Special Committee on Decolonization
5th & 6th Meetings (AM & PM)
Special Committee on Decolonization Passes Text Urging General Assembly to Consider Formally Situation Concerning Puerto Rico
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2010/gacol3209.doc.htm
Draft Resolution Calls on United States to Expedite Island’s Self-Determination
The Special Committee on Decolonization today approved a draft resolution calling on the Government of the United States to expedite a process that would allow the Puerto Rican people to exercise fully their right to self-determination and independence, and for the General Assembly formally to consider the situation concerning Puerto Rico, which the world body had not formally taken up since the Territory’s removal from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1953.
Pleading their case before the Special Committee.., more than 30 petitioners called on the international community to recognize the Territory’s colonial status, and for both the United Nations and the United States to acknowledge the Puerto Rico Constitutional Assembly as a valid procedural mechanism for decolonization. As explained in the relevant report of the Special Committee, the United States considered the island to have decided freely and democratically to enter into free association with it, and was therefore beyond the purview of United Nations consideration.
With Puerto Rico’s removal from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, a representative of the United States to the United Nations had indicated orally that changes in the relationship could be made through mutual consent (?? OTR ).
However, a majority of petitioners expressed dissatisfaction today with the commonwealth’s treatment by the United States arguing that the administering Power was hampering Puerto Rican decolonization initiatives and those of civil society. While many praised the Special Committee for having approved numerous draft resolutions urging action by the United States, they rued the fact that the General Assembly had yet to open a debate on the situation concerning Puerto Rico, which had allowed the United States to continue acting as a colonizing Power over a country with its own cultural identity.
Cuba’s representative, who tabled the draft resolution, noted that the Special Committee had already approved 28 texts on Puerto Rico in the span of 30 years, to little effect. Action on Puerto Rico’s status should be based on decolonization alternatives enshrined in international law, he emphasized, echoing the sentiment of many other speakers.
One petitioner, a representative of the Puerto Rican Independence Party, expressed deep opposition to plebiscites that asked the people to consider, among its many options, the choice of prolonging colonialism, in contravention of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Like others, he appealed to the Special Committee to persuade the General Assembly to open its doors on the situation concerning Puerto Rico, and to the United Nations to generate international pressure to help the island’s decolonization.
Offering evidence of various forms of discrimination practised by the United States against Puerto Rico, several speakers drew parallels between the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the kind of environmental and social abuse their island faced at the hands of “imperial power”. For example, the military invasion by the United States had led to the pollution of hundreds of acres of land with toxic waste, one petitioner said. Just as President Barack Obama required the oil company BP to take responsibility for the damage it had caused, the United States Government must do the same in Puerto Rico by acknowledging the commonwealth’s Charter and recognizing its right to self-determination.
He went on to say that imperialism had destroyed the island’s once-thriving economy, noting that the unemployment rate currently stood at 17 per cent, while 48 per cent of its citizens relied on federal welfare and 67 per cent lived below the poverty line. Given its deteriorating agriculture sector, Puerto Rico had become completely dependent, currently importing 85 per cent of its necessities from the United States.
Several petitioners also praised the victorious outcome of a massive student strike in Puerto Rico, which had succeeded in fighting off attempts by the University of Puerto Rico to cut back financial aid and increase the cost of education. The way in which the students had deliberated, exchanged views and posed their arguments was a good model to bring forth independence, one youth representative said.
The Special Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m... Tuesday, 22 June, when it is expected to hear petitioners from Western Sahara and New Caledonia, and to action on draft resolutions relating to those two Territories. It was also expected to take up an “omnibus” resolution covering 11 Non-Self-Governing Territories.
Background
The Special Committee on Decolonization met today to consider a report on the Special Committee decision of 15 June 2009 concerning Puerto Rico (document A/AC.109/64/L.4), and a related draft resolution (document A/AC.109/64/L.8).
Presented by the Rapporteur, the report states that the island Territory has commonwealth status, with the United States Congress holding plenary power over Puerto Rico, which is vested with local authority over designated areas. The Territory is represented in the United States Government by a Resident Commissioner, who is a non-voting member of the House of Representatives, but a voting member of any committees on which he or she sits. United States citizenship is granted to people born in Puerto Rico, but they do not have the right to vote in presidential or congressional elections unless they reside on the mainland.
According to the report, the United States has maintained since 1953 that Puerto Rico decided freely and democratically to enter into free association with it and is therefore beyond the purview of United Nations consideration. The representative of the United States to the United Nations at the time indicated orally that changes in the relationship could be made through mutual consent, yet as recently as June 2008, the then Governor of Puerto Rico denounced this reality during hearings of the Special Committee. In June 2009, the Special Committee held a meeting with organizations requesting to be heard on Puerto Rico, but did not submit a draft resolution on the issue to the Assembly.
The report says several plebiscites have been held to determine what Puerto Ricans think the island’s status should be, sometimes with controversial outcomes. According to a 1993 plebiscite, for example, 48.4 per cent wished to retain the status quo, with close to 46.2 per cent preferring statehood and 4 per cent wanting independence. In 1998, however, when a local political party introduced a “None of the above” option, 50.4 per cent of those voting supported it, prompting President Bill Clinton to create the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status in response. The Task Force recognized only three choices for Puerto Ricans: the status quo; statehood; or independence.
In May 2009, a bill titled “The Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009” was tabled in Congress, which, if enacted, would provide for a choice between retaining the present political status or choosing a new one, the report says. If the first option prevailed, the question would be revisited in eight years. If the second option prevailed, another plebiscite would follow, presenting the options of statehood, independence, or independence in free association with the United States. In July 2009, the House Committee on Natural Resources approved the draft bill, which was placed on the Union Calendar of the United States Congress in October 2009. The press in Puerto Rico reported widely that on 2 January 2009, President-elect Barack Obama sent a message to the swearing-in ceremony for Luis Fortuño, the new Governor of Puerto Rico, reiterating his intention to try and resolve the colonial case of Puerto Rico during his first term.
The report notes that apart from general political questions, three specific issues have been raised before the Special Committee in recent years: the United States military presence in Puerto Rico, particularly on the island of Vieques; the imprisonment in the United States of pro-independence Puerto Ricans accused of seditious conspiracy and weapons possession; and the application of the death penalty to Puerto Ricans convicted on federal charges. The issue of growing political persecution has also been raised.
On the western portion of Vieques, the United States Navy operated an ammunition facility until 1948, reactivating it in 1962 until its final closure in 2001, the report continues. The Navy also managed approximately 14,600 acres on the eastern portion of Vieques, where it detonated explosives. Unexploded ordnance and remnants of exploded ordnance containing hazardous substances have been identified there as well as in the surrounding waters.
The report states that in the 2007 lawsuit Sánchez v. United States, Vieques residents collectively seek health and property damages amounting to billions of dollars, claiming that the United States Navy was negligent in exposing the island’s 10,000-strong population to dangerous levels of toxins for more than 50 years, which led to a cancer rate 30 times higher than that of the rest of Puerto Rico, in addition to other long-term effects.
By the terms of the draft resolution on the Special Committee decision of 15 June 2009 concerning Puerto Rico (document A/AC.109/64/L.8), the General Assembly would call upon the Government of the United States to expedite a process that will allow the Puerto Rican people to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence, in accordance and full compliance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the resolutions and decisions of the Special Committee concerning Puerto Rico.
Referring to the use of Vieques Island for military exercises over 60 years, and noting the inhabitants’ complaints about the use of open burning for clean-up, the text would have the Assembly urge the United States Government to cover the costs of clean-up and decontamination, which should be carried out in ways that do not aggravate the health of island inhabitants or the environment.
Also by the draft, the Assembly would express serious concern about actions carried out against Puerto Rican independence fighters, and request the President of the United States to release Oscar Lopez Rivera and Carlos Alberto Torres, imprisoned for more than 28 years, as well as Avelino Gonzalez Claudio, all Puerto Rican political prisoners serving sentences relating to the struggle for the Territory’s independence.
Petitioners
ARTURO L. HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ of the Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico said the group was one of the Territory’s oldest civilian institutions and the oldest professional body in the Western hemisphere. Remarking that the United Nations was still struggling to eliminate colonialism at the end of the Second International Decade, even as his own people remained under its yoke, he urged the Special Committee to treat their case with the importance it deserved. By its lack of attention, the United States Government was hampering decolonization initiatives by civil society and the people of Puerto Rico, he said, noting that the outcomes of plebiscites were being ignored.
He also denounced United States persecution of Puerto Rican citizens through aggression against journalists and even “fabricated” cases aimed against people fighting for independence. Federal territorial authorities had accused two former Governors of wrongdoing, indicating that the United States had its own de facto representatives in the Puerto Rican Government to act against the island’s best interests. The Territory was also hampered economically by its inability to enter into international and bilateral agreements to mitigate the effects of the global economic crisis. It was not allowed to develop its transportation sector at its ports because of the presence of the United States Navy, and thousands of people in Government and the private sector had lost their jobs.
Capital punishment was being imposed on the Territory’s citizens, he said, adding that the body of lawyers in Puerto Rico was urging that the Constitutional Assembly be used as the proper mechanism for decolonization. What remained was for the United States to shoulder its responsibility to refrain from hampering the process, and to acknowledge Puerto Rico’s right to convene the Constitutional Assembly. Since the Special Committee had been created to defend human rights and eliminate colonialism, it should condemn the United States for its actions and urge the General Assembly to act on the issue without delay, he stressed.
IVAN A. RIVERA REYES, of the Puerto Rican civil society organization PROELA, recalled that the General Assembly had proclaimed 2001-2010 the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, and said Puerto Rico was a “symbolic case” in that regard. In 1953, the Assembly had taken no action on what had then been a new situation. Since then, the United States Congress had continued to exercise power over the island, ignoring its international obligations. The recurrent appointment of various committees by the administering Power was intended to show others that “things were being done” to resolve the issue, but to no end.
Instead of submitting its second report to the Human Rights Commissioner on the issue, Congress had chosen to debate a draft without making concrete progress, he said. While the White House maintained a team to craft the report, President Obama had made no attempt to respect the promise to produce one. The Puerto Rican people, acting to defend their economic, political and social rights, had suffered persecution at the hand of federal agencies, he said, adding that there had been attempts to impose capital punishment through the Territory’s federal authorities.
He went on to state that the United States took unilateral decisions whose consequences ranged from affecting the price of milk to influencing the results of domestic elections, such as when it had groundlessly accused a Governor of wrongdoing. There was a need for creative solutions to eliminate the colonial situation of the remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories, of which Puerto Rico was an example, he said, calling on the Special Committee to acknowledge the validity of the Constitutional Assembly and to request an opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Territory. He asked the Special Committee to examine ways to facilitate independence or other options for self-determination in Puerto Rico.
MANUEL RIVERA, President of Puertorriqueña Unidos En Accion (PUA), said decolonization for one of the world’s oldest colonies remained unachieved while the colonizers created obstacles to the achievement of sovereignty. Recalling the ways in which the United States Government compelled the Territory to submit to colonization by consent, he said discussion of the Territory’s situation should be conducted before the Special Committee, in order to resolve it once and for all.
It was also necessary to transfer sovereign power so as to allow the Territory’s people to exercise their right of self-determination, he continued. Any efforts undertaken to permit that should guarantee a constituent assembly to assist in deciding the political future. Furthermore, there must also be guarantees on the freeing of political prisoners fighting for independence. Given that the island had been subjected to more than 500 years of anti-colonial battles, it could not longer stand to be the result of mistakes, he said.
OMAR LOPEZ of Alianza pro Libre Asociación Soberana, recalling that resolution 1541 established the right of free association, noted that at least one of the several Member States that had come into existence through the exercise of free association should be a member of the Special Committee. Since little time was left, it was to be hoped that President Obama would stick to his word and address the situation during his first term.
Turning to the Special Committee’s work, he called its lack of activity “regrettable”, saying it prohibited the situation from being considered by the Assembly, which created feelings of abandonment on the part of the Territory’s citizens. A lack of urgency and diligence only served to perpetuate the island’s colonial status, taking away the soul and will of the people, he said, calling for a clear deadline for discussions as well as one for initiating a process of decolonization. Sanctions should be imposed on the United States unless it complied with such a process, he emphasized.
NILDA LUZ REXACH, National Advancement for Puerto Rican Culture, said the United Nations should focus on the fundamental problem, which was one of legal and moral rights, and which was up to the United States Congress to resolve. The United States Government had awarded citizenship to Puerto Rican people, but the island’s administration remained colonial in nature. While United States citizens had the same rights no matter where they lived, that was not the case for Puerto Ricans, she said, pointing out that its people had shed blood in that country’s wars. They had worked hand-in-hand with other Americans in every aspect of American life. A vast majority of Puerto Ricans wanted statehood and Congress to implement their rights. They also wanted representation in the House and Senate, as well as the right to elect the President.
Asserting that the last Governor had been “lying to the Puerto Rican people and United States Congress”, she said fraud had been perpetrated in the last elections. Pointing out that her new book, Life-Saving Recipes, had sold three million copies, she said she was known to have helped more people than United States politicians, and had won an award for being the best teacher in the United States, of which she was proud. By becoming a state, Puerto Ricans would not pay additional taxes, as some leaders in Puerto Rico had argued. “Statehood” was a beautiful word, she said, adding that she would seek thousands of signatures on a petition for statehood.
JOSÉ ADAMES, Puerto Rican Cultural and Literary Organization, described the Territory as the fifty-first of the United States and said it had suffered discrimination for more than 100 years. When Puerto Rican people had been declared United States citizens, it had been thought that it was merely a matter of time before an announcement of statehood, as had been the case for Hawaii and Alaska. However, while those two other territories had later been declared states, Puerto Rico had not. It had eventually been allowed to elect its own Governor, but other forms of discrimination remained, despite the fact that the Territory had more people than Alaska.
Recalling that Puerto Ricans had been recruited to fight in the United States armed forces since the Second World War, he said more of them had died in that country’s wars than citizens from its other states. Half the Puerto Rican population lived in the United States, and many army reservists and retirees were Puerto Ricans, and many other American institutions had Puerto Ricans within their ranks. For its part, Cuba was using the case to distract the United Nations from the quest to create a free world, he said.
The representative of Cuba intervened to emphasize that Puerto Rico and Cuba both harboured “annexists” who opposed independence, sometimes openly and sometimes covertly, but since the issue in question was Puerto Rico and not Cuba, the Chair was urged to ask speakers to keep to the issue at hand.
Mr. ADAMES agreed to desist from mentioning other countries, and went on to stress that Puerto Ricans wanted their own senators and congressmen to represent them in the United States legislature, and they also wished to participate in electing the President of the United States. It was time for the Special Committee to put on its agenda other cases involving people who lived without freedom, and for the United States Congress to “stop playing games”.
FERNANDO J. MARTIN, Puerto Rican Independence Party, thanked the delegation that that had put forward the draft resolution on the situation concerning Puerto Rico, and called on other members of the Special Committee to support the text. He said the heads of the socialist movements in Panama and Argentina would be appearing at the meeting later, signifying the readiness of the Latin America and Caribbean region to assert its continental identity in ways extending beyond the narrow ideological barriers of the past. The draft resolution would encourage the United States to eliminate colonialism, in accordance with international law, and to condemn the repression of independence movements.
He went on to say that the text called for the release of political prisoners in the United States, and of no less importance, it called on the General Assembly to examine the case of Puerto Rico in all its aspects. In addition to insisting on the urgency of the need to decolonize Puerto Rico, it presented a “warning” against a recently adopted bill, which constituted a “farce” by seeking to offer the continuation of colonialism as an alternative for self-determination. The United Nations must generate international pressure to decolonize Puerto Rico, he said, emphasizing that the Independence Party was deeply opposed to plebiscites that contemplated prolonging colonialism, contrary to resolution 1514. The Special Committee must work to open the doors of the General Assembly to Puerto Rico’s case, he stressed.
HECTOR PESQUERA SEVILLANO, Acting President of the Comision Internacional, said the overall ecological and economical damage resulting from the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico could not compare to the economic and social damage caused by Puerto Rico’s colonization by the United States. Throughout history, the wave of imperialism had destroyed the island’s once-thriving economy, he said, noting that the unemployment rate currently stood at 17 per cent, while 48 per cent of the Territory’s citizens relied on federal welfare and 67 per cent lived below the poverty line. Given its deteriorating agriculture sector, the island had become completely dependent, currently importing 85 per cent of its necessities from the United States.
The military invasion by the United States had not only led to the pollution of hundreds of acres of land with toxic waste, it had also condemned the Territory to dependency and crushed its people’s self-esteem, he continued. The serious economic and social damage wreaked by the administering Power had led to the issuance of a $60,000,000,000 public debt and caused the mass exodus of more than 4 million people. Just as President Obama required BP to take responsibility for the damage it had caused, the United States Government must do the same in Puerto Rico by acknowledging the Charter and recognizing the island’s right to self-determination. Inviting the Special Committee to visit Puerto Rico and directly view its critical colonial situation, he urged it to shoulder its responsibility to present the case to the General Assembly.
EDUARDO VILLAÑUEVA MUNOZ, El Comite de Derechos Humanos de Puerto Rico, said 2010 was a significant year, marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Puerto Rican case. The United States Congress was trying to develop, as an alternative to plebiscites, the continuation of the status quo, which was a devious ploy to interfere with the self-determination movement. In fact, no amendment could be made to the Puerto Rican Constitution if it was seen to be incompatible with the United States Constitution, the Federal Relations Act and other such congressional acts, which demonstrated Puerto Rico’s colonial status.
In 1952, a resolution calling on the United States to end the colonial regime, had been denounced by many in Puerto Rico as a monumental hoax, he said, urging President Obama to listen to his fellow Nobel Peace Prize winners Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Rigoberta Manchu and Desmond Tutu, who had called for a true attempt to enable Puerto Ricans to exercise their right to self-determination. Other examples of conditions imposed on the island against the will of Puerto Ricans included: poisoning the environment; instituting the death penalty against Puerto Ricans; phone tapping; and federalizing the criminal processes in Puerto Rico.
Calling upon President Obama to respect Puerto Rico and its sovereignty, and to allow Puerto Ricans to join the rest of the world, he said the President could not very well call for the release of political prisoners in other countries when he held political prisoners himself. Perhaps the President and the Special Committee delegates present today should take inspiration from the President’s own words, to the effect that sinful situations should be fought. Establishing a colonial regime was a sinful act which Puerto Ricans would fight until their last breath, he declared.
JAN SUSLER, National Lawyer’s Guild International Committee, said the organization had been formed as an alternative to the American Bar Association, which at one time did not admit people of colour. Since its founding, it had maintained an internationalist perspective and its Guild members had a long history of defending Puerto Rican activists. Recalling that both houses of Congress had recently considered legislation proposed by the non-voting Resident Commissioner on Puerto Rico’s colonial status, she said that, while a fellow proponent had made clear that it was not meant as an invitation for Puerto Rico to become the fifty-first state, it had been widely seen as promoting that very result.
As for the plebiscites, the outcomes of which were non-binding, she said the island’s main daily newspaper — traditionally conservative on the status question — had denounced them as an insensitive charade that continued to lacerate the self-esteem and collective sprit of the Puerto Rican people. Congressional process did not begin to approach compliance with the Special Committee’s resolutions, she said, pointing out that there was, in fact, no formal office of the United States Government charged with administering the Territory. The President’s Task Force held poorly attended sessions to hear handpicked witnesses, she said.
Certain processes undertaken by the colonial administration threatened the movement toward self-determination, she continued. The pro-statehood side had initiated policies causing thousands of Government employees to be laid off, and giving themselves emergency powers to effect fiscal measures. It had packed
the legislature with loyal pro-statehood members, attempted to do away with the Puerto Rican Bar Association, threatened to privatize the higher education system, slashed the budgets of institutions that preserved and promulgate Puerto Rican culture, moved against a squatter community of immigrants, displaced other workers and squandered public money.
Urging the Special Committee to visit the Puerto Rico, she described the popular resistance on the island to human rights violations, including through stoppages and strikes, which enjoyed broad participation by labour and other sectors of society. She also described some positive developments: the longest held political prisoner in the United States, a Puerto Rican, had recently been granted parole. However, prison officials had rejected a request by another long-serving prisoner to visit his sister on her deathbed, she added, asking the Special Committee to do what it had always done in the past, through its 28 resolutions.
WILMA REVERÓN COLLAZO, COPRONU, underlining the continuing necessity for the United States to decontaminate and clean up the island of Vieques, called for more proactive international support, saying the United States had “built a wall” around the Territory, impeding its participation in dialogue with the international community.
It was clear that the United States did not take recurrent calls for action seriously, she said, adding that the reasons for such conduct were obvious: previous pronouncements had no effect unless followed up by action, without which the United States had been allowed to “sweep the case under the carpet”. Since several fraudulent actions by the administering Power had gone without consequence, it was imperative to put the situation concerning Puerto Rico to the General Assembly, she said, urging the Special Committee to amend its outreach materials and break the wall of silence created by the United States. The Special Committee must not make itself an accomplice through silence.
MANUEL LAGUARDA, Vice-President, Partido Socialista del Uruguay, expressed, on behalf of citizens of Latin America and the Caribbean, full support and backing for Puerto Rico’s case, citing its continuing colonial status as an affront to all countries in the region. He called on the General Assembly to consider the case comprehensively, and urged the United States to begin a process that would allow for the Territory’s people to exercise their right to self-determination and independence.
Colonial arguments could not be adopted by consent, he pointed out, emphasizing that any resolution must be adopted by the people of the island and uphold their right to call for independence. In effort to involve Puerto Rico in the national endeavours of Latin American and Caribbean countries, he called on all Governments in the region to coordinate their initiatives to assist in getting the situation concerning Puerto Rico considered by the General Assembly.
MARTIN TORRIJOS, Comite de la Internacional Socialista para America Latina y el Caribe, said the rhetoric long used by those opposing the anti-colonial movement had the effect of framing the matter as being anti-United States. However, with the ending of the cold war, anti-Americanism was no longer a valid excuse for those opposing colonialism. Culturally, Puerto Rico was a Latin American country globally recognized as a major source of Hispanic culture.
The Special Committee had itself stated that fact many times, as it called for the United States to set in motion a process by which Puerto Ricans could exercise their self-determination, he recalled. Indeed, for more than 20 years, the situation concerning Puerto Rico had been restated in numerous resolutions adopted by consensus without any objection from any Member State. Puerto Rico was the only Hispanic American nation under a colonial regime, and correcting that anomaly was a matter of principle. He said his Committee stood ready to offer its good offices towards that process, which would also be valid for other peoples in the region seeking that same goal.
RICHARD LOPEZ, El Frente Patriotico Arecibeno, addressed the matter of scientific experiments conducted in the upper atmosphere which used nuclear explosions to deflect radiation back into space. Citing a report which documented the effects of the explosions, which were harmful to both people and the environment, he said the United States carried them out “with full intent”, and they constituted “an act of environmental terrorism”, since particles emitted as a result of the experiments were loaded with nuclear radiation.
Among other experiments producing the same effect were geo-engineering experiments to relieve global warming by producing seed clouds, he continued, noting that they had been brought to the attention of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) since they contravened rules prohibiting the use of arms to affect the climate. As a colony, however, Puerto Rico could not take part in such international meetings, yet the military installations on the island were comparable to those in Poland, with its anti-missile shields. Such activities violated Puerto Ricans’ right to life and affected their environment, he said.
PAULA SANTIAGO, El Partido Nacionalista de Puerto Rico, Movimiento Libertador, expressed hope that, with the help of the world’s free countries, Puerto Rico would regain its sovereignty. The Special Committee had examined the situation since the adoption of resolution 1514. Since then, the United States Government had consistently been urged to allow Puerto Ricans their right to self-determination, she said, calling also for the release of political prisoners and an end to the persecution of pro-independence fighters. She expressed concern that after approving several draft resolutions, the Special Committee had still not placed the matter before the General Assembly.
The United States continued to exploit and dominate the Territory, making it aid-dependent, she said, pointing out that federal funding for Puerto Rico amounted to several hundred million dollars, while the Territory’s own economic revenue ran only into the tens of millions. United States-based companies carried out their trade throughout the island, in a situation of unbridled exploitation typical of colonialism. Last June, the private sector had been forced to lay off thousands of workers, she said, noting that, in the meantime, the United States Government had successfully avoided reporting on its administration of Puerto Rico. The situation concerning Puerto Rico must be properly examined by the Assembly and the administering Power submit its reports as required, she stressed, while expressing gratitude to Cuba for its commitment to the cause.
ALEIDA CENTENO, American Association of Jurists, urged the Special Committee to take the necessary actions for the rights of the Territory’s people. Citing several examples of biological damage caused by military operations, she said environmental assessments of the experiments conducted by the United States military indicted negative effects from nuclear radiation. Puerto Rican authorities had formally acknowledged a statement by the United States Navy that it had used shells containing uranium, she said, noting that the Navy was known to have kept a nuclear weapons stockpile on the island since 1965, in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), among others.
The actions of the United States continued to ignore the safety, health, welfare, human rights and socio-economic development of the Puerto Rican people, she said. By evading its responsibilities, as set forth in the Charter, through “dubious legislation”, the United States was avoiding its international responsibility to the Territory and other countries affected by its military activity. That activity polluted land while also destroying agriculture and human health, she said, adding that the United States was at war with Puerto Rico and that it was imperative to bring the matter to the General Assembly.
RUBEN GIUSTINIANI, Partido Socialista de Argentina, said the Argentine Senate fully supported the case, in light of the belief that achieving freedom of self-determination was a struggle in itself. Human rights such as equality, liberty and justice should apply to all, he said, adding that the Government of Argentina deemed Puerto Rico’s cause to be its own and reaffirmed the calls for recognition of its right to self-determination and independence. Calling for the Assembly to examine the situation, he said it was “duty-bound” to do so, given that Puerto Rico remained a colony 50 years after the adoption of resolution 1514 (XV).
He appealed to the United States Government to initiate a process that would allow the Territory’s people to exercise their rights in accordance with the rules of international law. Seeking to maintain the island’s colonial status would be unacceptable because freedom of self-determination was essential to the concept of human rights and should not be subject to plebiscites. Underscoring that colonial enclaves were the result of outstanding issues in international law, he expressed hope that colonization by force would soon be consigned to the past, since the twenty-first century was a time of peace, justice and liberty.
CARMEN GONZALEZ ARIAS, Political Coalition against Capital Punishment, spoke on behalf of other like-minded organizations, which she listed, before appealing to the Special Committee to include the issue of applying the death penalty in Puerto Rico in the draft resolution, especially since the matter so dramatically impinged on the Territory’s right to self-determination. Puerto Rico was the only jurisdiction whose constituents had rejected capital punishment, having legislated its abolition and elevated the Territory’s anti-death-penalty stance to constitutional status. Yet, it remained subject to United States legislation, which still allowed that form of punishment, she said.
Puerto Rico’s federal authority had not been delegated the power to impose the death penalty, but could impose federal laws, which might include having to punish someone by death, she explained. However, because of its status, Puerto Rico lacked the power to refuse the extradition of Puerto Ricans who might face capital punishment to the United States. That aberration persisted because there was no means by which Puerto Ricans could pursue self-determination, she said, asking the Special Committee to require the United States Congress to declare a moratorium on cases leading to the death penalty, and to refer the situation concerning Puerto Rica be to the General Assembly.
NORMITA APONTE RIVERA, Comite Familiares y Amigos Avelino Gonzalez Claudio, recounted the arrest of Mr. Gonzalez Claudio and 15 others by the United States Government in February 2008. Accused of planning an illegal operation, Mr. Gonzalez Claudio had demanded during his appearance before the Puerto Rico Imperial Court that the Government comply with resolution 1514 (XV) and that he be tried in Puerto Rico, as was his right. While in prison, he had suffered inhuman treatment, she said, adding that he had contracted Parkinson’s disease. Earlier this year, he had been sentenced to seven years in prison, but doctors felt he could not survive incarceration. A campaign was under way for his release, she said.
She demanded that the Committee take a stand against the prevailing regime in Puerto Rico, and that the United States be urged to recognize the island’s right to self-determination under the relevant resolutions. She added that the administering Power should be asked to withdraw its military, legal and political apparatuses from Puerto Rico. In order for decolonization to become a reality, power must be transferred from the United States to the people of Puerto Rico, she emphasized.
BENJAMÍN RAMOS ROSADO, The ProLibertad Freedom, described the imprisonment of Puerto Rican pro-independence fighters as an “international human rights violation and an act of repression of the Puerto Rican independence movement”. While the Special Committee had made history through its ground-breaking and unified fight against colonialism, the United States continued to evade its responsibilities to the Territory. As a colonized people, Puerto Ricans were considered second-class citizens at the mercy of the foreign and domestic policy of the United States, he said, adding that those who spoke out and took action against the island’s colonization were either assassinated or incarcerated.
Making a case for the remaining three political prisoners, he said that before their incarceration, they had been involved in activities for social justice and civil rights, fighting against the “intolerable and unacceptable” colonial reality. When captured, the United States Government had issued punitive and excessive sentences, given that the accused had no previous criminal records. During their incarceration, the prisoners had experienced several violations of their human rights, he said, stressing that they should be released as they were not “terrorists or dangerous fanatics trying to destroy the American way of life”, as the United States had claimed, but rather simply Puerto Ricans “struggling for freedom and fighting against an imperial monster”.
ISMAEL GUADALUPE ORTIZ, Movimiento de Afirmaci ón Viequense, noted that the island of Vieques continued to be exposed to dangerous weapons despite the end of military operations. Thousands of bombs that had landed in the area but failed to detonate were now doing so, he said. During clean-up efforts, the United States Marines had begun to detonate them in the open air or burn them in the fields where they had fallen, burning what little vegetation those fields offered and contaminating such areas. That practice was an affront to the people of Vieques and a mockery of the international community, he said.
A major impact of the United States presence in Vieques was the general deterioration of human health and the environment, as well as economic stagnation, he said. Unfortunately, the United States had refused to carry out adequate cleaning processes, return occupied lands, or reimburse the people of Vieques for the harm done. The island’s population had proven to be generally less healthy, with a mortality rate 40 per cent higher than that of the rest of the Puerto Rican population. More than 60 years of military exercises on Vieques had yielded extremely negative impacts for the island’s people in addition to eliminating local economies, he said.
LUIS VEGA RAMOS, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico House of Representatives, spoke on behalf of a group of Puerto Rican democratic political parties, saying that the group had developed a bill rejecting any so-called decolonization procedure that predisposed the result in favour of annexation by the United States, and rejected plebiscites that included a colonial option.
He said the Special Committee must approve a draft resolution reiterating the Territory’s inalienable right to sovereignty in free association, and that the National Assembly on Status was the legitimate body to channel the right to self-determination, an item mentioned in a resolution drawn up by the group.
The group would support an accelerated decolonization process leading to the free association of sovereign States, where the power of a nation over its own people resided with those very people, he said. The world had changed and it was important to build a sovereign Puerto Rico that could become competitive in the world economy.
FRANCISCO VELGARA, Frente Socialista de Puerto Rico, spoke on behalf of a group of pro-socialist organizations, saying he had spoken many times against the actions of the colonial Power. The Special Committee should take an energetic stand against imperialism, and the United States should be made to recognize Puerto Rico’s right to pursue independence.
Touching on several issues, he noted that open detonations of explosives had destroyed Vieques and its environs, and called for a Special Observer from the United Nations to be assigned to that issue. He also spoke out against the imposition of the death penalty by the United States, which was prohibited in Puerto Rico. He called for the immediate withdrawal of United States military and legal apparatuses, and said the Territory’s current governmental apparatus was “under the hands” of the United States Government, and allowed easy trafficking of drugs and illegal weapons.
MARTIN KOPPEL, Socialist Workers Party, praised the thousands of students who had recently gained a victory in their two month strike, noting that in doing so, they had fought an attempt to increase the cost of education and reduce the number of students receiving education subsidies. The federal authorities had also been hard at work freezing salaries and firing Government workers, and in so doing, ensuring that those with “imperialist bonds” got paid, including oil industry employees.
He said the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico was an example of what was happening in Puerto Rico every day. The Puerto Rican people were subject to systematic discrimination, he said, demanding freedom for various political prisoners. He cited examples in the United States whereby civil liberties were being curtailed, and pointed to the Cuban revolution, which had shown that it was possible for the people to seize power and help their country achieve true independence against colonizers.
MANUEL RODRÍGUEZ BANCHS, Spokesperson for the Movimiento al Socialismo, noted there was no bilateral pact between Puerto Rico and the United States, since the United States Constitution allowed no such arrangement. In light of the open acknowledgement by the United States that Puerto Rico was a colony, there was a strong need to find a democratic solution to the Territory’s situation, he said.
Citing several examples of human rights violations resulting from the imposition of United States federal laws, he highlighted the situation of trade unions, pointing out that the right to organize was not upheld in the Territory, and those who attempted to exercise the right to strike were harassed, pressured, suspended or thrown out of work.
Another major issue was that the United States Government imposed the death penalty, causing a compounding of tensions since the Territory strictly prohibited it. Such actions only served to “trample on the democratic rights of the people”, he stressed. Since the United States had continued its colonization of the island through the repression of social struggles, the General Assembly must take up the situation of Puerto Rico as a priority, and the United States must begin an immediate withdrawal of all its forces.
Action on Draft Resolution
The Special Committee paused its hearing of petitioners in order to take action on the draft resolution relating to its decision of 9 June 2008 concerning Puerto Rico (document A/AC.109/2010/L.8). The representative of Egypt, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, noted that the Special Committee had already approved 28 resolutions or decisions on the subject. The Non-Aligned Movement welcomed the consensus approval and the strong support they enjoyed among the membership, which was in full agreement with its traditional positions on Puerto Rico. The Movement called on the United States Government to assume its responsibility to expedite a process that would allow the Puerto Rican people to exercise fully their inalienable right to self-determination and independence. It urged the return of occupied land on Vieques Island and the Roosevelt Roads Naval Stations. It further urged the General Assembly to consider actively the situation of Puerto Rico in all its aspects.
The representative of Venezuela, associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said that as a co-sponsor of the draft, his country gave its absolute and unconditional support to the people of Puerto Rico. Although the United Nations had removed the situation concerning Puerto Rico from the list of colonial territories in 1953, its people continued to be denied their right to sovereignty. Venezuela reiterated the call to the Government of the United States to assume responsibility for expediting the self-determination process in Puerto Rico, adding that the recent final declaration of the Ninth Summit of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, made on 1 May, reiterated the commitment of those countries to Puerto Rico’s decolonization.
The representative of Nicaragua, associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said his country continued to champion the right to self-determination and independence, particularly in the case of Puerto Rico, which was a Latin American and Caribbean nation of “extraordinary perseverance” in its fight to exercise its inalienable rights. More than 50 years since adopting resolution 1514, the General Assembly had still not considered the situation in-depth, which had led to continued suffering of the Puerto Rican people, he said.
He called on the United States to shoulder its responsibility to abide by international norms, saying it was urgent that it immediately begin implementing the 28 resolutions approved by the Special Committee in order to end its colonization of the Territory, which hampered Puerto Rican’s efforts to regain its freedom. Puerto Rico had consistently expressed its anti-colonial stance and clear-cut dissatisfaction with its current situation.
In light of the Territory’s painfully clear demands, Nicaragua continued to act in solidarity with Puerto Rican people’s “arduous struggle for emancipation”, he said, calling for the immediate release of Puerto Rican political prisoners. It was to be hoped that the Territory would not continue to be the exception to both the Latin American and Caribbean States and the United Nations, but rather a fully fledged Member State, enjoying its freedom and independence.
The representative of Ecuador, also associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, called self-determination “a human right that States are compelled to respect”, saying that human rights principles should be applicable to all, including Puerto Rico. The situation of the Territory, “a fully Latin American and Caribbean country”, had been before the Special Committee for more than 30 years, yet there had been no concrete expression that could lead to the elimination of colonization, he stressed. Ecuador associated itself with the demands for the Assembly to consider in a serious manner the situation concerning Puerto Rico in all its aspects. The Government of Ecuador supported the draft resolution and was honoured to be a co-sponsor, he said.
The representative of Bolivia, also associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said the culture of colonialism based in an interventionist past systematically violated human rights. It promoted the creation of new forms of colonization which were incompatible with the desire of colonized peoples’ to obtain freedom. How would discussions on the Puerto Rican reality go when a main element of the Charter was not recognized with respect to the island’s people when the United States Constitution conferred the power of control over vital areas such as trade, worker ownership controls, communications, air and maritime spaces and education, among others?
Undeniably, most Puerto Ricans had reached consensus in their anti-colonial sentiments, and it was therefore critical to continue the decolonization process, he stressed. The Special Committee, having approved 29 draft resolutions since 1972, had reaffirmed its commitment to the Puerto Rican people’s exercise of their inalienable rights and their future within the framework of the Charter and international law. In that light, the Assembly should include the situation concerning Puerto Rico on its agenda and deal with it broadly, he said. Since the Territory desperately needed to escape its colonial status and decide its own future by virtue of its identity and culture, Ecuador urged action on the case. As long as one population remained under colonialism, the draft resolution should be adopted without delay, he said.
The representative of Syria remarked that the right sought by the people of Puerto Rico was enshrined in resolution 1514 (XV) and in the United Nations Charter. That and previous resolutions reaffirmed their right to self-determination and independence, as well as the Puerto Rican people’s identity as part of the Latin American and Caribbean community. Syria asked the United States Government to assume its responsibilities in respect of their self-determination.
Associating himself with the final declaration of the Non-Aligned Movement at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt affirmed its well-known, traditional position on the situation concerning Puerto Rico, saying his country hoped for consensus on the draft resolution, as in the past, thereby giving the issue some legitimacy.
The representative of Iran, also associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, noted that the Special Committee had been entrusted with the cause of ending colonialism, and reaffirmed Puerto Rico’s right to self-determination. He expressed hope that the draft resolution would be approved by consensus, which would send a strong message on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico in their pursuit of self-determination and independence.
Acting without a vote, the Special Committee then approved the draft resolution.
Following that action, the representative of Cuba said the unanimous approval of the text was of particular importance, noting that 29 decisions and resolutions had been adopted over a period of nearly 40 years. He thanked all delegates that had spoken on the draft, noting that their number had increased over the year. He especially thanked the Non-Aligned Movement, which was over 100-strong, and also acknowledged the Puerto Rican petitioners who had travelled far to appear before the Special Committee. They were a vibrant example of the long struggle of the Puerto Rican people for their rights, he said, noting that 2010 marked the fiftieth anniversary of the emblematic resolution 1514 (XV), and that the United States intervention in Puerto Rico had lasted 112 years.
Cuba and Puerto Rico were united for many reasons, he said, recalling that the Cuban Revolutionary Party had been created to achieve Cuba’s absolute independence and to assist in that of Puerto Rico, both of which had been subjected to Spanish colonial rule and military intervention by the United States. More than 2,000 Puerto Ricans had bled in the Cuban fields during the struggle for independence, which Cuba would never forget. The deep solidarity between the two countries would remain. “They were the two wings of a bird, receiving flowers and bullets in the same heart,” he said, quoting a famous poet. Cuba would always defend Puerto Rico’s right to self-determination and independence, and hoped for the day it would join the Special Committee in fighting for the rights of others.
Resumption by Petitioners
JOSE LUIS CONCEPCION, Movimiento Patriotico Canario, said it was hard to understand that there were still Territories that had not regained their freedom, as was the case for Puerto Rico, colonized by Spain in the sixteenth century, after that Power had landed in the Canary Islands. In 1898, Spain had sold Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Philippines to the United States. Describing colonialism as contrary to human rights principles, he said the defence of human rights was a cause of universal justice and colonialism was akin to treason.
AURA COLON SOLA of the youth group Juventud Hostosiana noted that there had been no change or improvement in Puerto Rico’s status in recent years. Decolonization would not be achieved by choosing from among a limited number of choices imposed by others, but by allowing the people themselves to choose. People needed the freedom to make economic, social and political decisions in the running of their own State, she said, adding that Puerto Rico could not be said to enjoy equality with the United States if it did not enjoy equality with other members of the international community. The Territory’s Charter, which promulgated the right to labour, public health and other rights, had been overridden by the United States Constitution, undermining the rights of the Puerto Rican people. And yet, it was through the commonwealth’s incomplete constitution that the United States claimed that the Puerto Rican people had freely chosen free association status with it.
She said that during their recent strike in Puerto Rico, students deprived of their basic needs had deliberated on each aspect of university life, including how to ensure equal access to public universities. It would appear that a new generation had sprung up over the years which valued tolerance, democracy and justice. The way in which they had deliberated, exchanged views and posed their arguments was the model that the Puerto Rican people should follow to bring forth independence, which was an inalienable right and an option that could not be withheld. It must be arrived at through a process of public reasoning, she stressed, adding in connection with the plebiscites, that a public vote on Puerto Rico’s status must take place in a context of adequate access to information and freedom to disagree.
JORGE L. LIMERES, Comite Pro Independencia de Puerto Rico de Connecticut said independence was the ultimate solution to Puerto Rico’s predicament, although some Puerto Ricans would not agree. In fact, long before it had been invaded by the United States in 1898, the island had been a nation with its own personality, he said, noting that circumstances had intervened to prevent it from achieving independence like other Latin American nations. While Puerto Rico still hesitated, it would continue to be a victim. It could decide on education, immigration, health and the economy, like any other sovereign nation, but it was fed up with having to prove its ability to exercise its sovereignty.
Describing Puerto Ricans as a people silenced by fear, he emphasized that they were, in effect, a colonized people. They had become servants of the colonial Power, which dictated all decisions, ranging from the price of milk to the kinds of spurs worn by fighting cocks. However, the resistance had always ensured that the “Empire” did not succeed, as in the “war” against the United States Navy on Vieques. In 1952, the Puerto Ricans had believed that they would gain extra freedoms in their relationship with the United States, but today, the island’s commonwealth status held it in a servile situation. He appealed to the United Nations to end the constant “to-ing and fro-ing” on the situation concerning Puerto Rico, so that the Territory could one day exercise its responsibilities as a world citizen.
ANGEL COLLADO SCHWARZ, President of the Instituto Soberanista de Puerto Rico, noted that General Assembly resolution 748 allowed the United States to cease transmitting information on Puerto Rico due to information that cited the Territory as exercising its right to self-determination. Pointing to several admissions by United States officials that Puerto Rico in fact remained a Territory, he recalled former President Jimmy Carter’s statement that its commonwealth status was both “a contradiction in terms and an embarrassment”.
White House officials had later referred to the Territory as a “hybrid” since it did not enjoy full sovereignty. Such comments proved that the decolonization process had been a farce, he stressed. As a result of colonization, Puerto Rico was in the midst of its worst economic and social period, facing several dire challenges, such as the substantial public debt, rampant crime, and high levels of drug trafficking and domestic violence. Those looming issues could not be properly resolved while sovereignty remained with the United States, he said, calling for the referral of the situation concerning Puerto Rico to the General Assembly, and emphasizing the need for a constitutional status assembly to be used as a decolonization mechanism.
ROGELIO FIGUEROA GARCIA, President of Puerto Ricans for Puerto Rico, noted that his party — the island’s third most important — had presented the Special Committee with a procedural solution in 2008 which had not been considered. It had approved a draft resolution starting the United States on a process of decolonization without taking into account the suggestions of the Puerto Rican people, he stressed. Assessing the potential reasons for the ineffectiveness of the decolonization process, he said the United Nations, the United States and the Puerto Rican parties were all equally responsible.
He said the United Nations had not accepted the desires of the Puerto Rican people for self-determination, and had therefore avoided developing a decolonization process by failing to couple the approval of draft resolutions with the determination and strength to produce necessary action. Political parties in Puerto Rico were also to blame, given their focus on defending their own approaches rather than the right to self-determination itself.
However, the situation was indeed changing, he said, noting that the United Nations had begun confronting the subject in a creative and urgent manner, while the governing Democratic Party in the United States had stated in 2008 its willingness to work with various Puerto Rican groups to resolve the situation in the coming years. However, despite an energized focus on commitments, the situation remained largely unchanged, he said, highlighting the need to initiate new processes led by the Puerto Rican people. They should not be controlled or directed by the political parties, he stressed, while also urging the United Nations to reconsider his party’s 2008 proposal.
22 June 2010
21 June 2010
Bermuda Min. of Finance Presents Credit Union Act
Press Release
The Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance, the Hon. Paula A. Cox, JP, MP, tabled, the Credit Union Act 2010, in the House of Assembly this morning.
Today Minister Cox said, “I am pleased to have tabled the Credit Union Act 2010 in the House of Assembly. This legislation is extremely important in that it will modernise and strengthen Bermuda’s regulatory framework for credit unions.“This framework will provide an appropriate set of financial management disciplines for the credit union to maintain, while also allowing the creation of shareholder wealth for its members.“
In summary, the new legislation will transfer complete regulatory and supervisory responsibilities for credit unions to the Bermuda Monetary Authority and this is consistent with international standards which maintain that the agency that regulates financial institutions should supervise credit unions.”
Minister Cox noted that “unlike other financial institutions, credit unions work as a cooperative, valuing volunteerism, co-operation and member participation”. And she advised that in developing the new regulatory framework, the Ministry of Finance and the Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) ensured that the unique characteristics of credit unions were not lost.
Accordingly, the legislation encapsulates the principles contained within the Model Law produced by the World Council of Credit Unions and the International Credit Union Safety and Soundness Principles.
Minister Cox went on to say, “The Credit Unions Act 2010 involved significant consultation and consensus building between the Ministry of Finance, Bermuda Monetary Authority and the BIU Members Credit Union, Bermuda’s only credit union, and I would like to thank those parties for their sterling effort in bringing this Act to fruition. I am pleased to note that the BIU Members Credit Union has been a full participant in this process and their comments and views have been fully considered.”
Minister Cox noted the importance of credit unions in Bermuda and worldwide as they offer members much more than financial services. They provide members the opportunity to own their own financial institution and help them create opportunities such as starting small businesses, building family homes and educating their children. In some countries, members encounter their first taste of democratic decision making through their credit unions.
Today, the Bermuda Industrial Union Members’ Credit Union President, Bro. Graham Nesbitt, expressed “a very great sense of satisfaction” at the commissioning of the new Credit Union Bill. He further added that he is “very gratified” that it truly reflects the ‘People’s Credit Union Bill’, due to the unrelenting efforts of the Credit Union over the past several years.
He said that the Bill would be for the further uplift of the members. The Credit Union President added that much appreciation is also being shown to the World Council of Credit Unions, whose contribution showed that although the Bill is not culture-bound, it reaches to the core needs of every co-operator within a global village.
He said that the new Bill with its nuances will fit the needs of the members in Bermuda and was confident that members will begin to feel the positive impact of this Bill in a tangible way.
And in response to the Credit Union developments in the House, Jeremy Cox, CEO of the BMA said, “The Authority is very pleased that the work initiated last year to update the legislative and policy framework for credit unions in Bermuda has been completed. Upon approval of the legislation the Authority will implement the enhanced framework and will have direct responsibility for the regulation and supervision of any credit union established in Bermuda.
“We appreciate the time that the Board and management of the BIU Credit Union devoted to the extensive consultation process involved in this effort, as well as the support of our colleagues at the Ministry of Finance. The process has been both collaborative and productive, resulting in a framework that reflects high standards and best practice internationally for the supervision of credit unions, while being appropriate for the nature of the Bermuda market and the ultimate protection of depositors here.”
Minister Cox said she looked forward to the passage of this important legislation in the House and has no doubt that this new regulatory regime for credit unions will enhance public confidence in the BIU Members Credit Union and any other credit unions which may be formed. Ultimately, she said this legislation should assist in ensuring higher membership, savings growth and stronger financial performance of credit unions.
The Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance, the Hon. Paula A. Cox, JP, MP, tabled, the Credit Union Act 2010, in the House of Assembly this morning.
Today Minister Cox said, “I am pleased to have tabled the Credit Union Act 2010 in the House of Assembly. This legislation is extremely important in that it will modernise and strengthen Bermuda’s regulatory framework for credit unions.“This framework will provide an appropriate set of financial management disciplines for the credit union to maintain, while also allowing the creation of shareholder wealth for its members.“
In summary, the new legislation will transfer complete regulatory and supervisory responsibilities for credit unions to the Bermuda Monetary Authority and this is consistent with international standards which maintain that the agency that regulates financial institutions should supervise credit unions.”
Minister Cox noted that “unlike other financial institutions, credit unions work as a cooperative, valuing volunteerism, co-operation and member participation”. And she advised that in developing the new regulatory framework, the Ministry of Finance and the Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) ensured that the unique characteristics of credit unions were not lost.
Accordingly, the legislation encapsulates the principles contained within the Model Law produced by the World Council of Credit Unions and the International Credit Union Safety and Soundness Principles.
Minister Cox went on to say, “The Credit Unions Act 2010 involved significant consultation and consensus building between the Ministry of Finance, Bermuda Monetary Authority and the BIU Members Credit Union, Bermuda’s only credit union, and I would like to thank those parties for their sterling effort in bringing this Act to fruition. I am pleased to note that the BIU Members Credit Union has been a full participant in this process and their comments and views have been fully considered.”
Minister Cox noted the importance of credit unions in Bermuda and worldwide as they offer members much more than financial services. They provide members the opportunity to own their own financial institution and help them create opportunities such as starting small businesses, building family homes and educating their children. In some countries, members encounter their first taste of democratic decision making through their credit unions.
Today, the Bermuda Industrial Union Members’ Credit Union President, Bro. Graham Nesbitt, expressed “a very great sense of satisfaction” at the commissioning of the new Credit Union Bill. He further added that he is “very gratified” that it truly reflects the ‘People’s Credit Union Bill’, due to the unrelenting efforts of the Credit Union over the past several years.
He said that the Bill would be for the further uplift of the members. The Credit Union President added that much appreciation is also being shown to the World Council of Credit Unions, whose contribution showed that although the Bill is not culture-bound, it reaches to the core needs of every co-operator within a global village.
He said that the new Bill with its nuances will fit the needs of the members in Bermuda and was confident that members will begin to feel the positive impact of this Bill in a tangible way.
And in response to the Credit Union developments in the House, Jeremy Cox, CEO of the BMA said, “The Authority is very pleased that the work initiated last year to update the legislative and policy framework for credit unions in Bermuda has been completed. Upon approval of the legislation the Authority will implement the enhanced framework and will have direct responsibility for the regulation and supervision of any credit union established in Bermuda.
“We appreciate the time that the Board and management of the BIU Credit Union devoted to the extensive consultation process involved in this effort, as well as the support of our colleagues at the Ministry of Finance. The process has been both collaborative and productive, resulting in a framework that reflects high standards and best practice internationally for the supervision of credit unions, while being appropriate for the nature of the Bermuda market and the ultimate protection of depositors here.”
Minister Cox said she looked forward to the passage of this important legislation in the House and has no doubt that this new regulatory regime for credit unions will enhance public confidence in the BIU Members Credit Union and any other credit unions which may be formed. Ultimately, she said this legislation should assist in ensuring higher membership, savings growth and stronger financial performance of credit unions.
17 June 2010
Guam: Self-Determination or Further Militarisation?
Guam: Self-Determination, or More U.S. Troops?
By Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/621
Usually, when someone refers to a place as a "U.S. colony," they are making an analogy, suggesting that U.S. influence somewhere is so strong, and the indigenous residents of the place have so little effective say over key decisions, that it's as if the place were a formal U.S. colony.
But, remarkably, and perhaps predictably, for a country whose leaders, editorialists and pundits constantly pontificate about how we are an indispensable force for freedom in the world, we rarely discuss the fact that there are places in the world that are actual U.S. colonies. Still less do we consider whether we are complying with our international obligations to respect the right of self-determination for colonized peoples, and if we are not, what we could do to change that.
A small corrective is being offered as part of Asian Pacific Heritage Month by PBS, which is webcasting Vanessa Warheit's documentary, The Insular Empire: America in the Mariana Islands until next Sunday, June 20.
The Mariana Islands comprise two political entities, the territory of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Guam was ceded to the U.S. by Spain in 1898 after Spain's defeat in the Spanish-American war, while the Northern Mariana Islands were conquered by the U.S. from Japan in World War II. As political entities, the two have several features in common: while they are ruled by Washington, and their residents are U.S. citizens, many of whom serve in the U.S. military, they have no vote in Presidential elections, nor do they have a representative in Congress who can vote on the passage of legislation.
In other words: they are U.S. colonies.
Guam, in particular, is facing a major decision about its destiny, a decision made in Washington about which its indigenous population has not yet had any effective say. The United States is currently planning to relocate 8,000 Marines and 9,000 dependents to Guam by 2014. With an expected influx of foreign workers recruited for military construction projects, Guam's population is expected to increase by some 80,000 people by 2014, a 45% increase from its current estimated population of 180,000.
More than a quarter of the island is already owned by the U.S. military, the Washington Post noted in March, while a quarter of the island's population lives below the U.S. poverty level.
As the Post noted, Guam was not consulted in the decision to move 8,000 Marines to the island and has no legal means to block it. Yet an Environmental Protection Agency analysis said the U.S. military buildup could trigger island-wide water shortages.
The possibility that Guam's indigenous residents may suffer irreparable harm from this planned military buildup without ever having had any effective say about it heightens the responsibility of Americans who do have voting representation in Washington to know something about the military buildup and its historical background. Thanks to PBS, until Sunday we have the opportunity to catch up a little on the history they didn't teach us in school.
By Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/621
Usually, when someone refers to a place as a "U.S. colony," they are making an analogy, suggesting that U.S. influence somewhere is so strong, and the indigenous residents of the place have so little effective say over key decisions, that it's as if the place were a formal U.S. colony.
But, remarkably, and perhaps predictably, for a country whose leaders, editorialists and pundits constantly pontificate about how we are an indispensable force for freedom in the world, we rarely discuss the fact that there are places in the world that are actual U.S. colonies. Still less do we consider whether we are complying with our international obligations to respect the right of self-determination for colonized peoples, and if we are not, what we could do to change that.
A small corrective is being offered as part of Asian Pacific Heritage Month by PBS, which is webcasting Vanessa Warheit's documentary, The Insular Empire: America in the Mariana Islands until next Sunday, June 20.
The Mariana Islands comprise two political entities, the territory of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Guam was ceded to the U.S. by Spain in 1898 after Spain's defeat in the Spanish-American war, while the Northern Mariana Islands were conquered by the U.S. from Japan in World War II. As political entities, the two have several features in common: while they are ruled by Washington, and their residents are U.S. citizens, many of whom serve in the U.S. military, they have no vote in Presidential elections, nor do they have a representative in Congress who can vote on the passage of legislation.
In other words: they are U.S. colonies.
Guam, in particular, is facing a major decision about its destiny, a decision made in Washington about which its indigenous population has not yet had any effective say. The United States is currently planning to relocate 8,000 Marines and 9,000 dependents to Guam by 2014. With an expected influx of foreign workers recruited for military construction projects, Guam's population is expected to increase by some 80,000 people by 2014, a 45% increase from its current estimated population of 180,000.
More than a quarter of the island is already owned by the U.S. military, the Washington Post noted in March, while a quarter of the island's population lives below the U.S. poverty level.
As the Post noted, Guam was not consulted in the decision to move 8,000 Marines to the island and has no legal means to block it. Yet an Environmental Protection Agency analysis said the U.S. military buildup could trigger island-wide water shortages.
The possibility that Guam's indigenous residents may suffer irreparable harm from this planned military buildup without ever having had any effective say about it heightens the responsibility of Americans who do have voting representation in Washington to know something about the military buildup and its historical background. Thanks to PBS, until Sunday we have the opportunity to catch up a little on the history they didn't teach us in school.
N. Marianas Senate Leader Terms Territory's Representation in US Congress "Purely Ceremonial"
Radio New Zealand International
The Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas (CNMI) Senate Floor Leader, Pete Reyes, says they want their votes in the US Congress to be more than just symbolic. CNMI, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are allowed only to vote in committee.They have no voting rights during final deliberations of legislation that may affect their respective jurisdictions.
Mr Reyes has proposed to request that the United States congress allow their delegate to have voting rights on legislation that affects the CNMI (similar legislation was earlier introduced in the Legislature of Guam - OTR).
He says the delegates should be able to have a say in how their country is governed by the US. "Their participation is purely ceremonial, because they don’t have to listen to us. We are not voting on the bill, we don’t vote on the bill to make sure that those bills represent the true interests of the commonwealth.
But if we have a voting member in the US Congress then we can stand up on the floor and defend any legislation that has a negative impact on our economy."
Senator Reyes says recent legislation further federalising CNMI has proven damaging to the territory.
The Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas (CNMI) Senate Floor Leader, Pete Reyes, says they want their votes in the US Congress to be more than just symbolic. CNMI, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are allowed only to vote in committee.They have no voting rights during final deliberations of legislation that may affect their respective jurisdictions.
Mr Reyes has proposed to request that the United States congress allow their delegate to have voting rights on legislation that affects the CNMI (similar legislation was earlier introduced in the Legislature of Guam - OTR).
He says the delegates should be able to have a say in how their country is governed by the US. "Their participation is purely ceremonial, because they don’t have to listen to us. We are not voting on the bill, we don’t vote on the bill to make sure that those bills represent the true interests of the commonwealth.
But if we have a voting member in the US Congress then we can stand up on the floor and defend any legislation that has a negative impact on our economy."
Senator Reyes says recent legislation further federalising CNMI has proven damaging to the territory.
15 June 2010
UN Committee Adopts Two Resolutions on Decolonisation Information
The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation, on the first day of its 2010 session with the adoption of its resolution on "Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations," and a second resolution on "Dissemination of information on decolonization." The resolutions, which are virtually identical to the those approved in 2009, were adopted without a vote. The text of the two resolution are as follows:
Resolution L.5 : Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolution 1970 (XVIII) of 16 December 1963, in which it requested the Special Committee (on Decolonisation) to study the information transmitted to the Secretary-General in accordance with Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations and to take such information fully into account in examining the situation with regard to the implementation of the (Decolonisation)Declaration, contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960,
Recalling also its resolution 64/97 of 10 December 2009, in which it requested the Special Committee to continue to discharge the functions entrusted to it under resolution 1970 (XVIII),
Stressing the importance of timely transmission by the administering Powers of adequate information under Article 73 e of the Charter, in particular in relation to the preparation by the Secretariat of the working papers on the Territories concerned,
Having examined the report of the Secretary-General,
1. Reaffirms that, in the absence of a decision by the General Assembly itself that a Non-Self-Governing Territory has attained a full measure of self-government in terms of Chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations, the administering Power concerned should continue to transmit information under Article 73 e of the Charter with respect to that Territory;
2. Requests the administering Powers concerned, in accordance with their Charter obligations, to transmit or continue to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social and educational conditions in the Territories for which they are respectively responsible, as well as the fullest possible information on political and constitutional developments in the Territories concerned, including the constitution, legislative act or executive order providing for the government of the Territory and the constitutional relationship of the Territory to the administering Power, within a maximum period of six months following the expiration of the administrative year in those Territories;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to continue to ensure that adequate information is drawn from all available published sources in connection with the preparation of the working papers relating to the Territories concerned;
4. Requests the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples to continue to discharge the functions entrusted to it under General Assembly resolution 1970 (XVIII), in accordance with established procedures.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Resolution L.6 Dissemination of Information on Decolonization
The General Assembly,
Having examined the chapter of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the dissemination of information on decolonization and publicity for the work of the United Nations in the field of decolonization,
Recalling General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and other resolutions and decisions of the United Nations concerning the dissemination of information on decolonization, in particular Assembly resolution 64/105 of 10 December 2009,
Recognizing the need for flexible, practical and innovative approaches towards reviewing the options of self-determination for the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories with a view to implementing the plan of action for the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism,
Reiterating the importance of dissemination of information as an instrument for furthering the aims of the Declaration, and mindful of the role of world public opinion in effectively assisting the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories to achieve self-determination,
Recognizing the role played by the administering Powers in transmitting information to the Secretary-General in accordance with the terms of Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations,
Recognizing also the role of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat, through the United Nations information centres, in the dissemination of information at the regional level on the activities of the United Nations,
Recalling the issuance by the Department of Public Information, in consultation with the United Nations Development Programme, the specialized agencies and the Special Committee, of an information leaflet on assistance programmes available to the Non-Self-Governing Territories,
Aware of the role of non-governmental organizations in the dissemination of information on decolonization,
1. Approves the activities in the field of dissemination of information on decolonization undertaken by the Department of Public Information and the Department of Political Affairs of the Secretariat, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations on decolonization, and recalls with satisfaction the publication, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 61/129 of 14 December 2006, of the information leaflet entitled “What the UN Can Do to Assist Non-Self-Governing Territories”, which was updated for the United Nations website on decolonization in May 2009, and encourages continued updating and wide dissemination of the information leaflet;
2. Considers it important to continue and expand its efforts to ensure the widest possible dissemination of information on decolonization, with particular emphasis on the options of self-determination available for the peoples of Non Self Governing Territories, and to this end, requests the Department of Public Information through the United Nations information centres in the relevant regions to actively engage and seek new and innovative ways to disseminate material to the Non-Self-Governing Territories;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to further enhance the information provided on the United Nations decolonization website and to continue to include the full series of reports of the regional seminars on decolonization, the statements and scholarly papers presented at those seminars and links to the full series of reports of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples;
4. Requests the Department of Public Information to continue its efforts to update web-based information on the assistance programmes available to the Non Self-Governing Territories;
5. Requests the Department of Political Affairs and the Department of Public Information to implement the recommendations of the Special Committee and to continue their efforts to take measures through all the media available, including publications, radio and television, as well as the Internet, to give publicity to the work of the United Nations in the field of decolonization and, inter alia:
(a) To develop procedures to collect, prepare and disseminate, particularly to the Non-Self-Governing Territories, basic material on the issue of self-determination of the peoples of the Territories;
(b) To seek the full cooperation of the administering Powers in the discharge of the tasks referred to above;
(c) To explore further the idea of a programme of collaboration with the decolonization focal points of territorial Governments, particularly in the Pacific and Caribbean regions, to help improve the exchange of information;
(d) To encourage the involvement of non-governmental organizations in the dissemination of information on decolonization;
(e) To encourage the involvement of the Non-Self-Governing Territories in the dissemination of information on decolonization;
(f) To report to the Special Committee on measures taken in the implementation of the present resolution;
6. Requests all States, including the administering Powers, to accelerate the dissemination of information referred to in paragraph 2 above;
7. Requests the Special Committee to continue to examine this question and to report to the General Assembly at its sixty-sixth session on the implementation of the present resolution.
Resolution L.5 : Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolution 1970 (XVIII) of 16 December 1963, in which it requested the Special Committee (on Decolonisation) to study the information transmitted to the Secretary-General in accordance with Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations and to take such information fully into account in examining the situation with regard to the implementation of the (Decolonisation)Declaration, contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960,
Recalling also its resolution 64/97 of 10 December 2009, in which it requested the Special Committee to continue to discharge the functions entrusted to it under resolution 1970 (XVIII),
Stressing the importance of timely transmission by the administering Powers of adequate information under Article 73 e of the Charter, in particular in relation to the preparation by the Secretariat of the working papers on the Territories concerned,
Having examined the report of the Secretary-General,
1. Reaffirms that, in the absence of a decision by the General Assembly itself that a Non-Self-Governing Territory has attained a full measure of self-government in terms of Chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations, the administering Power concerned should continue to transmit information under Article 73 e of the Charter with respect to that Territory;
2. Requests the administering Powers concerned, in accordance with their Charter obligations, to transmit or continue to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social and educational conditions in the Territories for which they are respectively responsible, as well as the fullest possible information on political and constitutional developments in the Territories concerned, including the constitution, legislative act or executive order providing for the government of the Territory and the constitutional relationship of the Territory to the administering Power, within a maximum period of six months following the expiration of the administrative year in those Territories;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to continue to ensure that adequate information is drawn from all available published sources in connection with the preparation of the working papers relating to the Territories concerned;
4. Requests the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples to continue to discharge the functions entrusted to it under General Assembly resolution 1970 (XVIII), in accordance with established procedures.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Resolution L.6 Dissemination of Information on Decolonization
The General Assembly,
Having examined the chapter of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the dissemination of information on decolonization and publicity for the work of the United Nations in the field of decolonization,
Recalling General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and other resolutions and decisions of the United Nations concerning the dissemination of information on decolonization, in particular Assembly resolution 64/105 of 10 December 2009,
Recognizing the need for flexible, practical and innovative approaches towards reviewing the options of self-determination for the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories with a view to implementing the plan of action for the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism,
Reiterating the importance of dissemination of information as an instrument for furthering the aims of the Declaration, and mindful of the role of world public opinion in effectively assisting the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories to achieve self-determination,
Recognizing the role played by the administering Powers in transmitting information to the Secretary-General in accordance with the terms of Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations,
Recognizing also the role of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat, through the United Nations information centres, in the dissemination of information at the regional level on the activities of the United Nations,
Recalling the issuance by the Department of Public Information, in consultation with the United Nations Development Programme, the specialized agencies and the Special Committee, of an information leaflet on assistance programmes available to the Non-Self-Governing Territories,
Aware of the role of non-governmental organizations in the dissemination of information on decolonization,
1. Approves the activities in the field of dissemination of information on decolonization undertaken by the Department of Public Information and the Department of Political Affairs of the Secretariat, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations on decolonization, and recalls with satisfaction the publication, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 61/129 of 14 December 2006, of the information leaflet entitled “What the UN Can Do to Assist Non-Self-Governing Territories”, which was updated for the United Nations website on decolonization in May 2009, and encourages continued updating and wide dissemination of the information leaflet;
2. Considers it important to continue and expand its efforts to ensure the widest possible dissemination of information on decolonization, with particular emphasis on the options of self-determination available for the peoples of Non Self Governing Territories, and to this end, requests the Department of Public Information through the United Nations information centres in the relevant regions to actively engage and seek new and innovative ways to disseminate material to the Non-Self-Governing Territories;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to further enhance the information provided on the United Nations decolonization website and to continue to include the full series of reports of the regional seminars on decolonization, the statements and scholarly papers presented at those seminars and links to the full series of reports of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples;
4. Requests the Department of Public Information to continue its efforts to update web-based information on the assistance programmes available to the Non Self-Governing Territories;
5. Requests the Department of Political Affairs and the Department of Public Information to implement the recommendations of the Special Committee and to continue their efforts to take measures through all the media available, including publications, radio and television, as well as the Internet, to give publicity to the work of the United Nations in the field of decolonization and, inter alia:
(a) To develop procedures to collect, prepare and disseminate, particularly to the Non-Self-Governing Territories, basic material on the issue of self-determination of the peoples of the Territories;
(b) To seek the full cooperation of the administering Powers in the discharge of the tasks referred to above;
(c) To explore further the idea of a programme of collaboration with the decolonization focal points of territorial Governments, particularly in the Pacific and Caribbean regions, to help improve the exchange of information;
(d) To encourage the involvement of non-governmental organizations in the dissemination of information on decolonization;
(e) To encourage the involvement of the Non-Self-Governing Territories in the dissemination of information on decolonization;
(f) To report to the Special Committee on measures taken in the implementation of the present resolution;
6. Requests all States, including the administering Powers, to accelerate the dissemination of information referred to in paragraph 2 above;
7. Requests the Special Committee to continue to examine this question and to report to the General Assembly at its sixty-sixth session on the implementation of the present resolution.
13 June 2010
UN Decolonisation Committee Faces Serious Issues
The United Nations (UN) Special Committee on Decolonisation begins its 2010 session on 14th June as it continues its review of the remaining sixteen territories formally listed by the UN as non self-governing. The session follows on from the annual Pacific seminar which convened in Noumea, New Caledonia last May, and which heard analyses from representatives from territorial governments, experts and non-governmental organisations on the political, constitutional and economic developments in the territories. An expert presentation was made at the session on the implementation of the International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism as it comes to a close at the end of 2010.
Public Information on Decolonisation
The Special Committee will have to grapple with a number of critical issues that continue to delay the realisation of the decolonisation process. During the first week, the committee will hear from UN officials about their activities in disseminating information on decolonisation. Most territories have consistently asserted that such dissemination has largely been ineffective, especially as it relates to information on the legitimate political status options available to them. The UN has countered that the website provides important information on decolonisation.
Political Education Programmes
UN resolutions over the last two decades have called for political education programmes to heighten the awareness of the people on the options, but few such programmes have ever been undertaken. A notable exception was the assistance provided by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the UN Electoral Affairs Unit in relation to Tokelau. The fact that New Zealand, as the territory’s administering power, has cooperated fully with the relevant UN offices on the information programmes makes all the difference. Such a UN role in public information and education has been rejected by other administering powers, however. The Special Committee will, therefore, have to assess the actual effectiveness of existing information dissemination, and devise solutions to correct any deficiencies. The Committee should also consider innovative strategies to disseminate information to the peoples of the territories on their legitimate political status options through information campaigns in view of the general reluctance of most administering Powers to work with the UN on such programmes.
Visiting Missions/Regional Seminars
Relatedly, the Special Committee will also have to deal with the difficulties in conducting its important visiting missions to the territories to assess first-hand the situation on the ground in the territories concerned. For their part, France agreed to the convening of the 2010 UN decolonisation seminar in New Caledonia, but this was only the second time since the seminars began in 1990 that a territory was permitted to host the annual dialogue (the 2003 seminar being held in United Kingdom – administered Anguilla). For its part, the UK concurred with special visiting missions to Bermuda in 2005 and to the Turks & Caicos Islands in 2006, whilst New Zealand worked closely with the Special Committee visiting mision to Tokelau in 2006. The US, on the other hand, has not consented to a UN visiting mission since the 1970s, rejecting formal requests to this effect by the Guam and US Virgin Islands governments during the 1980s and 1990s.
Review of Caribbean Territories
The Special Committee will also have to examine developments in the eleven small territories whose issues have been grouped into one long resolution of eleven parts (as opposed to the previous eleven separate resolutions). In the Caribbean, the operation of new dependency constitutions in the British Virgin Islands and in the Cayman Islands, respectively, providing new delegated authority should be examined, along with the status of constitutional and political advancement in Montserrat and Anguilla whose constitutional reviews have yielded proposals for full internal self-government – a political status which the former UK Labour Party government rejected as “not on offer.” Accordingly, the Committee might assess whether the new United Kingdom Government will maintain the Labour Party government position of rejecting the political status option of free association.
Of particular focus of the Special Committee should be the suspension of the 2006 constitution in the Turks and Caicos Islands which abolished the elected government transferring all of its authority to the UK – appointed Governor pending an ongoing investigation (funded from the territorial treasury) of several former political leaders. This has resulted in ongoing development projects brought to a halt with significantly increased unemployment, a rise in crime and the territory’s economy at a virtual standstill. The urgency of returning the Turks & Caicos Islands to elected government should be high on the agenda of the Special Committee, while concerns should be raised at the UK appointment of a constitutional advisor responsible for writing a new, less autonomous, constitution for the territory which would be less far less autonomous than the one successfully negotiated by the ousted elected government. The fact that the people of the territory would not be in a position to agree or reject such a revised constitution should raise a red flag in the Special Committee.
Also in the Caribbean, the US response to the proposed constitution of the US Virgin Islands should be closely reviewed by the Committee, along with the territorial Constitutional Convention’s rationale for the inclusion of various provisions in the document to protect the interests of the people. The views of the administering power as expressed in the US Congressional committee hearings held last May on the proposed constitution should also be carefully examined. In this case, the Special Committee should be apprised during its session that a number of key provisions in the proposed constitution rely on resolutions of the General Assembly, most notedly, those which guarantee the ownership, control and disposal of natural resources, including marine resources. Since the administering power has questioned the ‘constitutionality’ of the territory’s claims right to its natural resources, among other areas, the Special Committee should seek to address the fundamental question of the relevancy of international principles vis a vis the unilateral authority of the administering power to legislate for the territory without their consent, and often against their will.
Whilst not formally listed by the UN, Puerto Rico is annually reviewed by the Special Committee, and conducts hearings top listen to speakers from all sides of the political spectrum – as it does in the case of the listed territories. The Special Committee should be made aware of the recent US Congressional hearings held last May which have resulted in a request by the US Congress for clarification from the White House on the legitimacy of more autonomy within the present commonwealth status. The previous US administration had rejected further autonomy as inconsistent with the dependency arrangement. The Special Committee should also review whether there has been any action on its repeated recommendations to the General Assembly that it take up the issue of Puerto Rico.
Review of Pacific Territories
The Special Committee should also have before it to examine issues affecting the decolonisation process in the Pacific where the level of intensity is even greater than that in the Caribbean. Thus, the Special Committee should examine the outcome of the previous internal political status deliberations in American Samoa, and review the issues to be included in the territory’s constitutional convention which will convene at the end of June. The Special Committee should also carefully assess the position of the territory’s elected governor who has called for more autonomy in a future relationship with the United States that would shield the territory from the unilateral applicability of the laws of the administering power in such areas as the retention of the ownership of land and other traditional powers which may be challenged on the basis of how the US constitution and laws are unilaterally applied.
In the case of Guam, the Special Committee should be further updated on the status of militarisation underway, and the attendant social, environmental and political impact expected. The Committee has been especially cautious – perhaps overly-cautions - in its recommendations on this issue even as a number of civil society organisations have consistently provided information to the committee on the present and expected effects of further militarization, most recently at the seminar in New Caledonia. The last time that the Special Committee adopted a decision on “Military Activities and Arrangements by Colonial Powers in Territories under their administration” was 2002, whilst the UN’s agenda item of the same name was quietly phased out in the 1990s. Given that miliarisation of the territories is on the increase, it might behoove the General Assembly to reconsider such a decision and assign the item to the Special Committee. Alternatively, perhaps the item can be considered in the General Assembly's First Committee which deals with disarmament issues, although it is highly unlikely that such a proposal would even be raised, let alone adopted.
The situation in New Caledonia should also be carefully analysed by the Special Committee to assess progress in the implementation of the Noumea Accord which provides for a systematic – and irreversible - transfer of power from France to the territorial government in advance of an agreed referendum on independence. The sustainability of the commitment to the referendum might be an important area of review by the committee, along with the French policy of designating the territory as its major base of military presence in the Pacific region. The formalization of French-Australian defence cooperation via New Caledonia should also be noted. The potential influence of the enhanced military presence on the proposed referendum in New Caledonia should be an important consideration of the Special Committee during its 2010 session.
Sovereignty Disputed Territories (SDTs)
The Special Committee should also be updated on circumstances in the non self-governing territories which are under sovereignty dispute, namely Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Gibraltar and Western Sahara. The question of which takes precedence in these cases - the self-determination of the people or the sovereignty dispute – remains very much unanswered. In recent years, distinctions have been increasingly made in resolutions of the UN General Assembly qualifying the rights of the people to only those territories which are not subject to sovereignty disputes, mainly aimed at Falkland Islands (Malvinas), but also impacting the other two Sovereignty Disputed Territories (SDTs) as well. Just who constitutes the people of the SDTs – the descendants of an indigenous population which may have been displaced, or the settlers who originated in countries where the right to self-determination has already been exercised, remains very much an open question. This question also extends to most of the small island territories, as well, as methods to dilute the electoral franchise to include ‘non-belonger’ residents in the UK administered territories is being introduced in the context of the constitutional crisis in the Turks & Caicos Islands. This is being seen as an effort to dilute the electorate as the people of the territories would lose their ability of political self-identification.
Development Issues
The Special Committee will also have before it specific agenda items on assistance to the territories from the UN system; and on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the non self-governing territories. That resolutions on both items have historically been adopted with very little, if any, discussion, is highly unfortunate. In the case UN assistance to the territories, it has been proven that the capacity of the territories to assume more powers of self-government has been significantly enhanced by their access to socio-economic, technical and other programmes of the United Nations. Curiously, the agencies are largely un-represented at the Special Committee sessions when the issue of their assistance to the territories is on the agenda. It has also been made clear that the economic advancement of the territories is an important contributor to the ability of the territory to move towards greater self-government.
Future Implementation of the Decolonisation Mandate
But perhaps the most important issue in the 2010 session of the Special Committee should be the recommendation it sends to the General Assembly to create a new decade to re-generate the momentum necessary in the international community towards a genuine self-determination process leading to actual decolonisation.
According to the "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" presented at the 2010 decolonisation seminar by governance expert Dr. Carlyle Corbin, some increased attention has been paid by the international community to the “necessity of implementation” of the decolonisation mandate resulting in “action oriented” resolutions adopted by the General Assembly.
But Corbin, who represented the Government of the US Virgin Islands before the Special Committee on Decolonisation for over twenty years, emphasised in his analysis that, “the success of the second international decade had been significantly impeded by the insufficiency of actual implementation where initiatives proposed have not become initiatives completed.” As Corbin observed in the paper, “the major administering powers appear to dismiss the important actions agreed by the international community,” and often “seek to portray colonial reform initiatives (such as internal reviews of territorial constitutions) as examples of decolonisation.”
The issue of implementation of the existing decolonisation mandate remains the best way forward, but this can only be accomplished if the parties concerned, primarily the administering powers and the United Nations system - live up to their international responsibilities as set forth in the United Nations Charter, General Assembly and Economic and Special Council resolutions, and international conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The decisions taken at the 2010 session of the Special Committee on Decolonisation will, in large measure, set the stage for the United Nations to either advance the decolonisation process in future, or to maintain a repetition of process which has seen the disappointing result of only two territories in twenty years achieving a full measure of self-government.
The Special Committee on Decolonisation at its 2010 session has a most formidable task ahead if it makes the tough choice to engage in a constructive dialogue on the true essence of the decolonisation dilemma.
Public Information on Decolonisation
The Special Committee will have to grapple with a number of critical issues that continue to delay the realisation of the decolonisation process. During the first week, the committee will hear from UN officials about their activities in disseminating information on decolonisation. Most territories have consistently asserted that such dissemination has largely been ineffective, especially as it relates to information on the legitimate political status options available to them. The UN has countered that the website provides important information on decolonisation.
Political Education Programmes
UN resolutions over the last two decades have called for political education programmes to heighten the awareness of the people on the options, but few such programmes have ever been undertaken. A notable exception was the assistance provided by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the UN Electoral Affairs Unit in relation to Tokelau. The fact that New Zealand, as the territory’s administering power, has cooperated fully with the relevant UN offices on the information programmes makes all the difference. Such a UN role in public information and education has been rejected by other administering powers, however. The Special Committee will, therefore, have to assess the actual effectiveness of existing information dissemination, and devise solutions to correct any deficiencies. The Committee should also consider innovative strategies to disseminate information to the peoples of the territories on their legitimate political status options through information campaigns in view of the general reluctance of most administering Powers to work with the UN on such programmes.
Visiting Missions/Regional Seminars
Relatedly, the Special Committee will also have to deal with the difficulties in conducting its important visiting missions to the territories to assess first-hand the situation on the ground in the territories concerned. For their part, France agreed to the convening of the 2010 UN decolonisation seminar in New Caledonia, but this was only the second time since the seminars began in 1990 that a territory was permitted to host the annual dialogue (the 2003 seminar being held in United Kingdom – administered Anguilla). For its part, the UK concurred with special visiting missions to Bermuda in 2005 and to the Turks & Caicos Islands in 2006, whilst New Zealand worked closely with the Special Committee visiting mision to Tokelau in 2006. The US, on the other hand, has not consented to a UN visiting mission since the 1970s, rejecting formal requests to this effect by the Guam and US Virgin Islands governments during the 1980s and 1990s.
Review of Caribbean Territories
The Special Committee will also have to examine developments in the eleven small territories whose issues have been grouped into one long resolution of eleven parts (as opposed to the previous eleven separate resolutions). In the Caribbean, the operation of new dependency constitutions in the British Virgin Islands and in the Cayman Islands, respectively, providing new delegated authority should be examined, along with the status of constitutional and political advancement in Montserrat and Anguilla whose constitutional reviews have yielded proposals for full internal self-government – a political status which the former UK Labour Party government rejected as “not on offer.” Accordingly, the Committee might assess whether the new United Kingdom Government will maintain the Labour Party government position of rejecting the political status option of free association.
Of particular focus of the Special Committee should be the suspension of the 2006 constitution in the Turks and Caicos Islands which abolished the elected government transferring all of its authority to the UK – appointed Governor pending an ongoing investigation (funded from the territorial treasury) of several former political leaders. This has resulted in ongoing development projects brought to a halt with significantly increased unemployment, a rise in crime and the territory’s economy at a virtual standstill. The urgency of returning the Turks & Caicos Islands to elected government should be high on the agenda of the Special Committee, while concerns should be raised at the UK appointment of a constitutional advisor responsible for writing a new, less autonomous, constitution for the territory which would be less far less autonomous than the one successfully negotiated by the ousted elected government. The fact that the people of the territory would not be in a position to agree or reject such a revised constitution should raise a red flag in the Special Committee.
Also in the Caribbean, the US response to the proposed constitution of the US Virgin Islands should be closely reviewed by the Committee, along with the territorial Constitutional Convention’s rationale for the inclusion of various provisions in the document to protect the interests of the people. The views of the administering power as expressed in the US Congressional committee hearings held last May on the proposed constitution should also be carefully examined. In this case, the Special Committee should be apprised during its session that a number of key provisions in the proposed constitution rely on resolutions of the General Assembly, most notedly, those which guarantee the ownership, control and disposal of natural resources, including marine resources. Since the administering power has questioned the ‘constitutionality’ of the territory’s claims right to its natural resources, among other areas, the Special Committee should seek to address the fundamental question of the relevancy of international principles vis a vis the unilateral authority of the administering power to legislate for the territory without their consent, and often against their will.
Whilst not formally listed by the UN, Puerto Rico is annually reviewed by the Special Committee, and conducts hearings top listen to speakers from all sides of the political spectrum – as it does in the case of the listed territories. The Special Committee should be made aware of the recent US Congressional hearings held last May which have resulted in a request by the US Congress for clarification from the White House on the legitimacy of more autonomy within the present commonwealth status. The previous US administration had rejected further autonomy as inconsistent with the dependency arrangement. The Special Committee should also review whether there has been any action on its repeated recommendations to the General Assembly that it take up the issue of Puerto Rico.
Review of Pacific Territories
The Special Committee should also have before it to examine issues affecting the decolonisation process in the Pacific where the level of intensity is even greater than that in the Caribbean. Thus, the Special Committee should examine the outcome of the previous internal political status deliberations in American Samoa, and review the issues to be included in the territory’s constitutional convention which will convene at the end of June. The Special Committee should also carefully assess the position of the territory’s elected governor who has called for more autonomy in a future relationship with the United States that would shield the territory from the unilateral applicability of the laws of the administering power in such areas as the retention of the ownership of land and other traditional powers which may be challenged on the basis of how the US constitution and laws are unilaterally applied.
In the case of Guam, the Special Committee should be further updated on the status of militarisation underway, and the attendant social, environmental and political impact expected. The Committee has been especially cautious – perhaps overly-cautions - in its recommendations on this issue even as a number of civil society organisations have consistently provided information to the committee on the present and expected effects of further militarization, most recently at the seminar in New Caledonia. The last time that the Special Committee adopted a decision on “Military Activities and Arrangements by Colonial Powers in Territories under their administration” was 2002, whilst the UN’s agenda item of the same name was quietly phased out in the 1990s. Given that miliarisation of the territories is on the increase, it might behoove the General Assembly to reconsider such a decision and assign the item to the Special Committee. Alternatively, perhaps the item can be considered in the General Assembly's First Committee which deals with disarmament issues, although it is highly unlikely that such a proposal would even be raised, let alone adopted.
The situation in New Caledonia should also be carefully analysed by the Special Committee to assess progress in the implementation of the Noumea Accord which provides for a systematic – and irreversible - transfer of power from France to the territorial government in advance of an agreed referendum on independence. The sustainability of the commitment to the referendum might be an important area of review by the committee, along with the French policy of designating the territory as its major base of military presence in the Pacific region. The formalization of French-Australian defence cooperation via New Caledonia should also be noted. The potential influence of the enhanced military presence on the proposed referendum in New Caledonia should be an important consideration of the Special Committee during its 2010 session.
Sovereignty Disputed Territories (SDTs)
The Special Committee should also be updated on circumstances in the non self-governing territories which are under sovereignty dispute, namely Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Gibraltar and Western Sahara. The question of which takes precedence in these cases - the self-determination of the people or the sovereignty dispute – remains very much unanswered. In recent years, distinctions have been increasingly made in resolutions of the UN General Assembly qualifying the rights of the people to only those territories which are not subject to sovereignty disputes, mainly aimed at Falkland Islands (Malvinas), but also impacting the other two Sovereignty Disputed Territories (SDTs) as well. Just who constitutes the people of the SDTs – the descendants of an indigenous population which may have been displaced, or the settlers who originated in countries where the right to self-determination has already been exercised, remains very much an open question. This question also extends to most of the small island territories, as well, as methods to dilute the electoral franchise to include ‘non-belonger’ residents in the UK administered territories is being introduced in the context of the constitutional crisis in the Turks & Caicos Islands. This is being seen as an effort to dilute the electorate as the people of the territories would lose their ability of political self-identification.
Development Issues
The Special Committee will also have before it specific agenda items on assistance to the territories from the UN system; and on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the non self-governing territories. That resolutions on both items have historically been adopted with very little, if any, discussion, is highly unfortunate. In the case UN assistance to the territories, it has been proven that the capacity of the territories to assume more powers of self-government has been significantly enhanced by their access to socio-economic, technical and other programmes of the United Nations. Curiously, the agencies are largely un-represented at the Special Committee sessions when the issue of their assistance to the territories is on the agenda. It has also been made clear that the economic advancement of the territories is an important contributor to the ability of the territory to move towards greater self-government.
Future Implementation of the Decolonisation Mandate
But perhaps the most important issue in the 2010 session of the Special Committee should be the recommendation it sends to the General Assembly to create a new decade to re-generate the momentum necessary in the international community towards a genuine self-determination process leading to actual decolonisation.
According to the "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" presented at the 2010 decolonisation seminar by governance expert Dr. Carlyle Corbin, some increased attention has been paid by the international community to the “necessity of implementation” of the decolonisation mandate resulting in “action oriented” resolutions adopted by the General Assembly.
But Corbin, who represented the Government of the US Virgin Islands before the Special Committee on Decolonisation for over twenty years, emphasised in his analysis that, “the success of the second international decade had been significantly impeded by the insufficiency of actual implementation where initiatives proposed have not become initiatives completed.” As Corbin observed in the paper, “the major administering powers appear to dismiss the important actions agreed by the international community,” and often “seek to portray colonial reform initiatives (such as internal reviews of territorial constitutions) as examples of decolonisation.”
The issue of implementation of the existing decolonisation mandate remains the best way forward, but this can only be accomplished if the parties concerned, primarily the administering powers and the United Nations system - live up to their international responsibilities as set forth in the United Nations Charter, General Assembly and Economic and Special Council resolutions, and international conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The decisions taken at the 2010 session of the Special Committee on Decolonisation will, in large measure, set the stage for the United Nations to either advance the decolonisation process in future, or to maintain a repetition of process which has seen the disappointing result of only two territories in twenty years achieving a full measure of self-government.
The Special Committee on Decolonisation at its 2010 session has a most formidable task ahead if it makes the tough choice to engage in a constructive dialogue on the true essence of the decolonisation dilemma.
09 June 2010
Amer. Samoa Governor Calls for Political Status Modernisation
Now is the time to revisit our relationship with the U.S. says Togiola
Samoa News
By Fili Sagapolutele fili@samoanews.com
http://www.samoanews.com/viewstory.php?storyid=15832&edition=1275991200
American Samoa’s relationship with the U.S. government is becoming a difficult one with no relief in sight, says Gov. Togiola Tulafono, who calls on the community to revisit this relationship in order to resolve matters dealing with federal influence as American Samoa moves forward to find a better future.
Now is the time for American Samoa to discuss this important issue and for American Samoa to move towards greater self-governance without more outside influence, Togiola said on his weekend radio program.
Although there is a consensus for American Samoa to continue the close relationship with the federal government in the areas such as economic development, the Governor says there will be no relief for the territory in the future unless there is a solid stand on self government.
This means American Samoa should enact laws for itself without the current status, which requires federal approval for any new laws before they are enacted, he said, adding that this requirement is something that he is pushing to be removed.
Whatever laws enacted in American Samoa are created by its people and should not require outside approval, he stated, adding that a big problem now facing the territory is local economic development being affected by laws created outside the territory, without thinking about their impact on American Samoa. He cited, for example the federally mandated minimum wage hikes.
He said he believes that there will be no improvement in the future as a new generation of Americans enters the U.S. Congress and this new generation is not familiar with American Samoa as compared to past Congressional members (and some current ones) who served in World War II and are familiar with the Pacific and their unique needs and circumstances.
He said these past Americans from the 1950s and later years, have been to American Samoa and the Pacific and witnessed the difficulties faced by island residents.
Based on research, Togiola said these Americans made it easy to move issues on American Samoa in Washington, but he noted that that has changed.
According to the Governor, the territory can constantly raise with Washington the point about long standing military service by American Samoans as well as the high number of American Samoan casualties in wars, but no one will consider it anymore.
Togiola says his big concern is that American Samoa has no power to stop a U.S. Supreme Court decision when it comes to our land.
He said current laws require certain Samoan blood percentage to own land and it’s one issue that may be challenged in the Supreme Court if American Samoa’s lands becomes permanent lands of the United States.
The Governor says there is a similar case pending with the court in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and it has not yet reached the Supreme Court, who looks at the entire U.S. and not just one sector. He said American Samoa has made it through the past 110 years, but in the last 20-years many changes have occurred in our relationship with the U.S. and many of those changes are not beneficial to the territory.
Togiola said he expects a lot of criticism regarding his views and statements and many in the opposition are concerned with what will happen to federal grants and programs for American Samoa.
He said these concerns can be addressed if a good agreement is in place with the U.S. so that American Samoa has more self-governance of its own affairs in the areas such as law and operation of the judicial system, which he feels should be in the hands of American Samoans.
The Governor says American Samoa needs to stop the practice of dependence on the federal government and strive for more self reliance. He said this is the big problem he sees — that residents are depending more on others.
Togiola said he raises this issue as part of public discussion, as American Samoa prepares for the two-week Constitutional Convention set to begin on June 21. He encourages the public to share their views on this issue.
Samoa News
By Fili Sagapolutele fili@samoanews.com
http://www.samoanews.com/viewstory.php?storyid=15832&edition=1275991200
American Samoa’s relationship with the U.S. government is becoming a difficult one with no relief in sight, says Gov. Togiola Tulafono, who calls on the community to revisit this relationship in order to resolve matters dealing with federal influence as American Samoa moves forward to find a better future.
Now is the time for American Samoa to discuss this important issue and for American Samoa to move towards greater self-governance without more outside influence, Togiola said on his weekend radio program.
Although there is a consensus for American Samoa to continue the close relationship with the federal government in the areas such as economic development, the Governor says there will be no relief for the territory in the future unless there is a solid stand on self government.
This means American Samoa should enact laws for itself without the current status, which requires federal approval for any new laws before they are enacted, he said, adding that this requirement is something that he is pushing to be removed.
Whatever laws enacted in American Samoa are created by its people and should not require outside approval, he stated, adding that a big problem now facing the territory is local economic development being affected by laws created outside the territory, without thinking about their impact on American Samoa. He cited, for example the federally mandated minimum wage hikes.
He said he believes that there will be no improvement in the future as a new generation of Americans enters the U.S. Congress and this new generation is not familiar with American Samoa as compared to past Congressional members (and some current ones) who served in World War II and are familiar with the Pacific and their unique needs and circumstances.
He said these past Americans from the 1950s and later years, have been to American Samoa and the Pacific and witnessed the difficulties faced by island residents.
Based on research, Togiola said these Americans made it easy to move issues on American Samoa in Washington, but he noted that that has changed.
According to the Governor, the territory can constantly raise with Washington the point about long standing military service by American Samoans as well as the high number of American Samoan casualties in wars, but no one will consider it anymore.
Togiola says his big concern is that American Samoa has no power to stop a U.S. Supreme Court decision when it comes to our land.
He said current laws require certain Samoan blood percentage to own land and it’s one issue that may be challenged in the Supreme Court if American Samoa’s lands becomes permanent lands of the United States.
The Governor says there is a similar case pending with the court in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and it has not yet reached the Supreme Court, who looks at the entire U.S. and not just one sector. He said American Samoa has made it through the past 110 years, but in the last 20-years many changes have occurred in our relationship with the U.S. and many of those changes are not beneficial to the territory.
Togiola said he expects a lot of criticism regarding his views and statements and many in the opposition are concerned with what will happen to federal grants and programs for American Samoa.
He said these concerns can be addressed if a good agreement is in place with the U.S. so that American Samoa has more self-governance of its own affairs in the areas such as law and operation of the judicial system, which he feels should be in the hands of American Samoans.
The Governor says American Samoa needs to stop the practice of dependence on the federal government and strive for more self reliance. He said this is the big problem he sees — that residents are depending more on others.
Togiola said he raises this issue as part of public discussion, as American Samoa prepares for the two-week Constitutional Convention set to begin on June 21. He encourages the public to share their views on this issue.
07 June 2010
Chief Minister: Anguilla more colonized than before
ANGUILLA DAY CELEBRATED ON MONDAY, MAY 31
The Anguillian
While all of its Caribbean neighbours followed their normal work and way of life routine on Monday, May 31, Anguilla celebrated in grand style the 43rd Anniversary of its 1967 revolution in which it broke its political and constitutional links with St. Kitts-Nevis and set out on a long journey to self-determination and separation.
It was only in December 1980 that Britain unilaterally and formally separated Anguilla, granting the island and its daring people Crown Colony status, later re-styled an Overseas Territory. The May 30 Anguilla Day celebration was deferred this year to the following day as the usual date of the historic occasion fell this time on a Sunday.
The main event was the customary official parade at the James Ronald Webster Park, which was held under a heavily-overcast sky and a humid atmosphere, but with a large turnout of uniformed units, many invited guests and other members of the public, as well as the 21 persons selected for awards. The welcome remarks were delivered by the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Foster Rogers, who also chaired the proceedings.
The uniformed units comprised contingents from the Royal Anguilla Police Force, Her Majesty’s Prison, Scouts, Cub-Scouts, Guides and Brownies, Pathfinders, Girls Brigade and the Police/Community Band, all under the command of Inspector Elliott Forbes. The parade was inspected by Chief Minister, the Hon. Hubert Hughes, accompanied by recently-appointed Commissioner of Police, Rudolph Proctor.
The inspection was followed by a precision drill by members of the Police Force and a march past of the uniformed bodies during which the salute was taken by the Chief Minister, who was accompanied on the dais by His Excellency Governor Alistair Harrison.
The event, which lasted more than three hours, included reflections on the revolution by Carmen Woods, one of the island’s early Police Officers and an honoured revolutionary heroine; and a poem written about the “Father of the Nation”, Ronald Webster, by noted local poet and freedom fighter, Daisy (Juan) Richardson, and read by radio personality and honoree, Iwandai I. Gumbs.
There were two greetings which preceded the address by the Chief Minister. The first was delivered by Leader of the Opposition and Elected Member for Valley North, the Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers. “Our history recalls the resilience of our people in the most trying circumstances and the fact that they remain, in the words of our National Song, ‘a nation proud, strong and free,’ is a testimony to that abiding aspect of our character as a people,” he told his listeners. “One fact of that history, which should be instructive, as we continue to face new challenges, is that Anguilla has been strongest when it is united.”
Mr. Rogers, noting that there were still divisions on the island resulting from the recent electioneering, said it was time to move beyond the politics and to collectively find solutions to the problems confronting Anguilla and its people.
He said there was no better time for accentuating the theme of unity than on Anguilla Day and acknowledged the presence of Revolutionary Leader, Ronald Webster, and a number of others who played significant roles in the revolution. Mr. Rogers called on Government, Opposition and ordinary citizens, to make the day a turning point in the fortunes of Anguillians and to adopt the spirit and unity of the revolution in building “a nation proud, strong and free.”
Elected Member for East End, the Hon. Jerome Roberts, attired in his uniform as a Scout Leader, commended all of the stalwarts who made Anguilla Day possible. “We should be proud to know that, after 43 years, the Father of this nation, James Ronald Webster, a humble man from my district, still remains committed to the progress of this beautiful island we call home,” he said. “I take pride in saying long live Mr. Webster and those heroes and heroines who fought to save this land as ours.”
Mr. Roberts observed that there was a falling away from some of the principles and goals set by the revolution. He called for a re-kindling of what made the people of the island proud Anguillians over the past 43 years and urged families, churches, communities and schools to do their part to promote a spirit of love, unity and achievement.
In an address, read by his step-daughter, Yvonne Price, and previously published in The Anguillian, Revolutionary Leader, Mr. Webster, said the occasion was another milestone in the history of the revolution. “As we reflect on the past 43 years, we can rejoice in the fact that, despite the uncertainties of our economic situation and changes in our social, political and cultural development, I am proud of the contributions and talents of our men and women of courage and vision…who made tremendous contributions to Anguilla by their dedication, loyalty and determination,” he stressed.
Chief Minister, Mr. Hubert) Hughes, speaking without a script, charged that “Anguilla is more colonized 43 years after 1967 than before” and blamed the people of the island for creating the situation as a result of political disharmony and division. In rare statements heard on Anguilla Day, or on any other occasion, he claimed, among other matters, that the late Premier Robert Bradshaw, against whom the Anguillians rebelled, and whom he admired, did not neglect Anguilla. He indicated his belief that St. Kitts itself was neglected by Britain and that Bradshaw’s desire for Anguilla to remain within the fold of St. Kitts-Nevis was simply to preserve the unity of the then Associated State.
Mr. Hughes, who obviously offended some persons, said at the beginning of his address that he would depart from the normal Anguilla Day “situation.” He spent much time speaking on the economic, financial and social difficulties facing the island, which he blamed on the previous administration; the lack of a budget which he said the former British Minister for the Overseas Territories, Chris Bryant, had refused to approve; the refusal of the British Government to sanction loan agreements with the Caribbean Development Bank; and certain problems encountered at the hands of past Governors over the years.
After his exhaustive and sometimes controversial address, Mr. Hughes ended it as follows: “Governor, you got a good outing today. [To] my great leader, Ronald Webster, I had eleven months in his Government. We were overthrown, but it was the best eleven months of my political career.”
Following his address, he presented awards to the 21 nominees, assisted by Mrs. Janice Hodge, Mrs. Murtle Smith and Miss Anguilla 2009/2010, Sandrina Harris.
The awardees, a number of whom were represented by family members, were Thomas Benjamin Smith, Adolphus Vanterpool and Isalee Harrigan for the part they played in the Anguilla Revolution; and the others, awarded for their contribution to social development were: Ashley Brooks (posthumously); Thomas Bryan (posthumously); Joseph Gumbs (posthumously); Mrs. Donice Hodge (posthumously); Alwyn Hodge (posthumously); Renford Hennis (posthumously); Elliott Richardson, Hubert Gumbs, Rev. John A. Gumbs, Rev. Joseph Lloyd; Rev. Menes Hodge; Kenneth (Bob) Harrigan; Walwyn Hodge; Irma Richardson; Venis Simpson, Rondie Webster, Whaldama (Ras B) Brooks; and Iwandai I Gumbs.
The Anguillian
While all of its Caribbean neighbours followed their normal work and way of life routine on Monday, May 31, Anguilla celebrated in grand style the 43rd Anniversary of its 1967 revolution in which it broke its political and constitutional links with St. Kitts-Nevis and set out on a long journey to self-determination and separation.
It was only in December 1980 that Britain unilaterally and formally separated Anguilla, granting the island and its daring people Crown Colony status, later re-styled an Overseas Territory. The May 30 Anguilla Day celebration was deferred this year to the following day as the usual date of the historic occasion fell this time on a Sunday.
The main event was the customary official parade at the James Ronald Webster Park, which was held under a heavily-overcast sky and a humid atmosphere, but with a large turnout of uniformed units, many invited guests and other members of the public, as well as the 21 persons selected for awards. The welcome remarks were delivered by the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Foster Rogers, who also chaired the proceedings.
The uniformed units comprised contingents from the Royal Anguilla Police Force, Her Majesty’s Prison, Scouts, Cub-Scouts, Guides and Brownies, Pathfinders, Girls Brigade and the Police/Community Band, all under the command of Inspector Elliott Forbes. The parade was inspected by Chief Minister, the Hon. Hubert Hughes, accompanied by recently-appointed Commissioner of Police, Rudolph Proctor.
The inspection was followed by a precision drill by members of the Police Force and a march past of the uniformed bodies during which the salute was taken by the Chief Minister, who was accompanied on the dais by His Excellency Governor Alistair Harrison.
The event, which lasted more than three hours, included reflections on the revolution by Carmen Woods, one of the island’s early Police Officers and an honoured revolutionary heroine; and a poem written about the “Father of the Nation”, Ronald Webster, by noted local poet and freedom fighter, Daisy (Juan) Richardson, and read by radio personality and honoree, Iwandai I. Gumbs.
There were two greetings which preceded the address by the Chief Minister. The first was delivered by Leader of the Opposition and Elected Member for Valley North, the Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers. “Our history recalls the resilience of our people in the most trying circumstances and the fact that they remain, in the words of our National Song, ‘a nation proud, strong and free,’ is a testimony to that abiding aspect of our character as a people,” he told his listeners. “One fact of that history, which should be instructive, as we continue to face new challenges, is that Anguilla has been strongest when it is united.”
Mr. Rogers, noting that there were still divisions on the island resulting from the recent electioneering, said it was time to move beyond the politics and to collectively find solutions to the problems confronting Anguilla and its people.
He said there was no better time for accentuating the theme of unity than on Anguilla Day and acknowledged the presence of Revolutionary Leader, Ronald Webster, and a number of others who played significant roles in the revolution. Mr. Rogers called on Government, Opposition and ordinary citizens, to make the day a turning point in the fortunes of Anguillians and to adopt the spirit and unity of the revolution in building “a nation proud, strong and free.”
Elected Member for East End, the Hon. Jerome Roberts, attired in his uniform as a Scout Leader, commended all of the stalwarts who made Anguilla Day possible. “We should be proud to know that, after 43 years, the Father of this nation, James Ronald Webster, a humble man from my district, still remains committed to the progress of this beautiful island we call home,” he said. “I take pride in saying long live Mr. Webster and those heroes and heroines who fought to save this land as ours.”
Mr. Roberts observed that there was a falling away from some of the principles and goals set by the revolution. He called for a re-kindling of what made the people of the island proud Anguillians over the past 43 years and urged families, churches, communities and schools to do their part to promote a spirit of love, unity and achievement.
In an address, read by his step-daughter, Yvonne Price, and previously published in The Anguillian, Revolutionary Leader, Mr. Webster, said the occasion was another milestone in the history of the revolution. “As we reflect on the past 43 years, we can rejoice in the fact that, despite the uncertainties of our economic situation and changes in our social, political and cultural development, I am proud of the contributions and talents of our men and women of courage and vision…who made tremendous contributions to Anguilla by their dedication, loyalty and determination,” he stressed.
Chief Minister, Mr. Hubert) Hughes, speaking without a script, charged that “Anguilla is more colonized 43 years after 1967 than before” and blamed the people of the island for creating the situation as a result of political disharmony and division. In rare statements heard on Anguilla Day, or on any other occasion, he claimed, among other matters, that the late Premier Robert Bradshaw, against whom the Anguillians rebelled, and whom he admired, did not neglect Anguilla. He indicated his belief that St. Kitts itself was neglected by Britain and that Bradshaw’s desire for Anguilla to remain within the fold of St. Kitts-Nevis was simply to preserve the unity of the then Associated State.
Mr. Hughes, who obviously offended some persons, said at the beginning of his address that he would depart from the normal Anguilla Day “situation.” He spent much time speaking on the economic, financial and social difficulties facing the island, which he blamed on the previous administration; the lack of a budget which he said the former British Minister for the Overseas Territories, Chris Bryant, had refused to approve; the refusal of the British Government to sanction loan agreements with the Caribbean Development Bank; and certain problems encountered at the hands of past Governors over the years.
After his exhaustive and sometimes controversial address, Mr. Hughes ended it as follows: “Governor, you got a good outing today. [To] my great leader, Ronald Webster, I had eleven months in his Government. We were overthrown, but it was the best eleven months of my political career.”
Following his address, he presented awards to the 21 nominees, assisted by Mrs. Janice Hodge, Mrs. Murtle Smith and Miss Anguilla 2009/2010, Sandrina Harris.
The awardees, a number of whom were represented by family members, were Thomas Benjamin Smith, Adolphus Vanterpool and Isalee Harrigan for the part they played in the Anguilla Revolution; and the others, awarded for their contribution to social development were: Ashley Brooks (posthumously); Thomas Bryan (posthumously); Joseph Gumbs (posthumously); Mrs. Donice Hodge (posthumously); Alwyn Hodge (posthumously); Renford Hennis (posthumously); Elliott Richardson, Hubert Gumbs, Rev. John A. Gumbs, Rev. Joseph Lloyd; Rev. Menes Hodge; Kenneth (Bob) Harrigan; Walwyn Hodge; Irma Richardson; Venis Simpson, Rondie Webster, Whaldama (Ras B) Brooks; and Iwandai I Gumbs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)