points raised by the Chairman on the need for indicators and benchmarks to assess the level of self-government, and recalled that the indicators had been set forth in the Annex to Resolution 1541 (XV) which outlines the minimum standards for self-government. In this connection, he advised that these standards provided for the necessary parameters under which a number of political models could be judged with the critical stipulation that they meet the objective of full political equality. He made reference to models such as Greenland and Faroe Islands in autonomous arrangements relationship with Denmark; the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau in free association with the US; the Cook Islands and Niue in association with New Zealand; and the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba as autonomous countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
He emphasized that these models should be studied by the Special Committee so as to better inform the people of the territories of how the legitimate options available to them actually operate in practice. He also recalled that the Special Committee had been presented with a self-governance index as early as the 2000 seminar in Majuro, and that the case-by-case review of each territory which was to have been undertaken pursuant to UN resolutions had not been operationalised. Under these conditions, it would be difficult to assess whether any of the remaining territories met the international standards of full self-government, and whether changes in some autonomous arrangements rendered the models less than fully self-governing.
EDWARD WOLFERS, an Expert, said indicators could help place Territories on a scale of progress towards self-determination, rather than simply declaring a particular process had “failed”. For example, Tokelau had not failed in the self-determination process; rather, the process had succeeded because the people had expressed their views in two referenda. Furthermore, having benchmarks in place could help to measure not only political developments towards self-determination but also the socio-economic developments that could make a Territory stronger and better equipped for self-determination, he said.
DAVID WINDSOR ( Australia) noted his country’s support for the Nouméa Accord and the role that New Caledonia had begun to play in the Pacific Islands Forum. Looking to the future more broadly, he said education and environmental issues would be critical for Non-Self-Governing Territories, particularly in the Pacific, adding that Australia provided scholarships for students from the Pacific, including those from Tokelau and New Caledonia, to study in fields including environmental and ecological studies.
STEVE MCFIELD, from the Cayman Islands, agreed with previous speakers that a nation-building process must take place for the exercise of self-determination to be successful. Outlining the history of the Cayman Islands under various forms and degrees of colonial administration, he said that, due to careful and forceful negotiation among the people and with the administering Power, the Territory now had “one of the best arrangements” in the world.
HOPE A. CRISTOBEL of the Guahan and Chamorro Studies Association said it was a shame that after two international decades, Guam was now feeling the effects of “hyper-militarisation” by its administering Power. Rather than merely looking at Territories that had made progress towards decolonisation, it was important to ask why some had actually regressed in recent years. She also noted that information provided to and by the Special Committee should be gleaned from sources other than the media, which may be biased towards administering Powers.
FADEL KAMAL of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (Polisario Front) said that in order to move forward one must reflect on the Special Committee’s history and mandate, of which there was much to be proud. The voice of those that the Special Committee had been established to help must always be heard, including through self-determination referenda, when the people were ready and willing, and when the possible outcomes would be sustainable. He said he agreed with the idea of a third international decade and supported the role of the Seminars. Hopefully, there would be more opportunities in the future for representatives of Non-Self-Governing Territories to share their views, answer questions and engage in discussion.
ROBERT G. AISI ( Papua New Guinea) said there were lessons to be learned from the Special Committee’s past successes and failures, and there was also a case for taking some time to assess the Second Decade before launching straight into a third. He also agreed that the Special Committee could use the Seminars in a more strategic way to listen more closely to experts and representatives of Non-Self-Governing Territories, who may not have the opportunity to provide information at other times.
TOGIOLA TALALELEI A. TULAFONO, Governor of American Samoa, suggested that the Special Committee focus more closely on whether the decolonisation process was helping the socio-economic status of the Territories’ respective peoples, rather than simply focusing on political and administrative aspects. Many smaller independent States were continually in need of support and “without their own resources, they are literally economically colonized in many ways”, he noted, suggesting that a way forward for the Special Committee could be to make the economic situation just as important as the political one.
GEORGINA BONIN of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) said there seemed to be no consistent representation from United Nations agencies at the regional Seminars, pointing out that some agencies may have experiences and expertise that could be useful to share at future Seminars.
Presentation of the Draft Report
The Chairman noted that all participants had made valuable contributions, with many of their suggestions laying down challenges of thinking and method for the Special Committee. “You have thrown down the challenges and we have given an undertaking to respond,” he added. The Seminar’s conclusions and recommendations would be refined in light of the morning discussions for consideration at the Special Committee’s next substantive session in New York in June, he said.
Closing Session
PHILIPPE GOMES, President of the Government of New Caledonia, said the Territory had been honoured to host the Seminar, and expressed hope that its current institutional transformation gave an interesting example for participants from other Territories. He expressed admiration for the very high level of debate, which had been “animated and passionate, enriching and productive”, and for the participants who had shared and exchanged information, principles and inspiration.
Even though decolonisation for each Territory was pursued on a case-by-case basis, he said, the experience of others was always enriching, “feeding our thoughts and allowing us to think about other methods than we may originally envisage”. The Seminar had served as a useful conduit for information on the populations of Non-Self-Governing Territories, he said, noting that that was one of the Special Committee’s main aspirations. It was also a reminder that the building of nations was needed before self-determination could be successful. That was how New Caledonia had approached the issue — by becoming one people with their own destiny in their own hands, he said.
Chairman DONATUS ST. AIMEE ( Saint Lucia), in his closing statement, thanked the Government, administering Power, and people of New Caledonia for their hospitality, generosity and warm welcome. He praised the representation and input from a wide range of stakeholders within the Territory. “This makes me very positive about New Caledonia’s future,” he added.
He also praised participants in the Seminar for the constructive manner in which discussions had taken place, and for the wealth of ideas and insights that would be taken up in the Seminar’s conclusions and recommendations. He particularly thanked representatives of the media, saying their work was a key vehicle through which the Seminar’s message would be disseminated, particularly to the people of New Caledonia. “You have a responsibility to carry that message and help the decision-making process by letting the people know that their fate is in their own hands,” he said.
Noting that positive contribution by the UNDP representative, he expressed hope that more United Nations agencies, particularly those involved in such areas as food, agriculture, fisheries and the environment, would “come to the table” to share their experience and expertise with Non-Self-Governing Territories. If positive and constructive discussions continued among Non-Self-Governing Territories, administering Powers, Member States, non-governmental organisations and experts, each Territory would make the right decision about its future when the time came, he said.
The Seminar closed with the adoption of a resolution, by acclamation, expressing the Special Committee’s appreciation to the government and people of New Caledonia and expressing thanks to the people of New Caledonia for their generosity in hosting a successful Seminar.
23 May 2010
Proposed USVI Constitution Presented to US Senate Committee
On the precise day that the United Nations Decolonisation Committee was convening a high-level seminar in Noumea, New Caledonia to examine the democratic deficit in the political dependency arrangements in the US Virgin Islands and other non-self-governing territories, the proposed US Virgin Islands Constitution which seeks to modernise the parametres of that territory's existing political status was being presented for consideration by the United States Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Both events took place on 19th May 2010. OTR will shortly publish a selection of the territorial government presentations and expert papers presented at the UN seminar. The statement of the President of the US Virgin Islands Constitutional Convention at the Senate hearing follows.
Statement by Gerard Luz Amwur James II, President
Fifth Constitutional Convention of the U.S. Virgin Islands
to the Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
May 19, 2010
Good Morning Chairman Bingaman, Committee members and all others present.
I am Gerard Luz Anwur James II, President of the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the Unites States Virgin Islands ("Convention"). It is my distinct honor to address this Committee.
The proposed constitution was drafted by the people and for the people of the United States Virgin Islands. It is not proposed to govern any other people. The people who have made negative comments about the document have not worn the shoes of those who have suffered the indignation of being governed externally. They have not examined the evidence that led the Convention to adopt provisions in this constitution that are so necessary to keep life going for those whose parents, grandparents, and great-grand parents have worked hard in order to own property that would provide life for themselves and their future generations. The critics have not reviewed the evidence that shows that those whose ancestry lies in the Virgin Islands have been devastated by the lack of support for the people of the Virgin Islands.
The evidence demonstrates that the territory has 114,000 residents and that more than 58,000 Virgin Islanders no longer reside in the Virgin Islands. These people now live in the mainland United States. Simple math resolves that this lost represents about one-half of the current population of the Virgin Islands. This exodus must stop or the Virgins Islands’ life blood will cease to exist. Extinction of the native people of the Virgin Islands is not an acceptable option.
The life blood of any people lies in its young. Historically, people of this great country work to provide a better life for their young with the hope that they will prosper from their parent's labor. The young of the Virgin Islands are leaving because their parents cannot pass on to them the home that had been in their family for decades. Unlike the mainland, the values of the homes in the Virgin Islands have soared due to the many tourist developments. These developments have caused the taxes on the ancestral home to be well beyond the ability of many families to pay. Their homes have been taken from them. Even worst is the plight of our young who remain and resort to violence in an effort to acquire something they can call their own. I sit as a witness to the lost of these young lives. As a funeral director, I daily look into the eyes of the young and see the absence of hope they once suffered. The Convention has compelling reasons for the provisions that are contained in the document.
The provisions in this constitution as they relate to "natives" is not new to this Congress. This body has recognized that the native people of this country and its territories at times need special protections in order for the native people to exist. The Congress of the United States has enacted laws for native people in Hawaii, Alaska, the Northern Marianas, Aleutians and the continental United States. Congress did not deny those provisions in advance because of alleged unconstitutionality. Congress knew that Constitutional challenges to a specific provision of law cannot be resolved by any litmus-paper test. Congress knew that constitutionality is determined on a case-by-case basis.
It was the United States government that established the definitions contained in the proposed constitution. These definitions should not bring suspicion or challenge as being improper. These definitions are derived directly from the Government of the United States. It was an act of Congress that differentiated the people of the Virgin Islands and conferred different legal status upon them by virtue of 8 U.S.C. §1406. It was this act of Congress that carved out certain rights for “natives.” To the best of my knowledge, these provisions have not been challenged or overturned.
The Fifth Constitutional Convention’s fact gathering process included public meetings throughout the Virgin Islands. The Convention heard testimony from hundreds, reviewed formal presentations and documents.
Everyone in this room including the Justice Department is fully aware that our proposed constitution is not designed to usurp the sovereignty or supremacy of federal law. The passage of our constitution will not, nor is it intended to, alter our political relationship with the United States. It merely represents a further step along the path toward a full measure of self-dignity.
We strongly believe that the constitution's provisions are not discriminatory, do not violate federal law and support a Constitutional appropriate interest. Throughout our history our shores have remained open to people of all cultures and ethnicities. The Virgin Islands has long been known as the ‘American Paradise.” The proposed constitution is our sincere effort to insure that our beloved territory remains our “Virgin Islands Home.”
We asked that Congress approve the proposed constitution with all of its present provisions. At the very least we ask that the constitution be returned with no action.
I am aware that Congress is considering a resolution to urge the Convention to reconvene. We do not ask this, but if the resolution passes, we ask that Congress in the resolution provide the financial resources that would be necessary for the Convention to reconvene. We ask that Congress allow the Convention, after reconvening, to place the proposed constitution before the voters of the territory without further need to send the document to the Governor of the Virgin Islands, who has tried in every way to circumvent the will of the people. We further ask that the requirement to send the proposed constitution back to the President and Congress be eliminated.
This is our fifth attempt to attain greater self-government since Congress passed PL 94-584 in 1976, which granted us the authority to draft our own constitution. You need to know how important this Constitution is to the Virgin Islands. This proposed constitution has helped to breathe new life and hope into our people. It is the talk of every radio and television show. It is the topic of daily conversation. People now believe that their life-long dreams will come true. These pieces of paper may not mean much to many in this room, but it means life to the people of the United States Virgin Islands.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Statement by Gerard Luz Amwur James II, President
Fifth Constitutional Convention of the U.S. Virgin Islands
to the Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
May 19, 2010
Good Morning Chairman Bingaman, Committee members and all others present.
I am Gerard Luz Anwur James II, President of the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the Unites States Virgin Islands ("Convention"). It is my distinct honor to address this Committee.
The proposed constitution was drafted by the people and for the people of the United States Virgin Islands. It is not proposed to govern any other people. The people who have made negative comments about the document have not worn the shoes of those who have suffered the indignation of being governed externally. They have not examined the evidence that led the Convention to adopt provisions in this constitution that are so necessary to keep life going for those whose parents, grandparents, and great-grand parents have worked hard in order to own property that would provide life for themselves and their future generations. The critics have not reviewed the evidence that shows that those whose ancestry lies in the Virgin Islands have been devastated by the lack of support for the people of the Virgin Islands.
The evidence demonstrates that the territory has 114,000 residents and that more than 58,000 Virgin Islanders no longer reside in the Virgin Islands. These people now live in the mainland United States. Simple math resolves that this lost represents about one-half of the current population of the Virgin Islands. This exodus must stop or the Virgins Islands’ life blood will cease to exist. Extinction of the native people of the Virgin Islands is not an acceptable option.
The life blood of any people lies in its young. Historically, people of this great country work to provide a better life for their young with the hope that they will prosper from their parent's labor. The young of the Virgin Islands are leaving because their parents cannot pass on to them the home that had been in their family for decades. Unlike the mainland, the values of the homes in the Virgin Islands have soared due to the many tourist developments. These developments have caused the taxes on the ancestral home to be well beyond the ability of many families to pay. Their homes have been taken from them. Even worst is the plight of our young who remain and resort to violence in an effort to acquire something they can call their own. I sit as a witness to the lost of these young lives. As a funeral director, I daily look into the eyes of the young and see the absence of hope they once suffered. The Convention has compelling reasons for the provisions that are contained in the document.
The provisions in this constitution as they relate to "natives" is not new to this Congress. This body has recognized that the native people of this country and its territories at times need special protections in order for the native people to exist. The Congress of the United States has enacted laws for native people in Hawaii, Alaska, the Northern Marianas, Aleutians and the continental United States. Congress did not deny those provisions in advance because of alleged unconstitutionality. Congress knew that Constitutional challenges to a specific provision of law cannot be resolved by any litmus-paper test. Congress knew that constitutionality is determined on a case-by-case basis.
It was the United States government that established the definitions contained in the proposed constitution. These definitions should not bring suspicion or challenge as being improper. These definitions are derived directly from the Government of the United States. It was an act of Congress that differentiated the people of the Virgin Islands and conferred different legal status upon them by virtue of 8 U.S.C. §1406. It was this act of Congress that carved out certain rights for “natives.” To the best of my knowledge, these provisions have not been challenged or overturned.
The Fifth Constitutional Convention’s fact gathering process included public meetings throughout the Virgin Islands. The Convention heard testimony from hundreds, reviewed formal presentations and documents.
Everyone in this room including the Justice Department is fully aware that our proposed constitution is not designed to usurp the sovereignty or supremacy of federal law. The passage of our constitution will not, nor is it intended to, alter our political relationship with the United States. It merely represents a further step along the path toward a full measure of self-dignity.
We strongly believe that the constitution's provisions are not discriminatory, do not violate federal law and support a Constitutional appropriate interest. Throughout our history our shores have remained open to people of all cultures and ethnicities. The Virgin Islands has long been known as the ‘American Paradise.” The proposed constitution is our sincere effort to insure that our beloved territory remains our “Virgin Islands Home.”
We asked that Congress approve the proposed constitution with all of its present provisions. At the very least we ask that the constitution be returned with no action.
I am aware that Congress is considering a resolution to urge the Convention to reconvene. We do not ask this, but if the resolution passes, we ask that Congress in the resolution provide the financial resources that would be necessary for the Convention to reconvene. We ask that Congress allow the Convention, after reconvening, to place the proposed constitution before the voters of the territory without further need to send the document to the Governor of the Virgin Islands, who has tried in every way to circumvent the will of the people. We further ask that the requirement to send the proposed constitution back to the President and Congress be eliminated.
This is our fifth attempt to attain greater self-government since Congress passed PL 94-584 in 1976, which granted us the authority to draft our own constitution. You need to know how important this Constitution is to the Virgin Islands. This proposed constitution has helped to breathe new life and hope into our people. It is the talk of every radio and television show. It is the topic of daily conversation. People now believe that their life-long dreams will come true. These pieces of paper may not mean much to many in this room, but it means life to the people of the United States Virgin Islands.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
11 May 2010
US Virgin Islands Constitutional Convention Replies to US Concerns
REPLY OF US VIRGIN ISLANDS CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO THE MEMORANDUM OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGARDING THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION FOR THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
March 29, 2010
This memorandum is written in response to the Department of Justice (“Justice”) memorandum to the Office of Management and Budget's on the proposed constitution submitted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the U.S. Virgin Islands (“Fifth Convention”) to the President and Congress of the United States. Additionally, this memorandum serves as a response to all other memorandums and opinions that have been submitted in review of the proposed constitution. 1 This memorandum shall address the pertinent issues raised in the Justice memorandum, since the issues and opinions contained in the memorandum of the Department of Justice fairly reflects the same issues raised in the other reviews.
At the outset, it is important to note that Justice admits that its opinions are nothing more than conjecture. 2 The Justice Department did not review nor request to review any of the record or evidence gathered by the Fifth Constitutional Convention when rendering its opinions. Justice’s opinions fail to cite any evidence to support conclusions rendered in its memorandum. In fact, in addressing the provision for senate district, after it had opined on several other alleged issues, Justice states ,“since districts would be fact-specific, we [Justice] do not recommend specific … changes to the proposed constitution to address these concerns, ” (citation- on page 15 of its memorandum)The same statement should have concluded each and every issue raised by Justice since every issue raised by Justice is a fact determined issue and Justice did not review any of the facts that ere considered by the Fifth Constitutional Convention before it adopted the provisions of the proposed constitution. Throughout their memorandum, Justice renders opinions on other issues that are fact specific, but nonetheless, chose not to do so on the issue of districts.
Constitutional challenges to a specific provision of law cannot be resolved by any “litmus-paper test.” see Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S.780, 789 (1983); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 1279, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974). In deciding questions regarding constitutional validity, the analysis must first consider the character and magnitude of the injury to any alleged right protected by the Constitution. Id. Then, it must identify and evaluate the precise interest put forward as justification for the burden imposed by a rule. In passing judgment, the Court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of those interests, it also must consider the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff's rights. Only after weighing all these factors is the reviewing court in a position to decide whether the challenged provision is unconstitutional. 3 The results of a constitutional review is not to be automatic. Anderson, supra at 789,
Since Justice’s opinions do not consider any evidence that lead to the provisions contained in the proposed constitution, the opinions should not be given any weight as to whether the proposed constitution contains any constitutional violations. In order to properly evaluate the basis of why certain provisions were included in the proposed constitution, the record and evidence gathered by the Fifth Convention must be examined, including the empirical and antidotal evidence considered in drafting the proposed constitution.
The Fifth Constitutional Convention’s fact gathering process included more than fifty public meetings throughout the Virgin Islands. A minimum of seventy-five to one hundred people testified at each meeting. Over fifty formal papers and documents were received and reviewed by the Fifth Convention. Additionally, the Fifth Constitutional Convention made numerous radio and television appearances during which caller comments were maintained for follow-up and consideration. Some broadcast programs were dedicated to the consideration of the proposed constitution such as the "Constitution Corner." Over one hundred internet blogs provided information to delegates of the Fifth Constitutional Convention.
Moreover, the Fifth Convention reviewed and discussed the record contained on the Fourth Constitutional Convention. Attached to this memorandum is an annex of information that lead to the provisions contained in the proposed constitution to remedy the numerous atrocities faced by the people of the US Virgin Islands. 4
Response 1-The Proposed Constitution Recognizes the Sovereignty and the Supremacy of the United States and is therefore Compliant with the Enabling Act
The Justice memorandum raises a question on whether the proposed constitution recognizes the sovereignty and the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. Justice spent a lot of time in its analysis discussing this issue and concluded that, throughout its many provisions, the overall proposed Constitution recognizes in expressed language the sovereignty and supremacy of the United States. 5 Therefore, this memorandum accepts the ultimate conclusion reached by Justice on this issue.
Response 2- The Provisions For Ancestral & Native Virgin Islanders Are Rationally Based and have Legitimate Government Purposes and Therefore Are Constitutional
Justice believes the special designation of opportunities afforded Ancestral and Native Virgin Islanders is not rationally based, therefore, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In its memorandum, Justice states, “Because we find it difficult to discern a legitimate governmental purpose that would be rationally advanced by the provisions conferring legal advantages on certain groups defined by place and timing of birth, timing of residency, or ancestry, we recommend that those provisions be removed from the proposed constitution.” 6
Justice believes that provisions of the proposed constitution give special advantages to "Native Virgin Islanders" and "Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders." They further believe that these provisions raise serious concerns under the equal protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution. 7
The Justice memorandum brings suspicion to the definitions of Ancestral and Native Virgin Islanders; In Article III, section 2, the proposed constitution defines "Native Virgin Islander" to mean (1) "a person born in the Virgin Islands after June 28, 1932," the enactment date of a statute generally extending United States citizenship to USVI natives residing in United States territory as of that date who were not citizens or subjects of any foreign country, see Act of June 28, 1932, ch. 283, 47 Stat. 336 (now codified at 8 U.S.C. 1406(a)(4) (2006)); and (2) a "descendant[] of a person born in the Virgin Islands after June 28, 1932." "Ancestral Native Virgin Islander" would be defined as: (1) "a person born or domiciled in the Virgin Islands prior to and including June 28, 1932 and not a citizen of a foreign country pursuant to 8 U.S.C. [§] 1406," the statute governing United States citizenship of USVI residents and natives; (2) "descendants" of such individuals; and (3) "descendants of an Ancestral Native Virgin Islander residing outside of the U.S., its territories and possessions between January 17, 1917 and June 28, 1932, not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and who are not a citizens [sic] or a subjects [sic] of any foreign country." Proposed Const. art. III, § 1.
The definitions contained in the proposed constitution should not bring any suspicion or be challenged as the improper classification of the people of the Virgin Islands since the definitions are derived directly from the Government of the United States. It was an act of Congress that differentiated the people of the Virgin Islands and conferred different legal status upon them. 8 U.S.C. §1406 provides in its pertinent parts as follows:
Section 1406. Persons living in and born in the Virgin Islands
(a) The following persons and their children born subsequent to January 17, 1917, and prior to February 25,1927, are declared to be citizens of the United States as of February 25, 1927:
“…(2) All natives of the Virgin Islands of the United States who, on January 17, 1917, resided in those islands, and were residing in those islands or in the United States or Puerto Rico on February 25, 1927, and who were not on February 25, 1927, citizens or subjects of any foreign country;
(3) All natives of the Virgin Islands of the United States who, on January 17, 1917, resided in the United States, and were residing in those islands on February 25, 1927, and who were not on February 25, 1927, citizens or subjects of any foreign country; and
(4) All natives of the Virgin Islands of the United States who, on June 28, 1932, were residing in continental United States, the Virgin Islands of the United States, Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, or any other insular possession or territory of the United States, and who, on June 28, 1932, were not citizens or subjects of any foreign country, regardless of their place of residence on January 17, 1917.
(b) All persons born in the Virgin Islands of the United States on or after January 17, 1917, and prior to February 25, 1927, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are declared to be citizens of the United States as of February 25, 1927; and all persons born in those islands on or after February 25, 1927, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are declared to be citizens of the United States at birth."
A comparison between the provisions of the proposed constitution and the provisions of 8 U.S.C. §1406 shows the same classification of people. Moreover, it was the Congress of the United States that designated some of the people of the Virgin Islands as “Natives.”
The provisions in the proposed constitution that afford certain benefits to “Natives” is consistent with and in accordance with policies, agreements and treaties executed by the Government of the United States that provides for full self-governing and the preservation of culture and the land of native people. In the Treaty of Cession between Denmark and the United States, the United States declared its responsibility to inhabitants of the Virgin Islands. 8 More directly, the United States executed a treaty with the United Nations in which the United States agreed to hold the interests of native peoples (including the Virgin Islands natives whom they clearly had singled out and defined in the 1927 and 1940 citizenship and nationality acts), as a sacred trust, to protect the culture and aspirations of Virgin Islands natives and to protect them from abuse. 9
The United States has consistently supported laws that protect and provide for the self-governing of native people. The government of the United States acquires a heightened duty of trust to native and indigenous people. Further, the United States has a duty to furnish protection to native people and the authority to fulfill its obligations. Board of County Comm'rs v. Seber, 318 U.S. 705, 716 (1943); United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28, 45-46.
In this regard, Congress has continued to accept responsibility for the welfare of natives. Congress has established special programs in areas of healthcare, education, employment and loans. Rice at 496. It has enacted laws providing for special and different treatment of Native Hawaiians, Native Alaskans, Aleutians and Native Indians. The special treatment laws have allowed for special voting privileges, special taxation, segregated property ownership and other benefits as the United States has sought to fulfill its obligations to Native people. 10
In its review of the proposed constitution, Congress can provide the U.S. Virgin Island its right to self-governing and fulfill its obligations to provide for the natives of the Virgin Islands. Congress has the authority to protect the language, culture, religion, race, community structure and politics of native people. 11
The United States is on record accepting the responsibility for the welfare of native people. In its brief in the case of Rice v Cayento, 528 U.S. 495, the Government of the United States declared that a special right to vote should be bestowed on “native” people to the exclusion of non-natives. 12
The Department of Justice has repeatedly stated that it could not discern any rational basis that would allow the provisions for Ancestral and Native Virgin Islanders to have certain special and different advantages over others of the Virgin Islands. As if it was an open and shut policy of constitutional law Justice states “we find it difficult to discern a legitimate government purpose that would rationally advance” the special provisions of the proposed constitution. 13 Contrary to the insertions of Justice the constitutionality of the special provisions is not open and shut.
Analogous to the issues raised by Justice, a Federal District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found and held that a voting provision of the Hawaiian Constitution to allow only “Native” Hawaiians the right to vote for trustees of Hawaiian land did not violate the Constitution of the United States. 14 However, in a 7-2 decision the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the two lower courts holding, that limiting the vote to only Native Hawaiian for the nine trustees in a statewide election to be in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendment. 15
After the review of facts and after an examination of the reasons why Hawaii sought to limit the right to vote to “Native” Hawaiians only, the Supreme Court held that the particular provision that defined “Ancestral and Native” was drawn on racial lines. The Hawaiian constitution was designed for the benefit of two subclasses of Hawaiian citizenry, “Hawaiians” and “native Hawaiians.” State law defined “native Hawaiians” as descendants of not less than one-half part of the races inhabiting the Islands before 1778 and “Hawaiians”–a larger class that includes “native Hawaiians”–as descendants of the peoples inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands in 1778. The Court stated that the provision makes it clear: “[T]he descendants ... of [the] aboriginal peoples” means “the descendants ... of the races.” 16
The proposed constitution’s provisions for Ancestral and Native Virgin Islanders are not drawn upon race. The definitions used for these classes of people are the definitions given to the people of the Virgin Islands by the Congress of the United States. Of greater importance, is the fact that the provisions contained in the proposed constitution apply equally to the different races of people that inhabit the Virgin Islands. An examination of the record discussed by the Fifth Constitutional Convention would show that at the time the United States established the “Native” designation on the people of the Virgin Islands, the population of the Virgin Islands consisted of people from Europe, Puerto Rico, Africa and other ethnically diverse populations. The record shows that the Virgin Islands still maintains this ethnically diverse population.
In Rice, Justice Stevens with whom Justice Ginsburg joined in dissent, stated that the standard of review of evaluating a question of equal protection on the question of special voting permissions is whether the special treatment is rationally tied to fulfill a unique obligation toward native people. 17 Justice Stevens stated that [Natives] Indians and other natives must show that the goal is reasonably and directly related to a legitimate nonracially based goal. 18
The record clearly shows that the proposed constitution addresses directly those rights and protections expressly offered to the native people of the Virgin Islands, but never given. Since 1917 the United States has failed to provide for the Natives of the Virgin Islands the right of self-governing, a right to property and the right to maintain its culture. The opinions contained in the Justice’s memorandum must be discounted by their own admissions/omission because they did not review any evidence that was considered by the Fifth Constitutional Convention. Therefore. all issues raised by Justice surrounding its concerns about special treatment of “Native” Virgin Islanders must be ignored. A determination of the constitutional validity of a provision must include a fact based analysis.
Response 3. The Property Tax Exemption for Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders Has a Legitimate Government Purpose and Therefore is Constitutional
Justice in its memorandum states that the property tax exemption for Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders raises serious equal protection concerns. Without examining any of the record, Justice states, “we find it difficult to discern a legitimate government purpose… advanced by providing tax exemptions only for Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders.” 19
Since 1992, the Supreme Court has recognized that a property tax exemption based on longevity of ownership can have a legitimate government purpose if the government has an interest in local neighborhood preservation, continuity and stability of life and family. See Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 13 (1992), 112 S.Ct. 2326.
An examination of the record of the Fifth Constitutional Convention reveals numerous instances of the adverse impact suffered by Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders who have held their property for a long period of time without property tax exemption. The record contains numerous discussions and testimonials of people who would be considered Ancestral Virgin Islanders who have had lost their property due to hotel and resort development causing enormous increases in their property taxes. This occurrence has been eroding families and kinship in the Virgin Islands for many years. The Virgin Islands is rapidly losing the younger members of the families who move out of the territory for more affordable places to live. 20
The property tax exemption serves a legitimate government purpose in providing a mechanism to protect the property of the families who due to their longevity are the guardians of the life and culture of the Virgin Islands.
Response 4- The Designation of a Senator for St. Johns is Constitutional
The Justice Department has cited the designation of a senator for the Island of St. Johns as being a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice argues that in order for a legislative district to pass constitutional muster, the district must be drawn in a way to assure one man one vote or be drawn as close as possible to one man one vote. 21
Federal courts including the Supreme Court have recognized that one man one vote is not the only legitimate government purpose acceptable under the Constitution. It has been held that the principle of one man, one vote does not require exact mathematical equality in representation in the legislature; some consideration may be given by apportioning authorities to factors like geography, the integrity of subdivisions like counties, cities, or towns, and communities of interest. See Kelly v Bumpers,340 F. Supp. 568, 571 (E.D Ark 1972). The equal protection clause does not require absolute equality in the legislative districts but does require a rational basis for legislative distinctions, such as geography, economics, mass media and functional or group voting strength. See Thigpen V. Meyers, 211 F. Supp. 826 (W.D. WA).
Conclusion
As indicated in this memorandum the opinions of the Department of Justice are flawed. Justice throughout its memorandum expressed conjecture and could not properly evaluate the proposed constitution because it did not examine evidence gathered or the record of the proceedings that lead to the Fifth Constitutional Convention to set forth certain provisions in the proposed constitution. Moreover, constitutional analysis requires a case by case evaluation of the facts in order to properly measure constitutional implications. The opinions of the Justice Department regarding its review of the proposed constitution fail for these reasons.
_________________________________
1. Opinions on the proposed constitution were submitted by letter of Governor John P. de Jongh, Jr., the Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Congressional Research Service.
2. Statements of conjecture by justice: “we find it difficult to discern..” Memorandum for the Office of Management and Budget (Justice, 2010)-page 1; “the ..constitution does not identify… and it is difficult for us to discern…,” Id at 7 ; “to the extent that those interest might be offered…,” Id at 8; “…seems difficult to justify…,” Id ; “because we find it difficult to discern…,” Id; “in absence of any identified …interest…,” Id at 10; “any challenge to USVI’s Senate districts would be fact-specific, we do not recommend specific … changes to the proposed constitution to address these concerns.” Id at 15.
3. See Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30-31, 89 S.Ct. 5, 10, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968393 U.S., at 30-31, 89 S.Ct., at 10; Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S., at 142-143, 92 S.Ct., at 855; American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 780-781, 94 S.Ct. 1296, 1305-1306, 39 L.Ed.2d 744 (1974); Illinois Elections Bd. v. Socialist Workers Party,440 U.S. 173, 183, 99 S.Ct. 983, 989, 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979).
4. The annex was prepared by Delegate Gerard Emanuel. Note the summation of facts was also contained in Delegate Emanuel’s testimony before Congressional on March 17, 2010.
5. Justice concedes that the proposed constitution complies with Sovereignty and Supremacy requirement. Justice concession is derived from the following statements:” the present proposed constitution considered together bring it into substantial compliance with the Enabling Act's requirement that the proposed constitution recognize U.S. sovereignty and the supremacy of federal law.” supra Justice at 4; “The current proposed constitution's acknowledgment of the USVI's status as an "unincorporated territory of the United States" thus implies recognition of the United States' sovereignty over the USVI. Id. at 5; “The current proposed USVI constitution appears no less compliant with subsection 2(b)(1) of the Enabling Act than the constitution originally proposed in 1980, if not also the revised version of that constitution ultimately approved by Congress.” Id at 4.
6. Justice at 1.
7. Id at 6
8. Convention Between the United States and Denmark for Cession of the Danish West Indies, 39 Stat. 1706 (1916).
9. See UN Charter, Chapter 11, Article 73; See also UN Resolution 1514 and UN Resolution 35-118.
10. Id at 6; United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 647 1977; Sandoval at 45-46; Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 553 (1974).
11. See U.S.Amicus.Brief,1999.at 5; Sandoval at 45-46.
12. Rice v. Cayento, U.S.Amicus.Brief,1999.at 5;
13. Justice at 8.
14. 963 F. supp 1547; 146 F.3d 1075
15. 528 U.S. 495,509, 120 S. Ct 1044, 145 L. Ed 2d 1007
16. Id at 516.
17. Id at 531.
18. Id at 538 citing Mancari, 417 U.S., at 554, 94 S.Ct. 2474.
19. Justice at 4.
20. See Annex.
21. Justice at 14.
_________________________________________________________
See also relevant articles on this issue:
US Senate to Consider Constitutional Status Legislation for Dependencies
Legislation in US Congress Could Move Political Status of US Territories
US Virgin Islands Presents Constitution to Congress
International Dimension of a USVI Constitution
March 29, 2010
This memorandum is written in response to the Department of Justice (“Justice”) memorandum to the Office of Management and Budget's on the proposed constitution submitted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the U.S. Virgin Islands (“Fifth Convention”) to the President and Congress of the United States. Additionally, this memorandum serves as a response to all other memorandums and opinions that have been submitted in review of the proposed constitution. 1 This memorandum shall address the pertinent issues raised in the Justice memorandum, since the issues and opinions contained in the memorandum of the Department of Justice fairly reflects the same issues raised in the other reviews.
At the outset, it is important to note that Justice admits that its opinions are nothing more than conjecture. 2 The Justice Department did not review nor request to review any of the record or evidence gathered by the Fifth Constitutional Convention when rendering its opinions. Justice’s opinions fail to cite any evidence to support conclusions rendered in its memorandum. In fact, in addressing the provision for senate district, after it had opined on several other alleged issues, Justice states ,“since districts would be fact-specific, we [Justice] do not recommend specific … changes to the proposed constitution to address these concerns, ” (citation- on page 15 of its memorandum)The same statement should have concluded each and every issue raised by Justice since every issue raised by Justice is a fact determined issue and Justice did not review any of the facts that ere considered by the Fifth Constitutional Convention before it adopted the provisions of the proposed constitution. Throughout their memorandum, Justice renders opinions on other issues that are fact specific, but nonetheless, chose not to do so on the issue of districts.
Constitutional challenges to a specific provision of law cannot be resolved by any “litmus-paper test.” see Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S.780, 789 (1983); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 1279, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974). In deciding questions regarding constitutional validity, the analysis must first consider the character and magnitude of the injury to any alleged right protected by the Constitution. Id. Then, it must identify and evaluate the precise interest put forward as justification for the burden imposed by a rule. In passing judgment, the Court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of those interests, it also must consider the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff's rights. Only after weighing all these factors is the reviewing court in a position to decide whether the challenged provision is unconstitutional. 3 The results of a constitutional review is not to be automatic. Anderson, supra at 789,
Since Justice’s opinions do not consider any evidence that lead to the provisions contained in the proposed constitution, the opinions should not be given any weight as to whether the proposed constitution contains any constitutional violations. In order to properly evaluate the basis of why certain provisions were included in the proposed constitution, the record and evidence gathered by the Fifth Convention must be examined, including the empirical and antidotal evidence considered in drafting the proposed constitution.
The Fifth Constitutional Convention’s fact gathering process included more than fifty public meetings throughout the Virgin Islands. A minimum of seventy-five to one hundred people testified at each meeting. Over fifty formal papers and documents were received and reviewed by the Fifth Convention. Additionally, the Fifth Constitutional Convention made numerous radio and television appearances during which caller comments were maintained for follow-up and consideration. Some broadcast programs were dedicated to the consideration of the proposed constitution such as the "Constitution Corner." Over one hundred internet blogs provided information to delegates of the Fifth Constitutional Convention.
Moreover, the Fifth Convention reviewed and discussed the record contained on the Fourth Constitutional Convention. Attached to this memorandum is an annex of information that lead to the provisions contained in the proposed constitution to remedy the numerous atrocities faced by the people of the US Virgin Islands. 4
Response 1-The Proposed Constitution Recognizes the Sovereignty and the Supremacy of the United States and is therefore Compliant with the Enabling Act
The Justice memorandum raises a question on whether the proposed constitution recognizes the sovereignty and the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. Justice spent a lot of time in its analysis discussing this issue and concluded that, throughout its many provisions, the overall proposed Constitution recognizes in expressed language the sovereignty and supremacy of the United States. 5 Therefore, this memorandum accepts the ultimate conclusion reached by Justice on this issue.
Response 2- The Provisions For Ancestral & Native Virgin Islanders Are Rationally Based and have Legitimate Government Purposes and Therefore Are Constitutional
Justice believes the special designation of opportunities afforded Ancestral and Native Virgin Islanders is not rationally based, therefore, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In its memorandum, Justice states, “Because we find it difficult to discern a legitimate governmental purpose that would be rationally advanced by the provisions conferring legal advantages on certain groups defined by place and timing of birth, timing of residency, or ancestry, we recommend that those provisions be removed from the proposed constitution.” 6
Justice believes that provisions of the proposed constitution give special advantages to "Native Virgin Islanders" and "Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders." They further believe that these provisions raise serious concerns under the equal protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution. 7
The Justice memorandum brings suspicion to the definitions of Ancestral and Native Virgin Islanders; In Article III, section 2, the proposed constitution defines "Native Virgin Islander" to mean (1) "a person born in the Virgin Islands after June 28, 1932," the enactment date of a statute generally extending United States citizenship to USVI natives residing in United States territory as of that date who were not citizens or subjects of any foreign country, see Act of June 28, 1932, ch. 283, 47 Stat. 336 (now codified at 8 U.S.C. 1406(a)(4) (2006)); and (2) a "descendant[] of a person born in the Virgin Islands after June 28, 1932." "Ancestral Native Virgin Islander" would be defined as: (1) "a person born or domiciled in the Virgin Islands prior to and including June 28, 1932 and not a citizen of a foreign country pursuant to 8 U.S.C. [§] 1406," the statute governing United States citizenship of USVI residents and natives; (2) "descendants" of such individuals; and (3) "descendants of an Ancestral Native Virgin Islander residing outside of the U.S., its territories and possessions between January 17, 1917 and June 28, 1932, not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and who are not a citizens [sic] or a subjects [sic] of any foreign country." Proposed Const. art. III, § 1.
The definitions contained in the proposed constitution should not bring any suspicion or be challenged as the improper classification of the people of the Virgin Islands since the definitions are derived directly from the Government of the United States. It was an act of Congress that differentiated the people of the Virgin Islands and conferred different legal status upon them. 8 U.S.C. §1406 provides in its pertinent parts as follows:
Section 1406. Persons living in and born in the Virgin Islands
(a) The following persons and their children born subsequent to January 17, 1917, and prior to February 25,1927, are declared to be citizens of the United States as of February 25, 1927:
“…(2) All natives of the Virgin Islands of the United States who, on January 17, 1917, resided in those islands, and were residing in those islands or in the United States or Puerto Rico on February 25, 1927, and who were not on February 25, 1927, citizens or subjects of any foreign country;
(3) All natives of the Virgin Islands of the United States who, on January 17, 1917, resided in the United States, and were residing in those islands on February 25, 1927, and who were not on February 25, 1927, citizens or subjects of any foreign country; and
(4) All natives of the Virgin Islands of the United States who, on June 28, 1932, were residing in continental United States, the Virgin Islands of the United States, Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, or any other insular possession or territory of the United States, and who, on June 28, 1932, were not citizens or subjects of any foreign country, regardless of their place of residence on January 17, 1917.
(b) All persons born in the Virgin Islands of the United States on or after January 17, 1917, and prior to February 25, 1927, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are declared to be citizens of the United States as of February 25, 1927; and all persons born in those islands on or after February 25, 1927, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are declared to be citizens of the United States at birth."
A comparison between the provisions of the proposed constitution and the provisions of 8 U.S.C. §1406 shows the same classification of people. Moreover, it was the Congress of the United States that designated some of the people of the Virgin Islands as “Natives.”
The provisions in the proposed constitution that afford certain benefits to “Natives” is consistent with and in accordance with policies, agreements and treaties executed by the Government of the United States that provides for full self-governing and the preservation of culture and the land of native people. In the Treaty of Cession between Denmark and the United States, the United States declared its responsibility to inhabitants of the Virgin Islands. 8 More directly, the United States executed a treaty with the United Nations in which the United States agreed to hold the interests of native peoples (including the Virgin Islands natives whom they clearly had singled out and defined in the 1927 and 1940 citizenship and nationality acts), as a sacred trust, to protect the culture and aspirations of Virgin Islands natives and to protect them from abuse. 9
The United States has consistently supported laws that protect and provide for the self-governing of native people. The government of the United States acquires a heightened duty of trust to native and indigenous people. Further, the United States has a duty to furnish protection to native people and the authority to fulfill its obligations. Board of County Comm'rs v. Seber, 318 U.S. 705, 716 (1943); United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28, 45-46.
In this regard, Congress has continued to accept responsibility for the welfare of natives. Congress has established special programs in areas of healthcare, education, employment and loans. Rice at 496. It has enacted laws providing for special and different treatment of Native Hawaiians, Native Alaskans, Aleutians and Native Indians. The special treatment laws have allowed for special voting privileges, special taxation, segregated property ownership and other benefits as the United States has sought to fulfill its obligations to Native people. 10
In its review of the proposed constitution, Congress can provide the U.S. Virgin Island its right to self-governing and fulfill its obligations to provide for the natives of the Virgin Islands. Congress has the authority to protect the language, culture, religion, race, community structure and politics of native people. 11
The United States is on record accepting the responsibility for the welfare of native people. In its brief in the case of Rice v Cayento, 528 U.S. 495, the Government of the United States declared that a special right to vote should be bestowed on “native” people to the exclusion of non-natives. 12
The Department of Justice has repeatedly stated that it could not discern any rational basis that would allow the provisions for Ancestral and Native Virgin Islanders to have certain special and different advantages over others of the Virgin Islands. As if it was an open and shut policy of constitutional law Justice states “we find it difficult to discern a legitimate government purpose that would rationally advance” the special provisions of the proposed constitution. 13 Contrary to the insertions of Justice the constitutionality of the special provisions is not open and shut.
Analogous to the issues raised by Justice, a Federal District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found and held that a voting provision of the Hawaiian Constitution to allow only “Native” Hawaiians the right to vote for trustees of Hawaiian land did not violate the Constitution of the United States. 14 However, in a 7-2 decision the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the two lower courts holding, that limiting the vote to only Native Hawaiian for the nine trustees in a statewide election to be in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendment. 15
After the review of facts and after an examination of the reasons why Hawaii sought to limit the right to vote to “Native” Hawaiians only, the Supreme Court held that the particular provision that defined “Ancestral and Native” was drawn on racial lines. The Hawaiian constitution was designed for the benefit of two subclasses of Hawaiian citizenry, “Hawaiians” and “native Hawaiians.” State law defined “native Hawaiians” as descendants of not less than one-half part of the races inhabiting the Islands before 1778 and “Hawaiians”–a larger class that includes “native Hawaiians”–as descendants of the peoples inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands in 1778. The Court stated that the provision makes it clear: “[T]he descendants ... of [the] aboriginal peoples” means “the descendants ... of the races.” 16
The proposed constitution’s provisions for Ancestral and Native Virgin Islanders are not drawn upon race. The definitions used for these classes of people are the definitions given to the people of the Virgin Islands by the Congress of the United States. Of greater importance, is the fact that the provisions contained in the proposed constitution apply equally to the different races of people that inhabit the Virgin Islands. An examination of the record discussed by the Fifth Constitutional Convention would show that at the time the United States established the “Native” designation on the people of the Virgin Islands, the population of the Virgin Islands consisted of people from Europe, Puerto Rico, Africa and other ethnically diverse populations. The record shows that the Virgin Islands still maintains this ethnically diverse population.
In Rice, Justice Stevens with whom Justice Ginsburg joined in dissent, stated that the standard of review of evaluating a question of equal protection on the question of special voting permissions is whether the special treatment is rationally tied to fulfill a unique obligation toward native people. 17 Justice Stevens stated that [Natives] Indians and other natives must show that the goal is reasonably and directly related to a legitimate nonracially based goal. 18
The record clearly shows that the proposed constitution addresses directly those rights and protections expressly offered to the native people of the Virgin Islands, but never given. Since 1917 the United States has failed to provide for the Natives of the Virgin Islands the right of self-governing, a right to property and the right to maintain its culture. The opinions contained in the Justice’s memorandum must be discounted by their own admissions/omission because they did not review any evidence that was considered by the Fifth Constitutional Convention. Therefore. all issues raised by Justice surrounding its concerns about special treatment of “Native” Virgin Islanders must be ignored. A determination of the constitutional validity of a provision must include a fact based analysis.
Response 3. The Property Tax Exemption for Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders Has a Legitimate Government Purpose and Therefore is Constitutional
Justice in its memorandum states that the property tax exemption for Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders raises serious equal protection concerns. Without examining any of the record, Justice states, “we find it difficult to discern a legitimate government purpose… advanced by providing tax exemptions only for Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders.” 19
Since 1992, the Supreme Court has recognized that a property tax exemption based on longevity of ownership can have a legitimate government purpose if the government has an interest in local neighborhood preservation, continuity and stability of life and family. See Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 13 (1992), 112 S.Ct. 2326.
An examination of the record of the Fifth Constitutional Convention reveals numerous instances of the adverse impact suffered by Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders who have held their property for a long period of time without property tax exemption. The record contains numerous discussions and testimonials of people who would be considered Ancestral Virgin Islanders who have had lost their property due to hotel and resort development causing enormous increases in their property taxes. This occurrence has been eroding families and kinship in the Virgin Islands for many years. The Virgin Islands is rapidly losing the younger members of the families who move out of the territory for more affordable places to live. 20
The property tax exemption serves a legitimate government purpose in providing a mechanism to protect the property of the families who due to their longevity are the guardians of the life and culture of the Virgin Islands.
Response 4- The Designation of a Senator for St. Johns is Constitutional
The Justice Department has cited the designation of a senator for the Island of St. Johns as being a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice argues that in order for a legislative district to pass constitutional muster, the district must be drawn in a way to assure one man one vote or be drawn as close as possible to one man one vote. 21
Federal courts including the Supreme Court have recognized that one man one vote is not the only legitimate government purpose acceptable under the Constitution. It has been held that the principle of one man, one vote does not require exact mathematical equality in representation in the legislature; some consideration may be given by apportioning authorities to factors like geography, the integrity of subdivisions like counties, cities, or towns, and communities of interest. See Kelly v Bumpers,340 F. Supp. 568, 571 (E.D Ark 1972). The equal protection clause does not require absolute equality in the legislative districts but does require a rational basis for legislative distinctions, such as geography, economics, mass media and functional or group voting strength. See Thigpen V. Meyers, 211 F. Supp. 826 (W.D. WA).
Conclusion
As indicated in this memorandum the opinions of the Department of Justice are flawed. Justice throughout its memorandum expressed conjecture and could not properly evaluate the proposed constitution because it did not examine evidence gathered or the record of the proceedings that lead to the Fifth Constitutional Convention to set forth certain provisions in the proposed constitution. Moreover, constitutional analysis requires a case by case evaluation of the facts in order to properly measure constitutional implications. The opinions of the Justice Department regarding its review of the proposed constitution fail for these reasons.
_________________________________
1. Opinions on the proposed constitution were submitted by letter of Governor John P. de Jongh, Jr., the Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Congressional Research Service.
2. Statements of conjecture by justice: “we find it difficult to discern..” Memorandum for the Office of Management and Budget (Justice, 2010)-page 1; “the ..constitution does not identify… and it is difficult for us to discern…,” Id at 7 ; “to the extent that those interest might be offered…,” Id at 8; “…seems difficult to justify…,” Id ; “because we find it difficult to discern…,” Id; “in absence of any identified …interest…,” Id at 10; “any challenge to USVI’s Senate districts would be fact-specific, we do not recommend specific … changes to the proposed constitution to address these concerns.” Id at 15.
3. See Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30-31, 89 S.Ct. 5, 10, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968393 U.S., at 30-31, 89 S.Ct., at 10; Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S., at 142-143, 92 S.Ct., at 855; American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 780-781, 94 S.Ct. 1296, 1305-1306, 39 L.Ed.2d 744 (1974); Illinois Elections Bd. v. Socialist Workers Party,440 U.S. 173, 183, 99 S.Ct. 983, 989, 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979).
4. The annex was prepared by Delegate Gerard Emanuel. Note the summation of facts was also contained in Delegate Emanuel’s testimony before Congressional on March 17, 2010.
5. Justice concedes that the proposed constitution complies with Sovereignty and Supremacy requirement. Justice concession is derived from the following statements:” the present proposed constitution considered together bring it into substantial compliance with the Enabling Act's requirement that the proposed constitution recognize U.S. sovereignty and the supremacy of federal law.” supra Justice at 4; “The current proposed constitution's acknowledgment of the USVI's status as an "unincorporated territory of the United States" thus implies recognition of the United States' sovereignty over the USVI. Id. at 5; “The current proposed USVI constitution appears no less compliant with subsection 2(b)(1) of the Enabling Act than the constitution originally proposed in 1980, if not also the revised version of that constitution ultimately approved by Congress.” Id at 4.
6. Justice at 1.
7. Id at 6
8. Convention Between the United States and Denmark for Cession of the Danish West Indies, 39 Stat. 1706 (1916).
9. See UN Charter, Chapter 11, Article 73; See also UN Resolution 1514 and UN Resolution 35-118.
10. Id at 6; United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 647 1977; Sandoval at 45-46; Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 553 (1974).
11. See U.S.Amicus.Brief,1999.at 5; Sandoval at 45-46.
12. Rice v. Cayento, U.S.Amicus.Brief,1999.at 5;
13. Justice at 8.
14. 963 F. supp 1547; 146 F.3d 1075
15. 528 U.S. 495,509, 120 S. Ct 1044, 145 L. Ed 2d 1007
16. Id at 516.
17. Id at 531.
18. Id at 538 citing Mancari, 417 U.S., at 554, 94 S.Ct. 2474.
19. Justice at 4.
20. See Annex.
21. Justice at 14.
_________________________________________________________
See also relevant articles on this issue:
US Senate to Consider Constitutional Status Legislation for Dependencies
Legislation in US Congress Could Move Political Status of US Territories
US Virgin Islands Presents Constitution to Congress
International Dimension of a USVI Constitution
07 May 2010
St. Kitts-Nevis PM to Visit Bermuda
PM Douglas accepts invitation from Premier of Bermuda
by Erasmus Williams
sknpmpresssec@hotmail.com
May 6, 2010 9:58 am (PDT)
BASSETERRE, ST. KITTS, MAY 6TH 2010 (CUOPM) – St. Kitts and Nevis Prime Minister Hon. Dr. Denzil L. Douglas is to visit Bermuda on an official visit.
Dr. Douglas has accepted an invitation from the Premier of Bermuda, Dr. the Hon. Ewart F. Brown.“Three out of every five Bermudian families can claim some ancestry in St. Kitts and Nevis,” Premier Browne told Prime Minister Douglas in his letter of invitation.
“With such close links between Bermuda and St. Kitts and Nevis it is a tremendous honour to welcome Dr. Douglas during our Heritage Month celebrations. The Prime Minister has also committed to reaching out to the local Kittitian community and those who retain close links to the Island by hosting a town-hall meeting to discuss recent developments and change in St. Kitts and Nevis,” the Premier is quoted in The Royal Gazette.
While in the Bermuda capital, Prime Minister Douglas will visit the House of Assembly, pay courtesy calls on the Speaker and Deputy Speaker and address the 36-member lawmaking body.
He will also visit the British-appointed Governor and tour the Dockyard and Commissioner's House.
by Erasmus Williams
sknpmpresssec@hotmail.com
May 6, 2010 9:58 am (PDT)
BASSETERRE, ST. KITTS, MAY 6TH 2010 (CUOPM) – St. Kitts and Nevis Prime Minister Hon. Dr. Denzil L. Douglas is to visit Bermuda on an official visit.
Dr. Douglas has accepted an invitation from the Premier of Bermuda, Dr. the Hon. Ewart F. Brown.“Three out of every five Bermudian families can claim some ancestry in St. Kitts and Nevis,” Premier Browne told Prime Minister Douglas in his letter of invitation.
“With such close links between Bermuda and St. Kitts and Nevis it is a tremendous honour to welcome Dr. Douglas during our Heritage Month celebrations. The Prime Minister has also committed to reaching out to the local Kittitian community and those who retain close links to the Island by hosting a town-hall meeting to discuss recent developments and change in St. Kitts and Nevis,” the Premier is quoted in The Royal Gazette.
While in the Bermuda capital, Prime Minister Douglas will visit the House of Assembly, pay courtesy calls on the Speaker and Deputy Speaker and address the 36-member lawmaking body.
He will also visit the British-appointed Governor and tour the Dockyard and Commissioner's House.
06 May 2010
US Senate to Consider Constitutional Status Legislation for Dependencies
Proposed Virgin Islands Constitution, Puerto Rico Status Referendum Legislation, Political Education for American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands to be examined.
Press Release
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
US Congress
Full Committee Hearing: to receive testimony on the proposed Constitution of the U.S. Virgin Islands; S. 2941; H.R. 3940; and H.R. 2499 (Hearing Room SD-366)
Scheduled for Wednesday, May 19, 2010
09:30 AM
Energy Committee Hearing Room - SD-366
The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the proposed Constitution of the U.S. Virgin Islands; S. 2941, the Republic of the Marshall Islands Supplemental Nuclear Compensation Act of 2010; H.R. 3940, an act to amend Public Law 96-597 to clarify the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to extend grants and other assistance to facilitate political status public education programs for the peoples of the non-self-governing territories of the United States; and H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2010 (Hearing Room SD-366).
Committee Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction of the Full Committee includes oversight and legislative responsibilities for: National Energy Policy, including international energy affairs and emergency preparedness; nuclear waste policy; privatization of federal assets; territorial policy (including changes in status and issues affecting Antarctica); Native Hawaiian matters; and Ad Hoc issues.
_________________________________________________________________________
Previous Consideration by US House
The full US House of Representatives in the Spring of 2010 has already adopted the political status education legislation for American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands (H.R. 3940), as well as the bill authorising a referendum on political status (H.R. 2499). The US Senate committee will consider both measures on 19th May.
Meanwhile, the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the US House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee considered the proposed constitution in hearings for the US Virgin Islands last March, with the Senate committee consideration is the next stage in the process.
According to the Subcommittee website:
The Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife - led by Del. Madeleine Z. Bordallo (Guam/Guahan) - has jurisdiction over legislation governing the Nation's U.S. Territories and Compacts of Free Association, as well as issues relating to fisheries management, wildlife resources, coastal barrier protection and coastal zone management, and marine sanctuaries, among other areas.
The Insular areas of the U.S. include the territories of American Samoa, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), as well as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The U.S. was ceded three of the five territories at the end of the Spanish-American War and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, originally, as a United Nations Trust Territory at the culmination of World War II.
The remaining territories were either acquired by the U.S. through a Deed of Cession, as was American Samoa in 1900, or through outright purchase, when U.S. Virgin Islands was purchased from Denmark in 1917. In addition, the Committee oversees matters regarding the Compact relationship between the U.S. and the "Freely Associated States" of Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia.
Press Release
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
US Congress
Full Committee Hearing: to receive testimony on the proposed Constitution of the U.S. Virgin Islands; S. 2941; H.R. 3940; and H.R. 2499 (Hearing Room SD-366)
Scheduled for Wednesday, May 19, 2010
09:30 AM
Energy Committee Hearing Room - SD-366
The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the proposed Constitution of the U.S. Virgin Islands; S. 2941, the Republic of the Marshall Islands Supplemental Nuclear Compensation Act of 2010; H.R. 3940, an act to amend Public Law 96-597 to clarify the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to extend grants and other assistance to facilitate political status public education programs for the peoples of the non-self-governing territories of the United States; and H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2010 (Hearing Room SD-366).
Committee Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction of the Full Committee includes oversight and legislative responsibilities for: National Energy Policy, including international energy affairs and emergency preparedness; nuclear waste policy; privatization of federal assets; territorial policy (including changes in status and issues affecting Antarctica); Native Hawaiian matters; and Ad Hoc issues.
_________________________________________________________________________
Previous Consideration by US House
The full US House of Representatives in the Spring of 2010 has already adopted the political status education legislation for American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands (H.R. 3940), as well as the bill authorising a referendum on political status (H.R. 2499). The US Senate committee will consider both measures on 19th May.
Meanwhile, the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the US House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee considered the proposed constitution in hearings for the US Virgin Islands last March, with the Senate committee consideration is the next stage in the process.
According to the Subcommittee website:
The Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife - led by Del. Madeleine Z. Bordallo (Guam/Guahan) - has jurisdiction over legislation governing the Nation's U.S. Territories and Compacts of Free Association, as well as issues relating to fisheries management, wildlife resources, coastal barrier protection and coastal zone management, and marine sanctuaries, among other areas.
The Insular areas of the U.S. include the territories of American Samoa, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), as well as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The U.S. was ceded three of the five territories at the end of the Spanish-American War and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, originally, as a United Nations Trust Territory at the culmination of World War II.
The remaining territories were either acquired by the U.S. through a Deed of Cession, as was American Samoa in 1900, or through outright purchase, when U.S. Virgin Islands was purchased from Denmark in 1917. In addition, the Committee oversees matters regarding the Compact relationship between the U.S. and the "Freely Associated States" of Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia.
02 May 2010
U.S. House passes status bill, 223-169
Commonwealth option included in possible 2nd vote
by Robert Friedman
Puerto Rico Daily Sun
The House on Thursday approved the Puerto Rico status bill by a 223-169 vote after a grueling full day of debate on the island’s past, present and possible future role in its relationship with the United States. But, in a major change in the bill, the commonwealth option was given a second chance if voters rejected the current status.
The Democrats carried the day for the measure as 184 of the party’s lawmakers voted in favor. They were joined by 39 Republicans. Those opposed to the bill included 129 Republicans and 40 Democrats. A total of 57 Republicans had signed on as co-sponsors. Apparently 18 either changed their minds and voted against the bill, or did not vote at all.
The big change came about when an amendment by Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-Texas, was approved that would put the commonwealth on the second plebiscite as one of four options, along with statehood, independence and free association.
Under the bill, introduced by Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, a second plebiscite will be held if voters say in a first referendum that they want a change in the current U.S.-Puerto Rico relationship. It was unclear at press time how commonwealth would qualify for the second ballot if in the first vote, a majority decides it wants to change that status.
A last-minute motion, had it passed, would most likely have killed the Pierluisi bill. The motion, which included an English-only amendment and a gun provision in the measure, was defeated by a narrow 198-194 count.
The change was filed by Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., the ranking minority member of the House Resources Committee, which approved the bill last year. Hastings tried to amend the bill so that English would be the one and only official language of a Puerto Rico state, and gun laws would be liberalized if and when the island joined the Union.
The gun provision was added to get the votes of the many Democrats who back any legislation that includes liberalization of gun laws—possibly out of conviction, but also out of fear that their gun-owning constituents would not return them to office.
The House also accepted a mild language amendment filed by Reps. Dan Burton, R-Ind., and Don Young, R-Alaska.
The amendment says that under statehood or commonwealth Puerto Rico should be treated as all other states on federal language requirements and that the teaching of English should be promoted on the island.
Pierluisi hailed the status vote outcome. He said it meant that “truth and democracy has won out over fear, misinformation and [political] paralysis.”
He said passage of the measure makes him confident that the Senate will take up the bill “with the same principle of justice and democratic rights …”
The debate and votes, which began at about 10 a.m., with a one-hour pause, did not wind up until just before 7 p.m. The principal players arguing on the floor in favor of the bill were Pierluisi and Resources Committee Chairman, Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., while stateside Puerto Rican Reps. Nydia Velázquez, D-N.Y. and Luis Gutiérrez, D-Ill., both of whom argued long, hard and passionately against the measure.
Gutiérrez made Puerto Rican patriot arguments against the bill, which he saw as “rigged” in favor of statehood. He said the one indisputable right that the Puerto Rican people had was the “inalienable right” to have the island become an independent nation.
He said Puerto Rico was a “nation of people” and said, apparently tongue-in-cheek, that he would support statehood if the island were allowed as a state to have its own Olympics team and its own one official Spanish language. “Would Congress approve that?” he asked.
In attempting to show that there is little interest in English on the island, he said that the only daily newspaper in Puerto Rico that has gone bankrupt and been forced to close was the English-language San Juan Star. He did not mention the existence of the Puerto Rico Daily Sun.
Velázquez, and the bills other opponents, emphasized that Puerto Ricans had turned down statehood in three previous plebiscites and insisted that “economic issues must be addressed first” for the well-being of the island.
She called the alleged skewering of the bill for statehood and against commonwealth “appalling, deceitful and shameful.”
The two Puerto Rican lawmakers had introduced five amendments, all of which were struck down. These included proposals to eliminate the first commonwealth yes-or-no plebiscite, to originate any status change from the Puerto Rico government, to add the option “none of the above” to a status vote, to only make English-language ballots available upon request and to allow all stateside Puerto Ricans to vote in the plebiscites, instead of those born on the island and living in the states.
The principal debaters were joined by some 20 or so other House members who had their say during the debate.
One of the most important and staunchest defenders was House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., who made a last-minute plea in favor of the legislation.
Mayagüez-born, Bronx-raised Rep. José Serrano, D-N.Y., made a strong plea for the legislation. He said he supported it because it “begins a process,” and that the process would be fair. Serrano said island residents were very knowledgeable, status-wise, and “no one in Puerto Rico will be forced to vote for statehood, unless they want it.”
by Robert Friedman
Puerto Rico Daily Sun
The House on Thursday approved the Puerto Rico status bill by a 223-169 vote after a grueling full day of debate on the island’s past, present and possible future role in its relationship with the United States. But, in a major change in the bill, the commonwealth option was given a second chance if voters rejected the current status.
The Democrats carried the day for the measure as 184 of the party’s lawmakers voted in favor. They were joined by 39 Republicans. Those opposed to the bill included 129 Republicans and 40 Democrats. A total of 57 Republicans had signed on as co-sponsors. Apparently 18 either changed their minds and voted against the bill, or did not vote at all.
The big change came about when an amendment by Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-Texas, was approved that would put the commonwealth on the second plebiscite as one of four options, along with statehood, independence and free association.
Under the bill, introduced by Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, a second plebiscite will be held if voters say in a first referendum that they want a change in the current U.S.-Puerto Rico relationship. It was unclear at press time how commonwealth would qualify for the second ballot if in the first vote, a majority decides it wants to change that status.
A last-minute motion, had it passed, would most likely have killed the Pierluisi bill. The motion, which included an English-only amendment and a gun provision in the measure, was defeated by a narrow 198-194 count.
The change was filed by Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., the ranking minority member of the House Resources Committee, which approved the bill last year. Hastings tried to amend the bill so that English would be the one and only official language of a Puerto Rico state, and gun laws would be liberalized if and when the island joined the Union.
The gun provision was added to get the votes of the many Democrats who back any legislation that includes liberalization of gun laws—possibly out of conviction, but also out of fear that their gun-owning constituents would not return them to office.
The House also accepted a mild language amendment filed by Reps. Dan Burton, R-Ind., and Don Young, R-Alaska.
The amendment says that under statehood or commonwealth Puerto Rico should be treated as all other states on federal language requirements and that the teaching of English should be promoted on the island.
Pierluisi hailed the status vote outcome. He said it meant that “truth and democracy has won out over fear, misinformation and [political] paralysis.”
He said passage of the measure makes him confident that the Senate will take up the bill “with the same principle of justice and democratic rights …”
The debate and votes, which began at about 10 a.m., with a one-hour pause, did not wind up until just before 7 p.m. The principal players arguing on the floor in favor of the bill were Pierluisi and Resources Committee Chairman, Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., while stateside Puerto Rican Reps. Nydia Velázquez, D-N.Y. and Luis Gutiérrez, D-Ill., both of whom argued long, hard and passionately against the measure.
Gutiérrez made Puerto Rican patriot arguments against the bill, which he saw as “rigged” in favor of statehood. He said the one indisputable right that the Puerto Rican people had was the “inalienable right” to have the island become an independent nation.
He said Puerto Rico was a “nation of people” and said, apparently tongue-in-cheek, that he would support statehood if the island were allowed as a state to have its own Olympics team and its own one official Spanish language. “Would Congress approve that?” he asked.
In attempting to show that there is little interest in English on the island, he said that the only daily newspaper in Puerto Rico that has gone bankrupt and been forced to close was the English-language San Juan Star. He did not mention the existence of the Puerto Rico Daily Sun.
Velázquez, and the bills other opponents, emphasized that Puerto Ricans had turned down statehood in three previous plebiscites and insisted that “economic issues must be addressed first” for the well-being of the island.
She called the alleged skewering of the bill for statehood and against commonwealth “appalling, deceitful and shameful.”
The two Puerto Rican lawmakers had introduced five amendments, all of which were struck down. These included proposals to eliminate the first commonwealth yes-or-no plebiscite, to originate any status change from the Puerto Rico government, to add the option “none of the above” to a status vote, to only make English-language ballots available upon request and to allow all stateside Puerto Ricans to vote in the plebiscites, instead of those born on the island and living in the states.
The principal debaters were joined by some 20 or so other House members who had their say during the debate.
One of the most important and staunchest defenders was House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., who made a last-minute plea in favor of the legislation.
Mayagüez-born, Bronx-raised Rep. José Serrano, D-N.Y., made a strong plea for the legislation. He said he supported it because it “begins a process,” and that the process would be fair. Serrano said island residents were very knowledgeable, status-wise, and “no one in Puerto Rico will be forced to vote for statehood, unless they want it.”
29 April 2010
Montserrat Elected Vice Chair of OCTA
Press Release
Government of Montserrat
Montserrat to play greater role in keeping the OCTA on task
BRADES – Montserrat intends to play a greater role in keeping the members of the overseas territories and the EU partners to task so that the milestones established will be met, says Mrs. Angela Greenaway, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Economic Development & Trade.
The permanent secretary was a part of the delegation led by Chief Minister Reuben Meade to the Forum on the European Commission and Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) held in Brussels last Thursday and Friday. Montserrat now holds the Vice Chairmanship of the OCTA and will chair the 2011 sitting of the forum in Brussels.
“The focus of the discussions were the future relations between the OCT’s with the European Commission. The Commission has issued an outline of the possible new elements of the new partnership arrangement. This outline sets out three pillars for possible future development – Enhancing competitiveness, strengthening resilience and promoting cooperation.
It is up to the OCT’s now along with the Commission to discuss in detail, how these pillars will be developed into a new OCT Decision which must be agreed and signed off by the end of 2013. The overall responses from the forum were positive but it is necessary that we stay on top of each member to ensure that the targets are met,” explained the permanent secretary.
“We plan to play a greater role in maintaining the dialogue between the overseas territories and the EU partners. There is a tendency for the momentum to be lost over time as the European Commission become distracted with other issues. Time is important as the current Overseas Association Decision expires on December 31, 2013,” Mrs. Greenaway added.
In his remarks, Chief Minister Meade said Montserrat was “sincerely grateful for the generous contributions from the European Union and the UK government in particular, to our recovery efforts. We are particularly thankful for the indicative budget of 15.7m Euros under EDF 10 which we have allocated to replace our Port that was destroyed in Plymouth, and we hope to receive further assistance, to complete the project now estimated at 30 million Euros.”
The chief minister said the strategic goals in the island’s sustainable development plan 2008 – 2020 “cannot be achieved without both technical and financial support.” He added that “sustainability cannot be achieved by simply focusing on poverty reduction” and there was a need to “redefine our relationship with the EU and ensure we sculpture the development objectives to meet our needs based on our rights to aspire to EU standards.”
The official UK statement said “the successor to the OAD must be flexible enough to meet the needs of both the larger, more prosperous Territories, and those which are more vulnerable and likely to be in need of development assistance for years to come.”
The Green Paper which was launched at the November 2008 forum “recognises that the EU – OCT relationship should be built on one of partnership. This is the basis of the UK’s relationship with our OTs. Partnerships, with their shared responsibilities and obligations, have their ups and downs. There has to be some give and take for a successful partnership to work. Compromise is sometimes necessary. As the re-negotiation moves forward, discussions should be open and transparent. The Commission must have no hidden agenda or pre-conceived ideas and must listen to its’ Territories.”
“The UK agrees that the OCTs should be seen as assets rather than burdens on the EU tax payer. Their links to Europe are long standing and important, but each has its’ own distinct culture, character and diversity. OCTs should however adhere to European values on good governance. Those with a financial services industry must reach internationally agreed standards. And the EU should recognise the progress that has been made in this area.”
“Any proposed changes to legislation have to be relevant, and must take into account the capacity limitations of the Territories. OCTs cannot be tied into legislation that they do not have the resources to implement effectively. Where they cannot meet these requirements, or do not have the expertise to become a centre of excellence there should be no discrimination against them. We cannot have a first and second tier of OCT,” the statement said.
The OCT-EU Forum is a tripartite meeting that includes the associated and dependent territories of the EU (Anguilla; Aruba; British Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands; Falkland Islands; French Polynesia; Greenland; Mayotte; Montserrat; Netherlands Antilles; New Caledonia; Pitcairn; St. Helena and dependencies; St. Pierre and Miquelon; French Southern and Antarctic Territories; Turks and Caicos Islands; Wallis; and Futuna); the European Commission; and the four EU Member States that have such territories (UK, France, Denmark, and The Netherlands).
This annual meeting is chaired by the European Commission with the aim of outlining the visions for cooperation between the parties, enabling the OCTs to take a full part in the implementation of the OCT-EC association, and to allow a broad-based dialogue to enable the EU, all the OCTs and the Member States to which they are linked to consult each other on the principles, detailed procedures and results of the association.
New Caledonia is the 2010 chair of the OCTA and will host the next meeting later this year or early 2011 in that territory.
Government of Montserrat
Montserrat to play greater role in keeping the OCTA on task
BRADES – Montserrat intends to play a greater role in keeping the members of the overseas territories and the EU partners to task so that the milestones established will be met, says Mrs. Angela Greenaway, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Economic Development & Trade.
The permanent secretary was a part of the delegation led by Chief Minister Reuben Meade to the Forum on the European Commission and Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) held in Brussels last Thursday and Friday. Montserrat now holds the Vice Chairmanship of the OCTA and will chair the 2011 sitting of the forum in Brussels.
“The focus of the discussions were the future relations between the OCT’s with the European Commission. The Commission has issued an outline of the possible new elements of the new partnership arrangement. This outline sets out three pillars for possible future development – Enhancing competitiveness, strengthening resilience and promoting cooperation.
It is up to the OCT’s now along with the Commission to discuss in detail, how these pillars will be developed into a new OCT Decision which must be agreed and signed off by the end of 2013. The overall responses from the forum were positive but it is necessary that we stay on top of each member to ensure that the targets are met,” explained the permanent secretary.
“We plan to play a greater role in maintaining the dialogue between the overseas territories and the EU partners. There is a tendency for the momentum to be lost over time as the European Commission become distracted with other issues. Time is important as the current Overseas Association Decision expires on December 31, 2013,” Mrs. Greenaway added.
In his remarks, Chief Minister Meade said Montserrat was “sincerely grateful for the generous contributions from the European Union and the UK government in particular, to our recovery efforts. We are particularly thankful for the indicative budget of 15.7m Euros under EDF 10 which we have allocated to replace our Port that was destroyed in Plymouth, and we hope to receive further assistance, to complete the project now estimated at 30 million Euros.”
The chief minister said the strategic goals in the island’s sustainable development plan 2008 – 2020 “cannot be achieved without both technical and financial support.” He added that “sustainability cannot be achieved by simply focusing on poverty reduction” and there was a need to “redefine our relationship with the EU and ensure we sculpture the development objectives to meet our needs based on our rights to aspire to EU standards.”
The official UK statement said “the successor to the OAD must be flexible enough to meet the needs of both the larger, more prosperous Territories, and those which are more vulnerable and likely to be in need of development assistance for years to come.”
The Green Paper which was launched at the November 2008 forum “recognises that the EU – OCT relationship should be built on one of partnership. This is the basis of the UK’s relationship with our OTs. Partnerships, with their shared responsibilities and obligations, have their ups and downs. There has to be some give and take for a successful partnership to work. Compromise is sometimes necessary. As the re-negotiation moves forward, discussions should be open and transparent. The Commission must have no hidden agenda or pre-conceived ideas and must listen to its’ Territories.”
“The UK agrees that the OCTs should be seen as assets rather than burdens on the EU tax payer. Their links to Europe are long standing and important, but each has its’ own distinct culture, character and diversity. OCTs should however adhere to European values on good governance. Those with a financial services industry must reach internationally agreed standards. And the EU should recognise the progress that has been made in this area.”
“Any proposed changes to legislation have to be relevant, and must take into account the capacity limitations of the Territories. OCTs cannot be tied into legislation that they do not have the resources to implement effectively. Where they cannot meet these requirements, or do not have the expertise to become a centre of excellence there should be no discrimination against them. We cannot have a first and second tier of OCT,” the statement said.
The OCT-EU Forum is a tripartite meeting that includes the associated and dependent territories of the EU (Anguilla; Aruba; British Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands; Falkland Islands; French Polynesia; Greenland; Mayotte; Montserrat; Netherlands Antilles; New Caledonia; Pitcairn; St. Helena and dependencies; St. Pierre and Miquelon; French Southern and Antarctic Territories; Turks and Caicos Islands; Wallis; and Futuna); the European Commission; and the four EU Member States that have such territories (UK, France, Denmark, and The Netherlands).
This annual meeting is chaired by the European Commission with the aim of outlining the visions for cooperation between the parties, enabling the OCTs to take a full part in the implementation of the OCT-EC association, and to allow a broad-based dialogue to enable the EU, all the OCTs and the Member States to which they are linked to consult each other on the principles, detailed procedures and results of the association.
New Caledonia is the 2010 chair of the OCTA and will host the next meeting later this year or early 2011 in that territory.
28 April 2010
US House Fails to Vote on Washington DC Voting Rights
Dems ditch D.C. voting rights bill
POLITICO
By: Jake Sherman
Democrats have ditched plans to bring a District of Columbia voting rights bill to the House floor, a major setback in the long-running effort to give the nation's capital full representation in Congress.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) suggested that unrelated issues — such as gun rights provisions – sidelined D.C. voting bill. Hoyer had originally hoped to bring the bill to the floor this week, but now believes the legislation may be dead for the year.
Hoyer made the decision with Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), the non-voting representative of the District, who was uncomfortable with the gun legislation that was being attached to the bill, a Democratic aide said.
Norton said the bill would not have made it through the Senate anyway because the gun-related amendment would have allowed wide open gun ownership in D.C.
Norton said gun provisions – which she said were drafted by the National Rifle Association – would “surely bring down the support we have had of anti-gun Democratic Senators.”
It is a personal defeat for Hoyer, who has long championed the legislation, and for D.C., whose 600,000 citizens do not have a full voting representative in Congress. Hoyer, on several occasions, said he is “profoundly disappointed” that the legislation will not be brought up and added that he personally wrote the statement he delivered to reporters Tuesday morning.
The legislation should be focused “solely on the central premise of American democracy,” not local D.C. crime issues or the addition of a House seat for Utah. Both of these issues have haunted the legislation in the past.
“I believe that the bill that should be adopted would extend that right to the residents of the capital city of the world’s greatest democracy,” Hoyer said. “It is a blight on that democracy that we have not done so. That bill should be unfettered by any other provisions.”
Past versions of the D.C. voting rights bill have been bogged down when Republicans successfully attached amendments that would force much more open gun laws in the city, which has the strictest gun laws in the country.
When asked what sidelined the legislation this time – opposition by liberal Democrats to the gun provisions, or the threat of a filibuster by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) because of the at-large seat – Hoyer said simply “the price was too high.”
POLITICO
By: Jake Sherman
Democrats have ditched plans to bring a District of Columbia voting rights bill to the House floor, a major setback in the long-running effort to give the nation's capital full representation in Congress.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) suggested that unrelated issues — such as gun rights provisions – sidelined D.C. voting bill. Hoyer had originally hoped to bring the bill to the floor this week, but now believes the legislation may be dead for the year.
Hoyer made the decision with Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), the non-voting representative of the District, who was uncomfortable with the gun legislation that was being attached to the bill, a Democratic aide said.
Norton said the bill would not have made it through the Senate anyway because the gun-related amendment would have allowed wide open gun ownership in D.C.
Norton said gun provisions – which she said were drafted by the National Rifle Association – would “surely bring down the support we have had of anti-gun Democratic Senators.”
It is a personal defeat for Hoyer, who has long championed the legislation, and for D.C., whose 600,000 citizens do not have a full voting representative in Congress. Hoyer, on several occasions, said he is “profoundly disappointed” that the legislation will not be brought up and added that he personally wrote the statement he delivered to reporters Tuesday morning.
The legislation should be focused “solely on the central premise of American democracy,” not local D.C. crime issues or the addition of a House seat for Utah. Both of these issues have haunted the legislation in the past.
“I believe that the bill that should be adopted would extend that right to the residents of the capital city of the world’s greatest democracy,” Hoyer said. “It is a blight on that democracy that we have not done so. That bill should be unfettered by any other provisions.”
Past versions of the D.C. voting rights bill have been bogged down when Republicans successfully attached amendments that would force much more open gun laws in the city, which has the strictest gun laws in the country.
When asked what sidelined the legislation this time – opposition by liberal Democrats to the gun provisions, or the threat of a filibuster by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) because of the at-large seat – Hoyer said simply “the price was too high.”
27 April 2010
Analysis of 1998 US House Vote on Puerto Rico Status Legislation
As the U.S. House of Representatives proceeds to take up H.R. 2499 to facilitate a referendum process on political status alternatives for Puerto Rico, the issues under intense discussion in 2010 are strikingly similar to those discussed during the last time the U.S. House voted on similar legislation, in 1998. An analysis on the earlier Congressional vote was published in the March 1998 edition of the journal Associate (the predecessor publication to Overseas Territories Review. The 1998 Associate article provided significant insight into many of the same issues which are being debated in relation to the present legislation, and is reprinted below, for comparison purposes.
Puerto Rico Political Referendum Legislation Narrowly Endorsed by US House of Representatives
Associate (Vol. 1 No. 4)
March 1998
Washington, D.C.
Supporters of full integration for Puerto Rico into the United States (U.S.) as the 51st state of the union were given a boost on 4th March (1998) as the U.S. House of Representatives approved by the narrowest of margins legislation that would provide for a U.S. Congressionally-recognized referendum election by the end of 1998 on three political status options. This major development is occurring 100 years following the U.S. takeover of the island from Spanish rule - some say, from the Puerto Ricans themselves who had declared unilateral independence from Spain prior to the arrival of American troops.
According to a 1997 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) Report on U.S. Insular Areas, the bill "would establish a three stage process for enhancing self-government in Puerto Rico" with the first stage being a (non-binding) referendum to be held no later than 31st December 1998 on the political options of commonwealth (status quo), separate sovereignty (independence or free association), and statehood (integration).
If the referendum choice is either integration or separate sovereignty, the legislation calls for the development by the U.S. President of a ten-year transition plan to be submitted to the Puerto Rico electorate for approval in another referendum. "Assuming the plan was approved, the final stage would begin with the President's submission to the (U.S.) Congress of proposed legislation to implement the form of self-government consistent with Puerto Rico's choice including a proposed date for implementation," according to the report, and "if this is enacted by the Congress, it would be presented to Puerto Rican voters for approval by (another) referendum."
If the commonwealth option is chosen, the status quo continues and another referendum would be held within the subsequent ten year period.
On a vote of 209 to 208 following a marathon session that went well into the night, the full House of Representatives endorsed the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act authorizing the people of the commonwealth/territory of 3.8 million people to choose between the three options. The legislation was introduced in response to a local referendum held in Puerto Rico in 1993 in which the commonwealth option garnered a plurality of some 48.4 per cent.
This marked the first time that the political status under which Puerto Rico was being governed was not favoured by the majority of the population. But as it was noted in the debate by Representative George Miller of California, the political parties in the territory had written the definitions of the individual status options presented in the 1993 plebescite, and the Congress had not responded because it felt that the definitions "were not accurate and would not be supported by the Congress... and did not reflect the laws and the Constitution (of the United States)."
Subsequently a series of Congressional hearings were held in Washington and in Puerto Rico in 1995, resulting in 1996 legislation authorizing a Congressionally sanctioned referendum, rather than a local process.
This legislation was approved in the House Resources Committee, but not taken up by the full House. The present legislation had been introduced in February, 1997 with the definitions of the options ultimately written by the U.S. Congress, following proposals sent by the Puerto Rico political parties.
The House bill will now be considered by the U.S. Senate where similar legislation has been introduced in 1997, but where no action has yet been taken. The measure was fully supported by the island's pro-integrationist New Progressive Party which controls the governorship, the non-voting resident commissionership to the U.S. House, and both houses of the Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly. The measure also has the support of President Bill Clinton who commented that the vote "was a victory for democracy and against exclusion."
In a February address to the Democratic Governors Association dinner in Washington, Clinton said that "...it is time that we respond to the aspirations of the 4 million (Puerto Ricans)...and allow them to determine their ultimate political status."[Puerto Rico Governor Pedro Rossello had previously been elected as Chairman of the Democratic Governors' Association, of the Council of State Governments, and of the Southern Governors' Association in a well planned strategy to position Puerto Rico as a de facto state. This had a significant impact on the favourable vote by Democratic Party representatives on the measure on the House floor].
While not endorsing a particular political option, Clinton disagreed with "some people who question the alternative of statehood (integration) because of the Hispanic culture of Puerto Rico," and emphasized that the "ethnic, racial or religious heritage" of the people should not be used as an impediment to their political aspirations.
The Ethnic Question
President Clinton's reference to ethnicity was made undoubtedly in response to strong support for an amendment offered by Representative Gerald Soloman, Republican from New York. That amendment would have mandated English as the official language in government business and in schools in any U.S. state, including Puerto Rico, if it was successful in changing to that status. Some like Cuauhtemoc Figueora, Director of Policy and Communications for the (U.S.) League of Latin American Citizens felt that it was unfair to use the Puerto Rico issue as the vehicle for the English only movement, since such a requirement does not presently exist for other U.S. states (although some 23 of the 50 have voluntarily adopted English as their official language). Conversely, Chairman of the Board of U.S. English, Mauro E. Mujica, noted that his organization was in favour of the Soloman "English only" amendment and expressed the "concern about creating our own Quebec." He went on to note that "after 100 years of association with (the United States), 75 per cent of Puerto Ricans do not speak English and 70 per cent think of themselves as Puerto Ricans and not Americans." He indicated that he was "concerned about creating a state...where only a slight majority (supported that option) and the minority begins to create trouble." He went on to emphasize that "we don't want a secessionist group created in Puerto Rico." The legislation calls for a simple majority of the Puerto Rican voters for the winning option.
In the end, the "Soloman amendment" was rejected by a vote of 370 to 41 , and a "softer"substitute amendment on the language issue was introduced by Republican Dan Burton, and subsequently adopted by the House by a margin of 238 to 182. The new language would provide, in the event of Puerto Rican statehood, that the official language requirements of the U.S. government would apply to the new state "in the same manner and to the same extent as throughout the United States," and called for the promotion of English proficiency in the public schools by the age of 10. A second amendment that would have permitted Puerto Ricans living outside the island to vote in the referendum was also rejected overwhelmingly, bringing into question whether the vote would be considered a true "act of self-determination" consistent with internationally recognized referenda held or planned in other territories, such as Namibia or Western Sahara.
As in the case of the local referendum held in the U.S. Virgin Islands in 1993, and its excessive number of political status choices (based on perceived U.S. Congressional considerations), it was clear that consistency with international principles on self-determination does not always figure significantly in resolving the constitutional dilemmas in U.S. territories. Another such example is the refusal to accommodate the rights of the indigenous people in the self-determination process of that U.S. Pacific territory of Guam serving as a reminder of the constraints that emerge when provisions of the U.S. Constitution are unilaterally applied to non-integrated, or un-incorporated, territories in a manner as if they were integrated states. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands which developed from the United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands was the only U.S. territory that seemed to have negotiated a sufficiently autonomous arrangement, but as it turns out, the U.S. Congress and executive branch are re-interpreting important provisions of the U.S. - Marianas pact leading to more "federal" control.
Unlikely Political Alliances
The legislation is considered one of the most controversial measures debated by the full House of Representatives in recent years. Representative Soloman in remarks in the general debate commented that both the American and Puerto Rican people are at odds over the matter, and that "members of the House (of Representatives) are divided on this issue, and not necessarily by party." The Puerto Rican politicians themselves were not unified - consistent with the differing views on the island - with supporters of the bill being led on the House floor, in part, by Puerto Rico's non-voting Resident Commissioner Carlos Romero Barcelo, while opponents of the measure were led by (Democrat) Chicago-based Puerto Rican Congressman Luis Gutierrez.
Much of the Republican leadership including the Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich endorsed the bill, and it was reported that Republicans were asked to support it as one of a number of actions they should take to gain Hispanic votes in the coming U.S. Congressional elections, consistent with an analysis produced by Republican pollster Frank Luntz. Many Republicans as well as Democrats seemed convinced, however, that the bill was drafted in such a way as to favour the political integration option in a referendum, and many simply were not ready for that now, if ever. This conclusion was reached since the bill defined the status quo option as a territory that should be decolonized pursuant to the United Nations International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, according to the House Committee Report accompanying the bill.
Such a portrayal of the political status under which Puerto Rico had been governed since 1952 was strongly opposed by the pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party (PDP) who perceived the commonwealth arrangement as a de facto associated state, governed not by the territorial clause of the U.S. constitution, but rather, by a bilateral pact. PDP President Acevedo Vila had earlier contended in March, 1997 hearings before the House Resources Committee that "the assumption made in the bill that it is not possible to have a non-colonial bilateral relationship, based on mutual consent with American citizenship as a bond between Puerto Rico and the United States is against history (and) legal precedents," and noted that previous legislation introduced in the House on Puerto Rico had recognized the bi-lateral nature of the U.S. - Puerto Rico relationship. Acevedo Vila has termed the present bill "unacceptable," and argued that it "reneges on the word of the United States given to the people of Puerto Rico and to the world in 1953," in reference to statements to the United Nations by the United States delegation that the attainment of commonwealth by Puerto Rico was a form of association with sufficient autonomy that it no longer required oversight by the U.N.
The General Assembly later that year agreed to remove Puerto Rico from the U.N. list of non-self-governing territories (via Resolution 748), although the current arrangement does not meet the standard of a "full measure of self-government" approved by the U.N. in 1960. In what many describe as a classic political contradiction, subsequent efforts to have Puerto Rico re-inscribed on the U.N. list for more than three and one-half decades have been met by steadfast resistance on the part of the U.S. State Department which does not hide its disdain for the U.N. committee that oversees the self-determination process of the remaining non-self-governing territories, mostly in the Caribbean and Pacific.[ The U.S. delegation to the U.N. has been quite successful in recent years in convincing other member countries to approve reductions in the resources appropriated to the U.N. committee from the U.N. budget, and actively seeks the committee's abolishment on the premise that the remaining non-self-governing territories are, in fact, self-governing after all, regardless of whether any changes have been made to upgrade their political status arrangement. This proposition, of course, is diametrically opposed to the position just approved by the U.S. House of Representatives in the Puerto Rico legislation that defines the island as a colony. This 'two Puerto Rico,' as in 'two China' policy, finds Puerto Rico to be a colony in the U.S. Congress, but self-governing at the U.N. ]
The Popular Democratic Party itself had been divided over whether the commonwealth status is an associated territory, as insisted upon by the party leadership, or a colony, as seen by a growing segment of the party. Advocates within the party for a true form of free association argued for their option to replace the "colonial commonwealth " definition. They did not succeed within the party, but independent groups like the Puerto Rico Organization for Free Association (PROELA), the Puerto Rican Autonomist Commission and the Puerto Rico Democratic Action Foundation worked in favour of the inclusion of the free association option, both on the island and in Washington.
The Cost of Statehood
The issue of the projected cost of statehood was another factor in the debate. It was argued by opponents of the bill that if statehood was ultimately granted, it would cost the U.S. treasury over US3 billion in increased welfare benefits as well as the expansion of other social programmes and "corporate welfare." This view of increased U.S. assistance to Puerto Rico under statehood was supported by a 1990 Report of the Congressional Budget Office and by other more recent studies including a 1996 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) Analysis of Certain Potential Effects of Extending (U.S.) Federal Income Taxation to Puerto Rico, and a 1997 GAO study on Tax Policy-Puerto Rico Economic Trends. A number of private studies, many commissioned by pro-statehood organizations on and off the island, have countered the findings of these federal analyses.
Supporters of the referendum measure, in particular Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner Carlos Romero Barcelo, argued in the debate on the House floor that under statehood, individual Puerto Ricans and corporations based there would contribute over US 4.5 billion in income taxes to the U.S. treasury. But concerns persist that Puerto Rico would be the poorest of the integrated states, would receive more U.S. economic assistance than other states, and would pay the least in taxes to the U.S. treasury. Perhaps the mass defection of Republicans away from their leadership and against the legislation was due in large measure to this potential economic impact. What is also emerging is the concern that the present commonwealth status also comes with its own financial price tag, and an indefinite continuation of the status quo could also come under increased Congressional scrutiny for financial reasons. One outcome of the debate is the increased realization that under the present status, Puerto Rico pays no income taxes to the U.S. treasury.
A rather unlikely alliance in support of the bill was the position taken by the Puerto Rico Independence Party (PIP). In a classic case of the "unity of opposites," both the pro-integration and pro-independence parties argue the same point - that the present commonwealth status is colonial and unsustainable. The two parties only differ with respect to the solution. The PIP which has heightened its level of visibility with the U.S. Congress believes that independence will ultimately win out because, as its President Ruben Berrios told the Washington Times newspaper in March, "If we don't obtain a victory now we will obtain it tomorrow because statehood will never be granted." His argument, which is gaining support among U.S. Congressmen, is that "statehood is totally unacceptable to the United States," and if commonwealth is now properly defined as a colonial problem in need of a solution, the only answer is that of independence.
As an indication of this integration - independence dialectic, Romero-Barcelo argued in the House debate that "the unvarnished truth is that Puerto Rico's colonial status remains unchanged," and that "the intent (in creating the commonwealth status) was to create a provisional government until the issue of status was resolved." As Berrios wrote in the bi-monthly U.S. Foreign Affairs journal last November/December, "Congress has acknowledged that commonwealth is territorial under U.S. law which in turn is colonial under international law,(and a) colonial anachronism."
As the Debate Intensified...
Even the influential words of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan were used to support the bill when Representative Joe Moakley of Massachusetts quoted Reagan's 1982 statement that, "in statehood, the language and culture of (Puerto Rico), rich in history, would be respected," and that "statehood would benefit both the people of the United States" and the people of Puerto Rico. The Ronald Reagan Foundation quickly distanced the former president from the process, however, in a letter to the Congress stating that Reagan "is not now nor will he ever be taking any position on (the current Puerto Rico legislation), the issue of statehood for Puerto Rico, or self-determination for the Puerto Rican people." There was no indication as to why the longstanding Reagan endorsement for statehood was being withdrawn.
In any event, Representative Don Young had later made reference to the support expressed in the 1989 State of the Union Address by Reagan's successor, President George Bush, who "long believed that the people of Puerto Rico should have their right to determine their own political future," and who expressed his personal support for integration. So far, no retraction from former President Bush - but the process is far from complete.
In the end, it was the Democrats who rescued the bill. Only 17 of the 27 Republicans on the House Resources Committee, from which the bill originated, voted in favour of the legislation in the full House. All but one of the same Republicans had voted for the measure at the committee level. The final tally showed some 177 Republicans abandoning their leadership by opposing the bill with only 43 in favour. On the other hand, the Democrats who had earlier in the process balked at the definition of commonwealth, overwhelmingly supported the measure with 165 votes to only 31 against.
The Road Ahead
The narrowness of the vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, the lack of consensus among the members of the majority party in the House, and the often contentious debate over culture, language, dignity, finance, Olympic teams and the like under the statehood option all point to a less than certain future for the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status bill. The legislation now shifts to the U.S. Senate where Majority leader Trent Lott of Mississippi has offered little support for bringing the measure to the Senate floor this year [Of course, Lott has changed his mind before, most recently, in his widely reported reversal of his original call for the expedited completion of the U.S. Special prosecutor Ken Starr's investigation on alleged sexual misconduct of President Clinton ].
In effect, It would be a simple procedure not to take up the politically explosive issue in the Senate this year, simply on the grounds of the crowded Senate calendar and the fewer than normal days of formal session because of elections in November. But Republican Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska, Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with jurisdiction of the Puerto Rico legislation, supports bringing the bill to the Senate floor this year, and several Senate Democrats have also called for debate on the measure. Members of both parties, however, have made it clear that approval will not be easy, in view of the close vote in the House. As the PIP 's Berrios wrote "the traditional policy of Congressional immobility on Puerto Rico seems to be losing ground, though it is still a tempting option for a Congress with a propensity for crisis management."
Puerto Rican politicians are also gearing up for the shift in focus to the Senate. It appeared that the pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party had abandoned its lobbying efforts in the House, in the face of a well documented multi-million dollar campaign for approval of the bill by the pro-integrationist forces, and had concentrated their approach on the Senate. The pro-statehood New Progressive Party was, of course, elated with their victory and have stepped up their efforts to press for a Senate vote based on the "momentum." The Puerto Rican Independence Party, meanwhile, views the narrow victory as consistent with their plan to press the issue, in effect, forcing the U.S. Congress to reject statehood for Puerto Rico - something that Congress has been particularly adept at avoiding over the years.
As the debate accelerates, some experts are betting on the "independentista" strategy. If the Senate does approve a companion measure with a compromise House-Senate version signed by President Clinton, enough momentum might be generated in Puerto Rico for a positive vote in the referendum for statehood (especially with the threatened boycott by the commonwealth forces). But will the U.S. Congress support a state with less than a "supermajority" of the voters, in view of the very real concern among many Congressmen over the "Quebec" syndrome? Or as Berrios asks, "Is the U.S. willing to risk a Caribbean Quebec or a tropical Northern Ireland ?" He noted that "it is one thing to accept individual Jamaicans or Dominicans as immigrants(but) it is quite another to annex entire nations like Jamaica or the Dominican Republic as states." Thus, with statehood rejected and commonwealth discredited, the independence advocates argue, some form of separate sovereignty - either independence or free association - would win by default. This is not an implausible outcome.
Of course, should the Senate takes the safe way out and not address the bill at all - there is a tendency not to take up controversial legislation during an election year - the measure will have to be re-introduced in 1999, possibly with new Congressional members and their own ideas on the subject. The process would then begin anew. In view of what has occurred over many years of debate on this issue, it is difficult to bet against this eventuality either. The Congress may be still dealing with this issue decades into the future.
And so it has...
Puerto Rico Political Referendum Legislation Narrowly Endorsed by US House of Representatives
Associate (Vol. 1 No. 4)
March 1998
Washington, D.C.
Supporters of full integration for Puerto Rico into the United States (U.S.) as the 51st state of the union were given a boost on 4th March (1998) as the U.S. House of Representatives approved by the narrowest of margins legislation that would provide for a U.S. Congressionally-recognized referendum election by the end of 1998 on three political status options. This major development is occurring 100 years following the U.S. takeover of the island from Spanish rule - some say, from the Puerto Ricans themselves who had declared unilateral independence from Spain prior to the arrival of American troops.
According to a 1997 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) Report on U.S. Insular Areas, the bill "would establish a three stage process for enhancing self-government in Puerto Rico" with the first stage being a (non-binding) referendum to be held no later than 31st December 1998 on the political options of commonwealth (status quo), separate sovereignty (independence or free association), and statehood (integration).
If the referendum choice is either integration or separate sovereignty, the legislation calls for the development by the U.S. President of a ten-year transition plan to be submitted to the Puerto Rico electorate for approval in another referendum. "Assuming the plan was approved, the final stage would begin with the President's submission to the (U.S.) Congress of proposed legislation to implement the form of self-government consistent with Puerto Rico's choice including a proposed date for implementation," according to the report, and "if this is enacted by the Congress, it would be presented to Puerto Rican voters for approval by (another) referendum."
If the commonwealth option is chosen, the status quo continues and another referendum would be held within the subsequent ten year period.
On a vote of 209 to 208 following a marathon session that went well into the night, the full House of Representatives endorsed the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act authorizing the people of the commonwealth/territory of 3.8 million people to choose between the three options. The legislation was introduced in response to a local referendum held in Puerto Rico in 1993 in which the commonwealth option garnered a plurality of some 48.4 per cent.
This marked the first time that the political status under which Puerto Rico was being governed was not favoured by the majority of the population. But as it was noted in the debate by Representative George Miller of California, the political parties in the territory had written the definitions of the individual status options presented in the 1993 plebescite, and the Congress had not responded because it felt that the definitions "were not accurate and would not be supported by the Congress... and did not reflect the laws and the Constitution (of the United States)."
Subsequently a series of Congressional hearings were held in Washington and in Puerto Rico in 1995, resulting in 1996 legislation authorizing a Congressionally sanctioned referendum, rather than a local process.
This legislation was approved in the House Resources Committee, but not taken up by the full House. The present legislation had been introduced in February, 1997 with the definitions of the options ultimately written by the U.S. Congress, following proposals sent by the Puerto Rico political parties.
The House bill will now be considered by the U.S. Senate where similar legislation has been introduced in 1997, but where no action has yet been taken. The measure was fully supported by the island's pro-integrationist New Progressive Party which controls the governorship, the non-voting resident commissionership to the U.S. House, and both houses of the Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly. The measure also has the support of President Bill Clinton who commented that the vote "was a victory for democracy and against exclusion."
In a February address to the Democratic Governors Association dinner in Washington, Clinton said that "...it is time that we respond to the aspirations of the 4 million (Puerto Ricans)...and allow them to determine their ultimate political status."[Puerto Rico Governor Pedro Rossello had previously been elected as Chairman of the Democratic Governors' Association, of the Council of State Governments, and of the Southern Governors' Association in a well planned strategy to position Puerto Rico as a de facto state. This had a significant impact on the favourable vote by Democratic Party representatives on the measure on the House floor].
While not endorsing a particular political option, Clinton disagreed with "some people who question the alternative of statehood (integration) because of the Hispanic culture of Puerto Rico," and emphasized that the "ethnic, racial or religious heritage" of the people should not be used as an impediment to their political aspirations.
The Ethnic Question
President Clinton's reference to ethnicity was made undoubtedly in response to strong support for an amendment offered by Representative Gerald Soloman, Republican from New York. That amendment would have mandated English as the official language in government business and in schools in any U.S. state, including Puerto Rico, if it was successful in changing to that status. Some like Cuauhtemoc Figueora, Director of Policy and Communications for the (U.S.) League of Latin American Citizens felt that it was unfair to use the Puerto Rico issue as the vehicle for the English only movement, since such a requirement does not presently exist for other U.S. states (although some 23 of the 50 have voluntarily adopted English as their official language). Conversely, Chairman of the Board of U.S. English, Mauro E. Mujica, noted that his organization was in favour of the Soloman "English only" amendment and expressed the "concern about creating our own Quebec." He went on to note that "after 100 years of association with (the United States), 75 per cent of Puerto Ricans do not speak English and 70 per cent think of themselves as Puerto Ricans and not Americans." He indicated that he was "concerned about creating a state...where only a slight majority (supported that option) and the minority begins to create trouble." He went on to emphasize that "we don't want a secessionist group created in Puerto Rico." The legislation calls for a simple majority of the Puerto Rican voters for the winning option.
In the end, the "Soloman amendment" was rejected by a vote of 370 to 41 , and a "softer"substitute amendment on the language issue was introduced by Republican Dan Burton, and subsequently adopted by the House by a margin of 238 to 182. The new language would provide, in the event of Puerto Rican statehood, that the official language requirements of the U.S. government would apply to the new state "in the same manner and to the same extent as throughout the United States," and called for the promotion of English proficiency in the public schools by the age of 10. A second amendment that would have permitted Puerto Ricans living outside the island to vote in the referendum was also rejected overwhelmingly, bringing into question whether the vote would be considered a true "act of self-determination" consistent with internationally recognized referenda held or planned in other territories, such as Namibia or Western Sahara.
As in the case of the local referendum held in the U.S. Virgin Islands in 1993, and its excessive number of political status choices (based on perceived U.S. Congressional considerations), it was clear that consistency with international principles on self-determination does not always figure significantly in resolving the constitutional dilemmas in U.S. territories. Another such example is the refusal to accommodate the rights of the indigenous people in the self-determination process of that U.S. Pacific territory of Guam serving as a reminder of the constraints that emerge when provisions of the U.S. Constitution are unilaterally applied to non-integrated, or un-incorporated, territories in a manner as if they were integrated states. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands which developed from the United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands was the only U.S. territory that seemed to have negotiated a sufficiently autonomous arrangement, but as it turns out, the U.S. Congress and executive branch are re-interpreting important provisions of the U.S. - Marianas pact leading to more "federal" control.
Unlikely Political Alliances
The legislation is considered one of the most controversial measures debated by the full House of Representatives in recent years. Representative Soloman in remarks in the general debate commented that both the American and Puerto Rican people are at odds over the matter, and that "members of the House (of Representatives) are divided on this issue, and not necessarily by party." The Puerto Rican politicians themselves were not unified - consistent with the differing views on the island - with supporters of the bill being led on the House floor, in part, by Puerto Rico's non-voting Resident Commissioner Carlos Romero Barcelo, while opponents of the measure were led by (Democrat) Chicago-based Puerto Rican Congressman Luis Gutierrez.
Much of the Republican leadership including the Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich endorsed the bill, and it was reported that Republicans were asked to support it as one of a number of actions they should take to gain Hispanic votes in the coming U.S. Congressional elections, consistent with an analysis produced by Republican pollster Frank Luntz. Many Republicans as well as Democrats seemed convinced, however, that the bill was drafted in such a way as to favour the political integration option in a referendum, and many simply were not ready for that now, if ever. This conclusion was reached since the bill defined the status quo option as a territory that should be decolonized pursuant to the United Nations International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, according to the House Committee Report accompanying the bill.
Such a portrayal of the political status under which Puerto Rico had been governed since 1952 was strongly opposed by the pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party (PDP) who perceived the commonwealth arrangement as a de facto associated state, governed not by the territorial clause of the U.S. constitution, but rather, by a bilateral pact. PDP President Acevedo Vila had earlier contended in March, 1997 hearings before the House Resources Committee that "the assumption made in the bill that it is not possible to have a non-colonial bilateral relationship, based on mutual consent with American citizenship as a bond between Puerto Rico and the United States is against history (and) legal precedents," and noted that previous legislation introduced in the House on Puerto Rico had recognized the bi-lateral nature of the U.S. - Puerto Rico relationship. Acevedo Vila has termed the present bill "unacceptable," and argued that it "reneges on the word of the United States given to the people of Puerto Rico and to the world in 1953," in reference to statements to the United Nations by the United States delegation that the attainment of commonwealth by Puerto Rico was a form of association with sufficient autonomy that it no longer required oversight by the U.N.
The General Assembly later that year agreed to remove Puerto Rico from the U.N. list of non-self-governing territories (via Resolution 748), although the current arrangement does not meet the standard of a "full measure of self-government" approved by the U.N. in 1960. In what many describe as a classic political contradiction, subsequent efforts to have Puerto Rico re-inscribed on the U.N. list for more than three and one-half decades have been met by steadfast resistance on the part of the U.S. State Department which does not hide its disdain for the U.N. committee that oversees the self-determination process of the remaining non-self-governing territories, mostly in the Caribbean and Pacific.[ The U.S. delegation to the U.N. has been quite successful in recent years in convincing other member countries to approve reductions in the resources appropriated to the U.N. committee from the U.N. budget, and actively seeks the committee's abolishment on the premise that the remaining non-self-governing territories are, in fact, self-governing after all, regardless of whether any changes have been made to upgrade their political status arrangement. This proposition, of course, is diametrically opposed to the position just approved by the U.S. House of Representatives in the Puerto Rico legislation that defines the island as a colony. This 'two Puerto Rico,' as in 'two China' policy, finds Puerto Rico to be a colony in the U.S. Congress, but self-governing at the U.N. ]
The Popular Democratic Party itself had been divided over whether the commonwealth status is an associated territory, as insisted upon by the party leadership, or a colony, as seen by a growing segment of the party. Advocates within the party for a true form of free association argued for their option to replace the "colonial commonwealth " definition. They did not succeed within the party, but independent groups like the Puerto Rico Organization for Free Association (PROELA), the Puerto Rican Autonomist Commission and the Puerto Rico Democratic Action Foundation worked in favour of the inclusion of the free association option, both on the island and in Washington.
The Cost of Statehood
The issue of the projected cost of statehood was another factor in the debate. It was argued by opponents of the bill that if statehood was ultimately granted, it would cost the U.S. treasury over US3 billion in increased welfare benefits as well as the expansion of other social programmes and "corporate welfare." This view of increased U.S. assistance to Puerto Rico under statehood was supported by a 1990 Report of the Congressional Budget Office and by other more recent studies including a 1996 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) Analysis of Certain Potential Effects of Extending (U.S.) Federal Income Taxation to Puerto Rico, and a 1997 GAO study on Tax Policy-Puerto Rico Economic Trends. A number of private studies, many commissioned by pro-statehood organizations on and off the island, have countered the findings of these federal analyses.
Supporters of the referendum measure, in particular Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner Carlos Romero Barcelo, argued in the debate on the House floor that under statehood, individual Puerto Ricans and corporations based there would contribute over US 4.5 billion in income taxes to the U.S. treasury. But concerns persist that Puerto Rico would be the poorest of the integrated states, would receive more U.S. economic assistance than other states, and would pay the least in taxes to the U.S. treasury. Perhaps the mass defection of Republicans away from their leadership and against the legislation was due in large measure to this potential economic impact. What is also emerging is the concern that the present commonwealth status also comes with its own financial price tag, and an indefinite continuation of the status quo could also come under increased Congressional scrutiny for financial reasons. One outcome of the debate is the increased realization that under the present status, Puerto Rico pays no income taxes to the U.S. treasury.
A rather unlikely alliance in support of the bill was the position taken by the Puerto Rico Independence Party (PIP). In a classic case of the "unity of opposites," both the pro-integration and pro-independence parties argue the same point - that the present commonwealth status is colonial and unsustainable. The two parties only differ with respect to the solution. The PIP which has heightened its level of visibility with the U.S. Congress believes that independence will ultimately win out because, as its President Ruben Berrios told the Washington Times newspaper in March, "If we don't obtain a victory now we will obtain it tomorrow because statehood will never be granted." His argument, which is gaining support among U.S. Congressmen, is that "statehood is totally unacceptable to the United States," and if commonwealth is now properly defined as a colonial problem in need of a solution, the only answer is that of independence.
As an indication of this integration - independence dialectic, Romero-Barcelo argued in the House debate that "the unvarnished truth is that Puerto Rico's colonial status remains unchanged," and that "the intent (in creating the commonwealth status) was to create a provisional government until the issue of status was resolved." As Berrios wrote in the bi-monthly U.S. Foreign Affairs journal last November/December, "Congress has acknowledged that commonwealth is territorial under U.S. law which in turn is colonial under international law,(and a) colonial anachronism."
As the Debate Intensified...
Even the influential words of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan were used to support the bill when Representative Joe Moakley of Massachusetts quoted Reagan's 1982 statement that, "in statehood, the language and culture of (Puerto Rico), rich in history, would be respected," and that "statehood would benefit both the people of the United States" and the people of Puerto Rico. The Ronald Reagan Foundation quickly distanced the former president from the process, however, in a letter to the Congress stating that Reagan "is not now nor will he ever be taking any position on (the current Puerto Rico legislation), the issue of statehood for Puerto Rico, or self-determination for the Puerto Rican people." There was no indication as to why the longstanding Reagan endorsement for statehood was being withdrawn.
In any event, Representative Don Young had later made reference to the support expressed in the 1989 State of the Union Address by Reagan's successor, President George Bush, who "long believed that the people of Puerto Rico should have their right to determine their own political future," and who expressed his personal support for integration. So far, no retraction from former President Bush - but the process is far from complete.
In the end, it was the Democrats who rescued the bill. Only 17 of the 27 Republicans on the House Resources Committee, from which the bill originated, voted in favour of the legislation in the full House. All but one of the same Republicans had voted for the measure at the committee level. The final tally showed some 177 Republicans abandoning their leadership by opposing the bill with only 43 in favour. On the other hand, the Democrats who had earlier in the process balked at the definition of commonwealth, overwhelmingly supported the measure with 165 votes to only 31 against.
The Road Ahead
The narrowness of the vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, the lack of consensus among the members of the majority party in the House, and the often contentious debate over culture, language, dignity, finance, Olympic teams and the like under the statehood option all point to a less than certain future for the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status bill. The legislation now shifts to the U.S. Senate where Majority leader Trent Lott of Mississippi has offered little support for bringing the measure to the Senate floor this year [Of course, Lott has changed his mind before, most recently, in his widely reported reversal of his original call for the expedited completion of the U.S. Special prosecutor Ken Starr's investigation on alleged sexual misconduct of President Clinton ].
In effect, It would be a simple procedure not to take up the politically explosive issue in the Senate this year, simply on the grounds of the crowded Senate calendar and the fewer than normal days of formal session because of elections in November. But Republican Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska, Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with jurisdiction of the Puerto Rico legislation, supports bringing the bill to the Senate floor this year, and several Senate Democrats have also called for debate on the measure. Members of both parties, however, have made it clear that approval will not be easy, in view of the close vote in the House. As the PIP 's Berrios wrote "the traditional policy of Congressional immobility on Puerto Rico seems to be losing ground, though it is still a tempting option for a Congress with a propensity for crisis management."
Puerto Rican politicians are also gearing up for the shift in focus to the Senate. It appeared that the pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party had abandoned its lobbying efforts in the House, in the face of a well documented multi-million dollar campaign for approval of the bill by the pro-integrationist forces, and had concentrated their approach on the Senate. The pro-statehood New Progressive Party was, of course, elated with their victory and have stepped up their efforts to press for a Senate vote based on the "momentum." The Puerto Rican Independence Party, meanwhile, views the narrow victory as consistent with their plan to press the issue, in effect, forcing the U.S. Congress to reject statehood for Puerto Rico - something that Congress has been particularly adept at avoiding over the years.
As the debate accelerates, some experts are betting on the "independentista" strategy. If the Senate does approve a companion measure with a compromise House-Senate version signed by President Clinton, enough momentum might be generated in Puerto Rico for a positive vote in the referendum for statehood (especially with the threatened boycott by the commonwealth forces). But will the U.S. Congress support a state with less than a "supermajority" of the voters, in view of the very real concern among many Congressmen over the "Quebec" syndrome? Or as Berrios asks, "Is the U.S. willing to risk a Caribbean Quebec or a tropical Northern Ireland ?" He noted that "it is one thing to accept individual Jamaicans or Dominicans as immigrants(but) it is quite another to annex entire nations like Jamaica or the Dominican Republic as states." Thus, with statehood rejected and commonwealth discredited, the independence advocates argue, some form of separate sovereignty - either independence or free association - would win by default. This is not an implausible outcome.
Of course, should the Senate takes the safe way out and not address the bill at all - there is a tendency not to take up controversial legislation during an election year - the measure will have to be re-introduced in 1999, possibly with new Congressional members and their own ideas on the subject. The process would then begin anew. In view of what has occurred over many years of debate on this issue, it is difficult to bet against this eventuality either. The Congress may be still dealing with this issue decades into the future.
And so it has...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)