13th Micronesian Chief Executives Summit

JOINT COMMUNIQUE


The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Territory of Guam, the Federated States of Micronesia and its States, Yap, Kosrae, Pohnpei and Chuuk, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau:

Introduction

The Chief Executives of the Governments of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, the Territory of Guam, the Federated States of Micronesia and its states, Yap, Kosrae, Pohnpei and Chuuk, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau held their Thirteenth Micronesian Chief Executives' Summit (MCES) in Saipan, CNMI, on June 23-25, 2010.

This Summit resulted in the adoption of regional programs of action in the focal areas of solid waste
management, conservation through the Micronesia Challenge and related environmental programs, renewable energy, invasive species, health, transportation, workforce investment, communications and tourism. The Summit also resulted in actions in miscellaneous areas of concern to the sub-region.

The Summit reaffirmed the commitment of each of the participants, on behalf of their people and their governments, to establish closer ties, expand future discussions and agree on beneficial initiatives for the benefit of the entire Micronesian Region.

The Honorable Benigno Fitial of the CNMI, as Chairman, expressed his appreciation to the Chief
Executives and their jurisdictional representatives for their attendance and active participation in the Thirteenth Micronesian Chief Executives' Summit.

Following the opening ceremonies of the Summit, which included statements by each of the Chief Executives, reports and recommendations from regional committees were given, along with presentations on a number of issues of interest in the region and jointly directed action in their respective jurisdictions, as reflected in this 13th Communique.

Regional Workforce Development Council (RWDC)

The Regional Workforce Development Council (RWDC) reported to the Chief Executives that their activities at the Thirteenth Summit addressed recurring workforce issues while promoting the RWDC's regional workforce "Good Jobs for Everyone" signature. This included support to its Micronesian and Pacific regionalism charter and updates of its action plans within the RWDC's Strategic Plan. The RWDC also recognized the importance of aligning policy interest areas related to workforce legislation and the need to invite representation in appropriate policy forums like the Association of Pacific Island Legislators.

The Chief Executives expressed their appreciation for the work of the RWDC and took the following actions:

• Regional Guam Job Corp Letter of Support. Related to the earlier endorsement of a regional satellite Job Corp Center in Guam, the MCES agreed to send a letter of support directed to the U.S. Department of Labor.

• Procurement and Contracts Acquisitions Training Initiative. Endorsed a regional procurement and contracts acquisition training strategy, including the need to institutionalize steps through the RWDC supported training initiatives.

• Science, Technology, Engineering, Agriculture/Aquaculture, Math (STEAM) Initiative.
Endorsed the RWDC STEAM initiative, which represents the latest addition to its recruitment pipeline priority area strategies and localizes the STEAM programming efforts through the inclusion of agriculture and aquaculture as viable economic sectors.

• E-Commerce Micronesia, Made-in-Micronesia, and Micronesia Saves. Endorsed the establishment and alignment of the e-commerce initiative supporting the RWDC's entrepreneurial priority area. This includes positioning a product signature identity.

"Made-in-Micronesia" strategy." This endorsement extended to the corresponding recommendation to establish a similar strategy entitled 'Micronesia Saves', which supports the RWDC's computer and financial literacy strategy.

• Endorsed expansion of the NDAA recruitment requirements for contractors to include the PWIW/RWDC talent recruitment priority areas of Guam, the CNMI, the FSM, the RMI and the Republic of Palau.

Micronesia Regional Invasive Species Council (RISC)

Since the Ith MCES, the Micronesia Regional Invasive Species Council (RISC) has remained engaged in the development of the Micronesia Biosecurity Plan (MBP). RISC is also addressing funding needs, the creation of an interagency biosecurity taskforce on Guam, ongoing efforts to prevent the spread of the brown tree-snake and various prevention and control activities in the nine RISC-member jurisdictions.

The Chief Executives supported the following recommendations by RISC:

• The execution by the Chief Executives of a letter requesting the Department of the Interior to support a National Invasive Species Council representative be stationed in Micronesia (Guam) for assistance to RISC and other Federal partners in programs relating to invasive species;

• That the Chief Executives commit to pnontizmg funding for a full-time permanent Invasive Species Coordinator for all RISC-Member jurisdictions;

• That Chief Executives direct their invasive species island coordinators and other appropriate staff to actively participate in the development of the MBP;

• That each Chief Executive, in writing to the Chair of RISC, identify two representatives to RISC from each state and national jurisdiction by September 2010;

• That two workshop-style meetings be held each year, between Summits, to collaborate on invasive species issues and priority actions; and

• That each jurisdiction reaffirm their respective commitment to provide a minimum of $2,500 to fund RISC's priority projects.

Micronesia Challenge

Since the Ith Micronesian Chief Executive Summit, solid progress has been made on implementation of the Micronesia Challenge. The MC Steering Committee reported that the baseline of existing areas under some form of management has been identified, working groups were established to finalize a regional monitoring framework to assess management effectiveness, and a regional database for the MC was developed. In terms of fundraising, approval was received from the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which will result in $5.05 million for the MC endowment for Palau, FSM, and RMI. This serves as part of the match for the $6M pledged by The Nature Conservancy and Conservation International in 2006. In addition, the MC Regional Business Plan was finalized and is under review by the MC Focal Points and appropriate agencies in each jurisdiction. The Committee provided leaders with a brief overview of additional progress made by each jurisdiction, including the following highlights:

• The CNMI is focusing on watershed management to address the deficiencies in the marine benthic environment and provided the example of road and drainage improvements and revegetation activities being implemented in the Laolao Bay project;

• Guam is working on implementing the Piti-Asan Watershed Conservation Action Plan and has launched a Rare Campaign to reduce wildland fires;

• The FSM has completed an Atoll Vulnerability Assessment that included participation by the Department of Resources & Development, the Office of Environment and Emergency Management, State departments/agencies/offices, community-based and nongovernmental organizations and other partners;

• The RMI completed a community based process to fully incorporate actions needed to address climate impacts in their national conservation area plan, the Reimaanlok, and is working on its climate change national policy and action plan, which incorporates the MC as a major response to impacts; and

• Palau has brought in a total of over $700K in 'Green Fees' since November 2009. These funds will go toward community-managed protected areas.

The MC Committee then briefed leaders on the next steps that need to be taken to continue to
move the MC forward, including:

• Implement recommendations for sustainable financing identified in the MC Regional Business Plan, at the jurisdictional level;

• Secure funding for a regional terrestrial measures workshop; and

• Collaborate with other environmental initiatives (e.g., invasive species, solid waste, energy, MCSF, etc.)

Based on the recommendations of the MC Steering Committee, the Chief Executives directed the following:

• Request assistance of the Government of Palau to provide office space for the Micronesia Challenge Regional Office.

• Encourage Chief Executives to take part in the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF) - to be held on September 10-20, 2010 in Guam, Saipan, and Pohnpei), which will focus on the MC.

• Engage in bi-lateral and multi-lateral high level discussions to leverage support for MC.

• Continue to promote the MC at regional and international levels to sustain interest in the initiative and help fundraising efforts for both the endowment and ongoing regional work.

• Continue to support policies for on-the-ground conservation and main streaming of environmental efforts in development plans.

Regional Energy Committee

Since the 12th MCES held in December 2009 in Guam, the Regional Energy Committee (REC) has met and discussed several key directives, primarily relating to this Committee's objectives to support and promote alternative energy technologies, programs and policies, both jurisdictionally and through a collaborative effort within this Committee to develop a Micronesian Energy Association. Some of the projects engaged in since the last MCES include:

CNMI

*  Waste-to-energy composite and characterization study that will lead to a feasibility analysis;

*  Photo voltaic systems on governmental buildings and a LED retrofit street lighting project;

*  Weatherization of residential homes and an appliance rebate program;

*  Commonwealth Utilities Corp. "supply side" energy efficiency improvements;

Guam

• Weatherization for retrofitting low income housing and promotion of energy efficient appliances and proper disposal;

• Grid connected solar system with the military;

CNMI and Guam

• Passage of Executive Orders supporting development of a renewable energy committee to create and implement an energy plan;

Palau

• Installation of Solar Street Lights and creation of a financial mechanism to pay for their Operation and Maintenance costs;

• Launching of a Renewable Energy Fund through the National Development Bank of Palau

RMI

• Implementation of EU Solar Projects and solarizing of the outer islands;

• Implementation of "Gassification" project funded by Asian Development Bank (ADB);

FSM

• Undertaking of a wind mapping study for potential wind energy projects;

• Connection of 6 PV grid systems in Kosrae;

• Establishment of the Association of Micronesian Utilities; and

FSM, RMI and Palau

• Completion of a "draft" Energy Plan and are seeking endorsement of said plan by their respective governments for implementation.

Since the last committee meeting, Articles of Incorporation and By-laws for a Micronesian Energy Association (MEA) have been created and a final draft will be circulated within each jurisdiction for final approval. The REC will finalize and adopt the by-laws and articles of incorporation for the MEA, develop a mission and vision statement for MEA and plan the next REC meeting at a time geographically convenient within the next 3 months.

The Chief Executives endorsed the recommendations from the Regional Energy Committee (REC) to the Micronesian Chief Executives as follows:

• Continued support for the creation of the Micronesia Energy Association (MEA) to be implemented by the REC, with the MCES determining the location of its Secretariat by no later than the upcoming Micronesian Presidential Summit;

• Support for the continued sharing of information regarding innovative energy mechanisms, as well as capacity building of skill sets for technical, mechanical, programmatic and policy initiatives; and

• Endorsement of Energy Planning for an "Energy Secure Pacific" by strengthening relations within the utilities and energy departments and other stakeholders, along with formalization of state plans to be incorporated into a regional plan.

Dan Wilson of Science Applications International Corporation briefed the Chief Executives on a Micronesia Energy Solution and offered similar models to consider adopting in the region. He further offered a number of best practices and examples of emerging technologies that can be adopted in Micronesia. The Chief Executives remarked on challenges faced with securing alternative sources of energy and asked for white papers to review and use for future discussions on this important issue to the people of Micronesia.

Solid Waste Management - Pacific Islands Regional Recycling Initiative Council (PIRRIC)

The Pacific Islands Regional Recycling Initiative Council (PIRRIC) reported that continued headway has been made following the 12th Micronesian Chief Executives Summit held on Guam in December 2009. Significant forward momentum has been maintained in the public-private partnerships designed to remove metallic waste from our islands. PIRRIC indicated that the concentrated efforts of the group, combined with the current market condition related to recovered metals, has made the removal of metallic waste an effective project. This has also allowed formation of partnerships that may assist in developing effective processing and marketing consortiums to allow efficient recovery of additional recyclable commodities.

However, PIRRIC noted that this current private sector interest involves the removal of recovered metallic material accumulated over years, but does not necessarily involve the future removal of such metallic material, where the economies of scale will be smaller. Therefore, long-term management options must include public systems for metallic waste management.

To facilitate future activities and include additional environmental issues of regional concern, PIRRIC recommended partnering with the "Micronesian Center for A Sustainable Future" which will allow a more targeted and holistic implementation action plan to be developed.

PIRRIC reported that the CNMI has developed a reasonably stable market for scrap tires and that
coordinated efforts amongst PIRRIC members would drive the potential access to this market for other jurisdictions and allow for consolidation and cost savings. This should further strengthen market access and allow for development of a coordinated approach to processing and exporting scrap tires.

PIRRIC also reported that the CNMI was currently soliciting proposals to conduct a waste characterization/feasibility study of Saipan's waste to determine the potential for waste-to-energy (WTE) technology applications. Once completed, the data generated will be made available to all members and allow for development of a capitalization and implementation recommendation.

The PIRRIC also restated its goals to create a Comprehensive Regional Solid Waste Action Plan patterned after SPREP's "Strategy for Solid Waste Management Pacific Island Countries and
Territories ".

The Chief Executives congratulated the PIRRIC on its efforts since the last summit and directed the following actions:

• Continue to monitor the progress of regional material removal projects;

• Continue the evaluation of technologies and report back findings at the next summit;

• Undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the alternatives available for managing solid waste, including an evaluation of cryogenics, pyrolysis, and shredding of tires for use locally or to maximize shipping and shipping whole tires; and

• Continue to develop sources for policy and financial support for the continuation of activities.

Regional Tourism Committee Report

The PATA Micronesia Chapter (PATAMC) held its First Tri-Annual Meeting in Saipan on June 14th to 16th with its 2nd Tri-Annual Meeting scheduled for Yap in August 2010. Accomplishments included Kosrae and Pohnpei joining Palau, Yap, Guam, CNMI, and the Marshall Islands in having produced their "Destination eGuides" (electronic brochures) and the near finalization of Chuuk's guide.

PATAMC also developed a Request for Proposals and the establishment of a Selection Committee to select an agency to develop a "regional brand message". Other accomplishments since the last MCES include:

• On-going creation of package deals for each island destination;

• Regional Exhibitions in February 2010 in Guam, attended by and with exhibitions by CNMI, Guam, Palau, Kosrae, Chuuk and Yap and the Marshall Islands;

• LIVE Radio Talk Show - K57 in February 2010 in Guam featuring Guam, CNMI and Kosrae;

• On-going Print Advertisements in R&R Pacific Magazine by CNMI and Palau; and

• Initiation of marketing strategies for the Luxury Cruise market.

The Chief Executives supported the recommendations of the Tourism Committee and directed the Committee as follows:

• Support the launching by PATAMC of an outreach campaign to encourage the public and private sectors to recycle goods, conserve our natural resources and utilize energy efficient appliance or items so as to reduce climate change impacts.

• Support government partnerships in identifying sites for nomination as World Heritage sites.

• Support PATAMC soliciting proposals from qualified companies to do a study of the economic impact of the tourism industry in the Micronesia region.

• Support the creation of a Micronesia Cruise Taskforce representing island members to collaborate regionally in its governmental policy development in areas of immigration & customs clearance policy, uniform island port calls and cruise ship fee policy, marine, environmental and marine security policies, development of home port service facilities, and to work with federal agencies to secure financial support.

• Support the creation of a Micronesian Cruise Association to learn about the leisure cruise market and collaborate regionally to develop industry relationships between island destinations and cruise companies, as well as developing marketing and development strategies in conjunction with the region's regulatory structures.

• Continue to support their respective tourism organizations' active participation in Trade/Travel Shows / Exhibitions / Seminars, etc. in key markets and their other promotional/training activities in the region.

Governor Camacho recommended the creation of a task force within the Tourism Committee for
the cruise ship industry and Governor Fitial suggested that PATAMC serve as the umbrella organization for the Micronesian Cruise Association.

Regional Health Committee (HC)

During this 13th MCES, the Regional Health Committee focused on the regional epidemic of non-communicable diseases and its current and projected impact on the societies and economies of MCES member states. The U.S. Affiliated Pacific Islands (USAPI) have among the highest rates of diabetes, cancer, heart disease and obesity in the world. As a result, the Pacific Island Officers Association (PIHOA) declared, in May, 2010, a regional state of emergency (PIHO Resolution 48-01).

The Regional Health Committee also addressed the need to pro actively leverage the opportunities of health care reform legislation recently passed in the United States and the need for executive level support for Public Health Education in the region.

Finally, Committee updated the Chief Executives on the lack of access of FAS citizens to Medicaid benefits in the United States.

The Health Council also reported on progress made toward recommendations from previous MCES Communiques. Work continues to development the Micronesian Health District, which requires finalization of funding options to develop a briefing paper on the subject.

Regarding the 12th Communique recommendation to developing Level 1 lab capacity in Guam, PIHOA recently partnered with the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and Guam DPHSS to undertake and complete an assessment of level 1 lab needs in Guam. In addition, PIHOA has identified funds to undertake an analysis of level 2 lab needs in the region.

In the area of Human Resources for Health Management (HRH) Management Offices in USAPI Health Agencies, PIHOA is now assessing the available curriculum and resources for developing and delivering "HRH 101" courses in the USAPI, for health agency focal points charged with staffing the implementation of local HRH plans.

The Chief Executives supported the reported efforts of Committee and recommended the following:

• Actions be undertaken by each member state to support Pll-IOA Resolution No. 48-01;

• Work to leverage the opportunities available through the U.S. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010;

• Work to restore Medicaid eligibility for Citizens of the FAS residing in the United States and its territories in line with a MCES Resolution directed to the U.S. Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

• Continue its work to develop Levell Lab capacity in the region;

• Continue to work towards the development of a Micronesian Health District and to finalize efforts to identified necessary funding;

• Continue to work on Emergency Preparedness and USAPI Mutual Aid Agreements for finalization prior to the 14th MCES;

• Continue to work towards the development of human resource and educational opportunities, including the creation of a Fiji School of Medicine, North;

• Complete the drafting of the Worker Migration Agreement by the 14th MCES; and

• Continue to work on developing Human Resource for Health (HRH) Management Offices in USAPI Health Agencies.

Communications Committee

The Communications Committee met on 23 June 2010 in Saipan, CNMI and was attended by representatives from the Republic of the Marshall Islands, FSM, Palau, and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community. A presentation was made by Palau to the Committee on Information Communication and Telecommunication (ICT) initiatives they have implemented including the linking of outer islands using VSAT (Very Small Aperture Terminals), unregulated competition in the telecommunication sector, e-Government applications, and a Palau National ICT Policy.

The SPC provided a briefing on the Pacific Regional ICT Officials and Ministers meeting of 16-18 June 2010, in Nuku'alofa Tonga. The outcomes of this ministerial meeting included a "Tonga Declaration" , a "Framework for Action on ICT for Development in the Pacific", assignment of the lead coordination role of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), and the establishment of regional initiatives including the Pacific Computer Emergency Response Team (PacCERT), Pacific ICT Regulatory Resource Center (PIRRC), and ICT Capacity Building for Pacific ACP Countries (ICB4PAC).

The Chief Executives accepted the recommendations of the Committee advocating greater organizational coordination of the various ICT entities, policies and programs, and

• Adopted a Resolution encouraging the u.s. Government and other funding agencies to support broadband submarine fiber optics connectivity for the FSM States and the Palau;

• Adopted a Resolution encouraging the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to support the implementation of the Resource and Patient Management System (RPMS), by the FAS States, to enable the exchange of patient information through the National Health Information Network to improve patient care and safety, public health surveillance and effectiveness and efficiency in health care delivery; and

• Adopted a Resolution requesting that the Government of Japan, with support from the International Telecommunications Union, implement the WINDS satellite experiments for the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau; and

• Adopted a Resolution recognizing the need for a more coordinated approach in the use of ICT to assist development and to improve livelihood of our communities, and to acknowledge the Tonga Declaration and outcomes of the Pacific Regional ICT Ministers meeting.

Miscellaneous Issues

1. United States Coast Guard

At the invitation of the Transportation Committee, United States Coast Guard Sector Guam Captain Thomas M. Sparks gave a presentation on the role of the United States Coast Guard in Micronesia. Captain Sparks shared with the Chief Executives the duties of Commander Sector Guam and its missions in the area which is one of the largest areas of responsibility in the United States Coast Guard (2,000,000 square nautical miles). Captain Sparks remarked upon the inadequate resources available to respond to their mission as related to the Guam Military Buildup Program. Chief Executives were briefed on future placement of United States Marines in the United States Coast Guard footprint in Naval Station Guam. He also stated that Search and Rescue Operations in Micronesia remain a challenge and encouraged early notification and coordination with the US Coast Guard Command Center. He also requested that the Governments of the FSM and Palau prioritize the refueling of Australian Patrol Boats in their respective ports. The Chief Executives were appreciative of the services provided by the United States Coast Guard in the region.

2. Military Expansion Assistance in the Insular Areas

Joint Guam Program Office Forward Director John Jackson gave an update on the military expansion in the Northern Pacific. Mr. Jackson spoke regarding future forces in Guam, including the relocation of 8,500 United States Marine Corps and their 9,000 dependents to Guam from Okinawa, the development of a United States Army Missile Defense Task Force and construction of a transient Aircraft Carrier Pier at Apra Harbor. He also briefed the Chief Executives on the status of the Environmental Impact Statement which Mr. Jackson said would be completed by September 20 I0 with the Record of Decision. He also spoke of the pending Draft Master Plan that details the funding and construction plans to support the military missions in Guam and Tinian. Chief Executives commented on a lack of budgeting action by the U.S. Congress. Mr. Jackson replied that while projects have been identified there are other factors that mayor may not delay funds for Guam and Tinian projects by 2014, the proposed completion date of the Guam Military Buildup Program.

A presentation was also given by Gary Kurabara, Western Regional Director of the U.S. Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment, on funding assistance for the military buildup in Guam and the CNMI. Mr. Kurabara focused his discussions on a conceptual approach to assisting the island communities with expansion efforts. Chief Executives were briefed on the Technical Assistance programs of the OEA and the creation of coalitions to address local government challenges in planning for the Guam Military Buildup Program.

3. Airport Improvement Programs in the Region

Ronnie Simpson, the Manager of the Honolulu Airports District Office of the (US) Federal Aviation Administration gave a presentation on the Airport Improvement Program in the Pacific Region.
Mr. Simpson remarked that there have been fundamental changes to the development of all the airports in Micronesia. Since 2004, nearly $700 million has been invested in Northern Pacific airports for safety, reconstruction, standards and capacity enhancement projects. TheChief  Executives praised Mr. Simpson for his advocacy for Area airports for the past ten years.

The President of Continental Micronesia, Charles Duncan, gave an update on Continental Airlines activities in the region, including the merger of United-Continental Airlines in May 2010 which will create the largest airline in the United States. He stated that Micronesia will benefit by Continental Micronesia joining a stronger network across the Pacific and the West Coast of the United States. He sought continued support of the airline's programs and asked that departure fees be used to support respective airport programmatic needs. The Chief Executives were also briefed on Continental Micronesia's route activities in the region and the need for increased seat capacity in line with demands related to the Guam Military Buildup Program. Mr.
Duncan fielded questions from Chief Executives regarding the resumption of Manila-Saipan routes for humanitarian medical and tourism business, cargo handling concerns and price reductions for travel within Micronesia.

Micronesia Center for Sustainable Future

The Secretary General (SG), with the assistance of the Strategic Design and Planning (SDPT) Team, reports the following accomplishments in line with the recommendations of the Chief Executives at the 12thMicronesia Chief Executives Summit:

• Submitted a $400,000 grant proposal with the Department of Interior and received preliminary notice of support of the Grant, which will be officially announced in August at the Micronesia Games to be held in Palau. The Grant focuses on three primary delivery areas, as follows:

• Organizational development;

• Program Delivery; and

• Further development of the Regional Strategic Framework as a living document.

To expedite immediate implementation of the grant, the SDPT held inception meetings with the Administrator of the Grant selected by the Department of Interior, the Graduate School. The Graduate School will be the official recipient of the Grant and will work with the Secretary General and the SDPT to implement all components of the grant within the next year. The inception meeting focused on fine tuning the actual costs
associated with the specific programs and activities approved under the grant.

• Completed and gained signatures on a Teaming Agreement with the University of Guam.

• Completed and gained signatures on a Teaming Agreement with the College of Micronesia, Federated States of Micronesia (COM-FSM).

• Completed and gained signatures on a Strategic Alliance Agreement with the Micronesian Seminar (MICSEM).

• Finalized and filed corporate documents for the MCES in Guam, and, within this context:

     * Amended Corporate By-Laws to reflect each Chief Executive's status as the Directors of the MCSF;

     * Gained a Guam Business License;

     * Received U.S. Employee Identification Number; and

     * Applied for 501(c)(3) non-profit status, which status is anticipated within the next two months.

In addition to on-going Center activities, the Secretary General reported, on the behalf of the Center for Micronesian Empowerment (CME) that the CME has assisted in placing 63 graduates in full time employment. By the end of 2010, the CME will have assisted and found full time employment for 245 participants. The Governor of Chuuk formalized the relationship between the State of Chuuk and the CME during the Summit with a $120,000 program commitment for job training in Guam in preparation for the military buildup. The first 15 students will arrive in Guam on July 3rd.

The Secretary General continues to work on a number of approved initiatives to strengthen the MCES and the Center and seeks the support of the Chief Executives for these and additional initiatives, as set forth below:

• Prepare for the formal announcement of the DOl Grant, and, upon final announcement, immediately begin implementation activities, to include:

     * Development of Legal and Financial Protocols;

     * Establishment of a Facilities and Staffing Plan;

     * Creation of a Programmatic Evaluation System for the MCSF;

     * Implementation of the broad variety of programs funded by the grant;

     * Establishment of a representative body composed of one member from each jurisdiction; and

     * Development of the MCSF Strategic Framework, taking into account Jurisdictional review and      enhanced data gathering through the Grant.

     * Continue to develop teaming and strategic alliance relationships with regional and
 international organizations, including:

    * A teaming agreement with the Pacific Post Secondary-Education Council (PPEC) and its members;

    * Teaming agreements with other appropriate higher learning institutions, including the South Pacific University and the College of the Marshal Islands (CMI); and
    * A Strategic Alliance with the Island Research and Education Initiative (IREI).

• Pursue funding opportunities from Australia and New Zealand for a remittance study by the Micronesian Seminar, through the MCSF, in the FSM, Palau and the RMI (This study will serve as a critical element in the development of a regional socio-economic assessment of the region);

• Establish membership in the National Association of Regional Planning Councils (NARC) in order to leverage ARRA funding for the region;

• Continue to support CME in its efforts to rapidly increase the number of participants served by the program (750 participants anticipated in 2011 and over 1,000 anticipated in 2012, with revenues generated from the program being reinvested into expanded and improved services and training);

• Continue negotiations with the APIL regarding the development of a framework of consensus building and cooperation;

• Continue to move forward in discussions with the Bank of Guam to finalize the development of a Micronesian Monetary Fund;

• Take such other actions on behalf of the Chief Executives as will move forward, with all due expediency, the development of the Micronesia Center for a Sustainable Future;

• Collaborate with other regional and national initiatives; and

• Continue to pursue and leverage funding opportunities for regional initiatives.

The Chief Executives once again confirmed their strong support for the Center and recommended that anticipatory work begin in anticipation of the finalization of the Department of Interior (OIA) Start-up Grant. The Chief Executives also agreed to send representatives to an inception meeting to develop organizational structures, initial program delivery and development of a regional strategic framework.

The Secretary General and the Officers of the Center are working with the U.S. National Invasive Species Council, and other U.S. Federal and international partners to sponsor a side event at the upcoming Convention on Biological Diversity to highlight the development of the U.S. Department of Defense-funded Micronesia Biosecurity Plan (MBP). The MBP is an unprecedented collaborative effort between Micronesia and the U.S. Government to proactively study invasive species threats to the region of Micronesia posed by the military buildup and to make responsive recommendations based on scientific analyses to prevent any damage from occurring, now and in the future. In addition to the MBP, the side event will focus on the exemplary regional coordination under the auspices of the MCSF and cooperation with the U.S. Government that has lead to the development of this globally unique plan.

Conclusion

The Fourteenth Summit of the Micronesian Chief Executives will be held in Kosrae, FSM. The Chief Executives closed the 13th Summit and once again stressed the need to move forward on prior and new initiatives. There was also a recommitment by the Chief Executives to the implementation of these sub-regional initiatives endorsed since the start of the Micronesian Chief Executives' Summits, They agreed to greater coordination and communication to accomplish the goals set out since 2003. They also committed to fully integrating regional issues into ongoing governmental planning and budget processes within each jurisdiction.

Governor Fitial thanked all the participants for their attendance and attention to these pressing issues before the Summit.

Bermuda Dep. Premier Vies for Party Leadership

Would Succeed Premier Ewart Brown

CARRYING THE TORCH INTO THE NEW ERA


On 5th August 2010, the Deputy Premier & Minister of Finance the Hon. Paula A. Cox announced her intention to vie for leadership of the Bermuda Progressive Labour Party. Following are the remarks in full of Hon. Cox.

Good Morning.

A couple of days ago I submitted a letter to the Party Chairman and to the Party Leader advising that I intended to be a candidate in the upcoming Party leadership election.

Today I publicly affirm my decision to contest the election for the position of the Leader of the Bermuda Progressive Labour Party. I stand here today to announce my desire to serve the Bermuda Progressive Labour Party as its next Party Leader and to lead our country as the next Premier of Bermuda.

When we first became Government in November 9, 1998, we excited the imagination of the country. It was felt to be our time. I remember saying on the Cabinet grounds on November 10, 1998 that the air smelled better, and that even the French fries tasted better, post a PLP Government. So expectations were high and we were excited.

Since that time, we have had some casualties. Some of our veteran Members are no longer with us, but they will always be remembered as standard-bearers for justice, equity and integrity. These included former Tourism Minister, the Hon. David Allen, JP MP, the Hon Dame Lois Brown-Evans DLBE, JP MP, the Hon Nelson Bascome, JP MP and my father, the Hon. C. Eugene Cox, CBE, JP MP.

Today I stand on the shoulders of all those who have gone before us, including, former Opposition Leader, L. Frederick Wade, JP MP and all our founding PLP founding members.

My task, if successful, at the PLP Annual Delegates’ Conference will be to carry the torch our earlier stalwarts lit into a new era.

Since 1998, I have served my country as an advocate for education, a guardian of our nation’s labour force as Home Affairs Minister and as an innovator and enabler in economic empowerment and economic development.

I believe that Government is most successful when we are accountable, while standing united as a Government, working together for the good of our country.

I am committed to my fellow Bermudians and I am committed to our Party. However, I have a greater commitment to reaching our potential as a country with integrity, honour and openness. A Bermuda whose people see what is possible and are not afraid to reach beyond themselves to achieve it.

Bermuda must be a great place for Bermudians and those that work and reside here. Bermuda must also acknowledge her global status and embrace the change that is required to be a top class global player. We have to be willing to open some doors that we may have shied away from in the past but we have to hold hands and we have to walk into the future together, respectful of each other’s differences but prepared to push the differences aside in order to make Bermuda the best place to be.

We have an economic downturn and we have to devise ways to be even more innovative in providing jobs and expanded opportunities for those who have lost employment. Our system of concessions and relief can be an enabler here. We have to be prepared to dialogue and to consider ways to interact that can be mutually beneficial, not just when there are ‘hot’ issues. We accept that there are challenges, but there are also opportunities.

I know that many of you see this. I am heartened by the knowledge that you are willing to stand with me; work with me; and succeed with me, in serving our Bermuda.

We have many challenges to face as a country and as a Party. Our community is changing. Keynes once asked: “When circumstances change, I change my mind: what do you do?”

Well, when circumstances change, the Progressive Labour Party Government that I am a proud member of, rolls up its sleeves and gets on with doing the job.

As we turn the page and prepare to bid farewell to our current Party Leader and the country’s Premier and open the chapter to a new administration, we will press forward to work in the people’s interests. It will not be business as usual or politics of usual. So, what next?

I intend to bring together a team that will believe as I do- that to serve one’s country is a noble undertaking. Together, we will transform Bermuda into a place of greater opportunity, harmony and social progress, with a team of Ministers and Parliamentarians who will be responsive to your needs and who will never forget that we are the people’s servants.

People are aching for another wave of change following the high of 1998. This is normal. Familiarity can sometimes get dull, even in the most dynamic of relationships. So this next wave of PLP Government has to bring not just substance with style. We have to recapture some of the dizzying heights of the November 1998 aura. This we will do. We will re-connect and we will need all hands on deck- youth and experience, wisdom and wit and energy.

We have a job to do and we will get on with it. Let us build one another –together. I believe that Bermuda will move forward together with this brand of leadership as we turn the page and start a new chapter.

Caribbean Group bids for Turks & Caicos bank

By Jason Richards

http://thedominican.net/2010/07/ecic-makes-bid-for.html

A consortium of Caribbean banks headed by Dominican Milton Lawrence is vowing to save the Turks and Caicos International (TCI) Bank after the bank was forced into liquidation earlier this year.

Milton Lawrence CEO of ECIC Holdings Ltd along with Stephen Lander, of the National Bank of Dominica, says they will invest up to $30.5m in new money towards getting the collapsed institution back on its feet, which will enable the country’s 4,500 account holders to access all funds up to $50,000 instantly.

The two also vowed to overturn TCI Bank’s fortunes to become one of the most successful financial institutions in the Caribbean.

The disclosure was made at a town hall meeting in the Turks and Caicos Islands as ECIC – one of TCI Bank’s major shareholders – put forward their rescue plan.

It also involves ECIC paying off a $5.5m secured loan by the National Insurance Board, which saved TCI Bank from disaster last year, and $25m to resuscitate the bank, which held around eight per cent of the country’s total bank deposits.

Lawrence promised that all deposits would be kept whole. Customers would get back all their money up to the first $50,000 immediately with access to an additional $50,000 taking place over 12 months for chequing account holders.

All other accounts over $50,000, excluding chequing accounts up to $100,000, would be kept for a period of five years at an annual interest rate of 1.75 per cent.

The ECIC Holdings bid for the failed bank is one of three offers that have been made thus far for the bank. The Supreme Court in that island is expected to rule soon on which of the offers will be accepted.

ECIC holdings is a private consortium of 10 indigenous East Caribbean banks. They include Grenada Co-operative Bank, First National Bank St Lucia, National Bank of Dominica, ABI Bank, Caribbean Union Bank, St Kitts Nevis Anguilla National Bank, Bank of Nevis, National Bank of Anguilla, Caribbean Commercial Bank (Anguilla) and TCI Bank. The firm’s headquarters are in Basseterre, St Kitts.

Emotiva despedida a Lolita Lebrón

by José R. Bas García - independencia.net

Solamente un independentista puertorriqueño puede referirse a la vida de otro independentista puertorriqueño con la carga emocional y el sentido de responsabilidad con que Rubén Berríos Martínez, Presidente del Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño (PIP), describió a quien en vida fue Lolita Lebrón. Fue a Rubén Berríos a quien le correspondió, por voluntad de la propia fenecida, la responsabilidad de ofrecer un mensaje poco antes del sepelio de la extraordinaria mujer que lo sacrificó todo por la independencia de Puerto Rico denunciando la patraña colonial que se perpetraba contra nuestra patria a manos del gobierno de Estados Unidos con la ayuda del liderato del partido pro colonia que colaboró para completar la agenda de la potencia administradora que pretendía mantenernos sujetos y subordinados a su poder político e intereses económicos y militares.
 
“Nosotros somos hijos agradecidos de doña Lolita por haber sido el ejemplo mayor en la defensa de la independencia de Puerto Rico”, declaró el orador al iniciar su discurso en que exaltó la grandeza de la independentista que irónicamente hoy reclaman como también suya algunos herederos del liderato de aquel partido que en 1952 se robó la bandera puertorriqueña y la humillaron izándola al lado de la de Estados Unidos. Es el mismo liderato del partido que aún sostiene y defiende la permanencia de la condición colonial de Puerto Rico.
 
“A cada uno de nosotros”, aseguró Berríos dirigiéndose a los presentes, “nos une el mismo ideal por el que Lolita vivió y entregó su vida entera”. Por supuesto, ese ideal no podía ser otro que el de la libertad y la independencia de Puerto Rico.
 
El presidente del PIP narró una historia muy impresionante sobre la manera en que la figura de Lolita Lebrón contribuyó, sin ella habérselo propuesto, a facilitar los trámites con el liderato político de Brasil para conseguir el apoyo de ese país para la independencia de Puerto Rico. Ya esa generación de líderes brasileños conocía las ejecutorias de Lolita Lebrón en el Congreso de Estados Unidos en 1953 y la admiraban profundamente por su integridad y valentía.
 
El sacrificio de Lolita Lebrón no fue sencillo. El imperio la condenó a muchos años de cárcel, de los cuales cumplió 25. Durante los mismos, estuvo sujeta a constantes intentos de hacerla claudicar a cambio de excarcelarla en un tiempo mucho más breve. Según ella misma le narró a Berríos durante conversaciones sostenidas luego de su regreso a la Isla, los carceleros solo le pedían que declarar que se había equivocado, que lo sentía mucho y se arrepentía.
 
“Tenía las llaves de su cárcel, pero Lolita Lebrón no aceptó. Lolita Lebrón no dio ni un paso atrás”, exclamó Rubén Berríos. “El mejor homenaje que podemos ofrecerle es no dar ni un paso atrás en la búsqueda de la independencia”.
 
“Hoy venimos a enterrar a una independentista puertorriqueña, a una nacionalista puertorriqueña que sabía que sin libertad, sin independencia no hay una patria digna. Hoy venimos a renovar votos”, sostuvo Berríos con la pasión que lo caracteriza y que surge de su corazón al referirse a una verdadera líder de la independencia, como Lolita Lebrón, que supo poner la lucha por la libertad por encima de todas las cosas.

Las exequias fúnebres en honor a Lolita Lebrón comenzaron el domingo con una misa que se celebró en la Parroquia San Lucas de la Urbanización El Señorial, donde residía. Cerca de las 9:00 de la noche su cuerpo fue trasladado al Ateneo Puertorriqueño en San Juan en donde hubo actos artísticos y otras expresiones por parte del público que asistió y de los miembros del Partido Nacionalista de Puerto Rico. Hoy, lunes, cerca del mediodía hubo una misa en su honor en la Catedral del Viejo San Juan, luego de la cual se trasladó el féretro al Cementerio Nacional del Viejo San Juan. Sus restos permanecerán en un panteón cercano al de Gilberto Concepción de Gracia y Pedro Albizu Campos, entre otros que, en vida, también dieron la cara por la independencia de Puerto Rico.

Partnership for Peace - A Violence Intervention Programme

Statement of Deputy Premier Hon. Dancia Penn, British Virgin Islands

Twelfth Sitting of the Third Session of the First House of Assembly

Mr. Speaker, some months ago, I stated in this Honourable House that The Government, through the Ministry of Health and Social Development, had embarked on “Partnership for Peace: A Violence Intervention Programme”.

Spearheaded by the Office of Gender Affairs, the initiative is being undertaken with support from the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), Caribbean Office, in Barbados.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that domestic violence continues to plague our region and the rest of the world. Admittedly, here in the British Virgin Islands, we are not insulated from the problem. That is why Partnership for Peace: A Violence Intervention Programme, which is a 16-week psycho-educational programme, is an important one for us to introduce and maintain in the British Virgin Islands.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that the first cycle of the Partnership for Peace Programme has been completed, and that it has been rated as a success by UNIFEM. It lasted from February 3 - May 19, 2010. Six participants were referred to the programme by the Magistrate’s Court. Their ages ranged from 21-50 years. To date none of the participants from the first cycle has reoffended, and it is expected that the tools that they received over the 16 weeks would make them think twice about repeating the offence.

Some of the topics covered during the initial cycle, Mr. Speaker, were: understanding and managing feelings-managing life’s transitions, effective communication, conflict resolution, family history, manhood, womanhood, power and control in relationships, sexuality, STI’s and HIV prevention, among others.

I am happy to also report that the second cycle of the programme started with nine men on May 27 and will end on September 9, 2010. As of today’s date, seven men remain in the second cycle.

I am indeed pleased to be able to report to this Honourable House that in the first and second cycles the men have bonded very well with each other. Participants have been responding well to the programme, and early indications are that the Partnership for Peace Violence Intervention Programme is poised to have a very positive impact on the social fabric of this Territory.

Mr. Speaker, last week, a UNIFEM team visited the Territory from July 7 - 9 to monitor and evaluate the programme and to ensure that there is adherence to programme. They met with the Partnership for Peace team, including the Programme Director and the current facilitators to get their feedback on the impact of the programme on the participants. The OGA also organized its second progress report meeting on July 9 with key stakeholders and the trained facilitators, where feedback from the participants of the programme was reported by the facilitators, programme coordinator and clinical supervisor.

Mr. Speaker, the preliminary feedback I received from the Programme Director was heartening. In addition, the UNIFEM team reported that the programme is well managed, and they commended the Government of the Virgin Islands for its commitment and dedication to the programme. UNIFEM will submit a full report to the Ministry of Health and Social Development within a month.

Mr. Speaker, the Government is very grateful to UNIFEM and its team for this partnership to end the scourge of violence against women and girls in the Territory.

We are particularly very grateful for the technical and financial support UNIFEM has provided for the successful implementation of Partnership for Peace: A Violence Intervention Programme. Government, through the Ministry of Health and Social Development, is anticipating a long-lasting partnership with UNIFEM.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Former and Current British Caribbean Colonies Commemorate Emancipation Day

Emancipation from slavery was won in 1834

The Emancipation Act
from blackhistorypages.net

Freedom, More or Less

On August 1, 1834, the Emancipation Act came into force, after fifty years of bitter debate in Britain over the morality and profitability of slavery. It did not abolish servitude, but it was the first significant promise of freedom.

This act did not make a difference to the more than half million slaves in Britain's Caribbean colonies, for although the Emancipation Act outlawed slavery in theory, the slaves had to wait another four years for the most elementary liberties.

The government was afraid of liberating half a million slaves without controls, while the planters did not want their estates to collapse, as forced labour would no longer be available.

The Emancipation Act simply transformed the slaves into apprenticed labourers for a further four to six years. The only slaves to be immediately free were those under six years old, while the incubus of slavery persisted for the others.


2010 Emancipation Day Message
Prime Minister Dr. W. Baldwin Spencer
Antigua and Barbuda


Address to the Nation
on Emancipation Day August 1, 2010
“Embracing the birth of a Caribbean Nation”

Fellow citizens and residents of Antigua and Barbuda, it is yet another occasion for us to take time out to officially recognize Emancipation Day 2010.

Our commemoration is not just about recognizing a historic moment, but the celebration of the birth of a Caribbean nation and people who share a common history and culture. This history is shaped by various factors, including the presence of indigenous Amerindian people, European conquest and colonization, the plantation system, slavery and eventualemancipation.

Emerging from this common history and culture iswhat we now call the Caribbean, a nation comprising of English, Dutch and French speaking countries with a total estimated population of over 14million people.


Our celebration of Emancipation Day 2010 should help us to begin the process of deepening our understanding and appreciation for the Caribbean as a Nation in order for us to further explore the contemporary realities of our current economic and social conditions and the future challenges of dealing with natural disasters, world economic and financial fall outs and threats to our region as a zone of peace.

As thelegendary reggae icon Bob Marley said, we need ‘to emancipate ourselves frommental slavery, non but ourselves can free our mind’…..


Emancipation therefore is not just freedom from the dehumanizing experience of slavery and plantation life, but freedom to chart a course and set an agenda for the future of all our people.


This process of emancipation is ongoing requiring us to become responsible citizens, honest leaders and disciplined patriots working for the good of all and betterment of our brothers and sisters.

The late Professor RexNettleford once said that…. “Our people were able to survive the traumas of separation from ancestral hearths as part of the transatlantic slave trade and the indignity of dehumanization in slavery for the vast majority by the exercise of their creative imagination. What results from this has been the germ of a culture which shares more in common than many like to believe. The products may differ one from another but the region shares a similar process of becoming.”

As an emancipated people it this process of ‘becoming’ a nation that grabs my attention as we engage in the celebration of emancipation and the promotion of our cultural festival carnival.

Fellow citizens and residents:

Over the past 176 years, we in Antigua and Barbuda and the wider Caribbean, including Haiti and Surinam, have catapulted into the 21st century with a strong sense of pride and knowledge that as an emancipated people, we are resourceful, skilled and ready to take our place in the global market.


We have given to the world the steel pan, the only acoustic instrument to have been invented in the twentieth century, legendary cricketers, reggae singers,athletes, actors, painters, writers and noble laureates, in economics and theliterary arts.

As a region we are evolving into an important and relevant player on the global geo-political landscape as we forged partnerships and bring to bear our creativeness in solving the challenges brought on by climate change, natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricane, economic and financial fall outs.

In this regard we are therefore challenged to strengthen our capacities and improve our attitude to work at the national and regional levels in order for the Caribbean to maintain and forge regional integration and improve its global competitiveness.

We must recognize that as a people we are now challenged to come together and build a strong alliance and community of support to ensure the rebuilding of Haiti in a timely reasonable manner.


The efforts of the main leader of the Haitian revolution, Francois Toussaint L’Ouverture, grandson of an African chief, must not be allowed to go in vain.


As an emancipated people we are now challenged to embrace, Haiti, the 'Mother of our Liberation’ from the oppressive and dehumanizing system of slavery. As a community we are now challenged to increase our advocacy efforts and work in solidarity to help the leaders of Haiti manage the political and economicprocess of rebuilding. It is also our task to ensure that the international community of nations stay true to their pledge of providing Haiti with the necessary financial and technical support that is needed for its short, medium and long term recovery.

Recently the Caricom Heads of Government strongly urged the international donor community to make good on the pledges and promises made to Haiti for itsrecovery and reconstruction. As a Caricom community the implementation of the action plan for the reconstruction and National Development of Haiti will be of paramount importance in the near future.


I want to take this opportunity to say a special thank you once again to the people of Antigua and Barbuda for contributing over $800,000.00 EC dollars to the people of Haiti. The efforts by the Red Cross, Friends of Haiti, private sector organizations , Ministry of Education and citizens for their generous contributions.

This kind of response is indicative of the how important it is for us as‘Emancipated People’ to work in solidarity and build alliances that will further our efforts towards full regional integration.


As we reflect on emancipation and we examine the current under development existing in Haiti after 200 years of liberating itself from the shackles of slavery, we will recognize how important it is for us as a Caribbean nation to speak in one organized and structured voice regarding the need for reparations as a means of seeking redress for the injustice suffered by African slaves and their descendents.

Conclusion:

Therefore as a people, a nation and region, let us for Emancipation 2010 focus on ways that we could build solidarity and collaborative actions in our communities.


Let us be guided by the principles enshrined in the Charter of Civil Society for the Caribbean Community, which is an important element of the regions structure of unity to deal with matters such as free press, a fair and open democratic process, the effective functioning of the parliamentary system, morality in public affairs, respect for fundamental civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, the rights of women and children, respect for religious diversity, and greater accountability and transparency in government.’

I therefore want to urge all Antiguans and Barbudans to embrace the birth of a Caribbean nation through emancipation and to continue the debate and discussions about reparations and to do so in solidarity with the rest of our Caribbean brothers and sisters.

Thank you and have a peaceful and dignified Emancipation Day.

Caribbean Tourism and 'Unrealistic Projections'

Cayman News Service
Unrealistic projections behind failures says survey


(CNS): A survey of lenders in the Caribbean revealed that tourism development projects that have either stalled or failed in the region did so because of unrealistic projections or forecasting. The “Caribbean Regional Financing Survey” by KPMG’s regional advisory practice also pointed to lack of cash and poor financial management. As a result the lenders surveyed said the key lessons they had learned would see a back to basics, conservative, long- term approach to lending in the region. The accountants also found that failed or half-built projects will continue to find it very hard to refinance.

This year for the first time KPMG also included development banks in the survey to capture the emergence of a potential new source of financing in the sector. Lenders were asked about the key lessons learned over the past year and in general the responses revealed a back to basics return to a conservative, long- term approach to lending. “The common themes that emerged from this year’s report should not be a surprise to anyone.

There is a more cautious lending environment across the entire region,” said Tully Cornick, (above) head of Corporate Finance with KPMG in the Cayman Islands.

Kris Beighton, (right) a partner with KPMG in the Cayman Islands and head of its Transactions and Restructuring group said: “Lenders appear to be seeking more contact with their clients, more frequent reviews of their projections, taking a more ‘hands-on’ approach and encouraging clients to plan for tough times.”

With respect to development financing, responses indicated that the level of reliance on pre-sales had become very unattractive and should pre-sales be considered as a source of funding then more manageable phasing and more thorough due-diligence would be required.

Lenders said they remain cautious about the projects they are willing to finance and where. When asked to name their current top three markets they noted The Bahamas; Barbados and Bermuda. However, when asked about future investment, there was less agreement, with The Bahamas, Jamaica and Costa Rica all in the running.

All agreed that good airlift and strong market demand were crucial for the success of any project. Collectively those surveyed reported total exposure in the region in excess of US$2.58 billion.

When asked what characteristics might suggest to them that a development should be re-financed or otherwise revived they noted: Strong project sponsorship (new and sufficient infusion of cash), quality of sponsors and current customer base, strong project fundamentals and structural competencies such as good location, adequate airlift and viable infrastructure.

KPMG also revealed that some lenders were not willing to share quantitative responses concerning loan parameters, a reflection of the more cautious attitude, the accountants said.

Other findings in the survey included the average debt service coverage ratio covenants and interest rate margins are higher than they have been for a long time; average loan to value ratios remain relatively consistent and the average loan tenor has shortened.

KPMG stated that recovery in the major tourism and investment markets will take time to translate into recovery in the region. “The development pipelines will be fairly slow for the next two to three years and the roller coaster ride in personal savings and investments over the last few years could further dampen the demand for second homes even longer; the exception being very high net worth individuals,” it said in a release about the survey.

Netherlands Antilles 0.7 % Growth for 2010

Amigoe
Bank of the Netherlands Antilles expects 0.7 percent growth in 2010

WILLEMSTAD — Insofar the Antilles exist in 2010, the Bank of the Netherlands Antilles (BNA) expects that the economy of this country will book a moderate growth of 0.7 percent. According to the BNA, this low growth figure reflects the fact that the most important business partners of the Antilles still struggle with the aftereffects of the international financial crisis of 2008.

The United States as well as Venezuela, the Netherlands and Aruba had experienced a decline in their Gross National Product of respectively minus 2.4; minus 3.3; minus 4.0 and minus 7.6 percent. Venezuela also linked an inflation figure 26.0 percent to such.

Mainly because no substantial price increase is expected for petroleum, the distilled products of such and other goods for (the rest of) 2010, one expects 2010 will show a relatively low inflation figure of around 2.3 percent.

Its nice that one predicts a budgetary surplus for the communal governments for the second consecutive year of as much as 672 million guilders. This is indeed lower than the surplus of 762 million guilders on 2009, but still an entire turn about compared with the deficit of 172 million on 2008. Just like the completely positive development in the balance of national debts to the Gross National Product, the budgetary surpluses are the result of the Dutch debt reconstruction.

Expectations are that mentioned debt quote will reach 57.3 percent in 2010, after this was 73.6 percent for 2009, and the sky-high 82.0 percent in 2008. Without the debt reconstruction and with drastic economy measures as of 2004, this debt quote would have reached 71 percent. A debt quote between 30 and 40 percent is considered acceptable for countries with characteristics as those of the Antilles.

US Support Urged for Indigenous Declaration

Press Release

American Samoa Delegate Calls for US Support of UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples

The Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment, Rep. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, introduced H. Res. 1551 yesterday calling on the United States to promote respect for and full application of the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, consistent with U.S. law. Reps. Keith Ellison, Barbara Lee, Donna Christensen, Raúl Grijalva, Bill Delahunt, Mike Honda, George Miller and John Lewis joined Faleomavaega as original cosponsors of the legislation.

“The Declaration is a landmark instrument outlining the rights of the world’s 370 million indigenous peoples in 70 countries. A non-binding text comparable to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sets out the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples, as well as their rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health and education,” Faleomavaega said.

“The United States was one of only four member states of the United Nations to vote against the declaration in 2007, while 143 voted in favor. Three of the four states who initially voted against it have already reversed their opposition to the Declaration or are in the process of doing so. Meanwhile, the U.S. Government has launched a formal review of the Declaration to determine whether the United States will change its stance.”

“Today, indigenous peoples face disproportionate discrimination, inadequate health care, violent crime, poverty, unemployment and environmental degradation even as they struggle to maintain their own institutions, cultures and traditions,” Faleomavaega noted.

“The United States has taken great steps to improve the condition of indigenous peoples, including hosting a historic meeting of nearly 500 tribal leaders last year and President Obama’s issuance of an Executive Order on Consultation and Coordination with Tribal Governments. Yet, as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice has said, ‘far more must be done – at home and abroad – to tackle’ the challenges facing indigenous peoples.”

“The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provides an important framework for addressing indigenous issues globally. To further U.S. leadership in improving the conditions faced by indigenous people, the United States should promote respect for and full application of the provisions of the Declaration as soon as possible,” Faleomavaega concluded.

Bermuda Premier Addresses House for Final Time

Premier Bids Farewell


Submitted by Progressive Labour Party (PLP)
26 July 2010 - 11:46am.

On Friday, Premier Ewart Brown delivered a heartfelt farewell address to the House of Assembly:

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank you for your indulgence and that of this Honourable House in permitting me to formalise my final speech as Premier in this great Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, 17 years ago I made my maiden speech from a seat almost directly opposite the one I will occupy for just a few more minutes.

Opposition in 1993 was exciting. Everyone knew we were on the cusp of victory. I shall defer to others any comment on the ready symbolism of my own victory in Warwick West. For me, it cemented my gut feeling that Bermuda could and would embrace change.

That change started with the fine people of Warwick West and has ended with the wonderful people of Warwick South Central. The constituents I have been honoured to serve have been loyal, patient and genuine.

Mr Speaker, there is no greater, humbling honour than to earn the people's trust and I am eternally grateful to my constituents who on four occasions have sent me to represent them.

Mr. Speaker, the modern political history of our Island records that change did come, and in three successive elections the people of Bermuda have entrusted the Island's affairs to the Progressive Labour Party.

Mr. Speaker, a child born on the day that I was first elected to service in this Honourable House will be eligible to vote in the next General Election. That child knows virtually one Government, for them we represent their status quo.

Mr. Speaker, as I reflect on my parliamentary career and more particularly on my service as a member of the Government, I believe that so much has been done tangibly and symbolically for this country that the accurate historian will label it growth, change and empowerment.–How my Government is judged seems based on a number of factors, and that is as it should be. For those still intent on judging me, permit me to commend to you the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt:  'I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.'

Mr Speaker, it is important to recognise that I do not consider members opposite as enemies. The Opposition has a vision for this country with which I strongly disagree; that is the nature of our business and that difference of vision, no matter how sharp the debate, cannot make us enemies.

Mr. Speaker, a contest to succeed me is likely to start in earnest once your gavel adjourns these proceedings. The movement to unseat me would seem to have started in November 2006 and persists beyond my declaration of departure.

I am no prophet, nor have I a crystal ball like one honourable member. I cannot say who will next address you from this seat. What I can say is that the only guarantee of full, unbridled affection in this office is to do nothing and do it very well.

Mr Speaker, if one proposes to cut one blade of grass from this seat, rest assured, there will be special reports. Cause one new idea to see the light of day and cedar beams will appear in your home. Seek to govern in any sense of that word, and your spouse and family become fair game.

For whoever assumes this yoke of service in my stead, fret not at what your new enemies say and do. Lead in this Honourable House by example and from the front. Be measured by your oratory, your record and your legislative commitment to improve the lives of the people.

The great work that remains undone is the psychological freedom of Independence. The veil of affluence and material comfort has numbed the senses of the people, and for that we are all to blame.

True self-determination can be achieved, and I am as strong a believer in its merits today as I was in the 1960s when our brethren to the south were making the transition.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of my service. I am grateful for the camaraderie of these hallowed halls and for the working friendships it has allowed me to form. As I close this chapter in service to my country to looks of relief on the faces on the walls my regrets are personal and not political. My list of checked boxes far exceeds the undone and even those welcoming my exit will concede that all my effort has been put into this work.

Mr. Speaker I close with the words of the American poet Robert Frost, words which speak to me at my sunset but equally challenge those still in the morning of their service:

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveller, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever turn back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I —
I took the one less travelled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Thank you Mr. Speaker and may God bless you, my honourable colleagues, and the work of this Honourable House.

Kosovo Unilateral Independence Not Violation of International Law - International Court of Justice

Press Release
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928
Website: http://www.icj-cij.org/

Unofficial

No. 2010/25
22 July 2010

Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo

Advisory Opinion

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15987.pdf?PHPSESSID=28b23e2b3b0b0d6ba6d7d0b603733c66

The Court finds that the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law

THE HAGUE, 22 July 2010. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has today given its Advisory Opinion on the question of the Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo (request for advisory opinion).

In this Opinion, the Court unanimously finds that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the General Assembly of the United Nations and, by nine votes to five, decides to comply with that request.

The Court then responds to the request as follows:

“(3) By ten votes to four,

Is of the opinion that the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law.”

Reasoning of the Court

At the end of its reasoning, which is summarized below, the Court concludes “that the adoption of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law, Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) or the Constitutional Framework [adopted on behalf of UNMIK by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General]”, and that “[c]onsequently the adoption of that declaration did not violate any applicable rule of international law”.

The Advisory Opinion is divided into five parts: (I) jurisdiction and discretion; (II) scope and meaning of the question; (III) factual background; (IV) the question whether the declaration of independence is in accordance with international law; and (V) general conclusion.

I. JURISDICTION AND DISCRETION

The Court recalls that, when seised of a request for an advisory opinion, it must first consider whether it has jurisdiction to give the opinion requested and whether, should the answer be in the affirmative, there is any reason why the Court, in its discretion, should decline to exercise any such jurisdiction in the case before it.

It thus first addresses the question whether it possesses jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the General Assembly on 8 October 2008. Referring in particular to Articles 10, 11, paragraph 2, and 12 of the Charter of the United Nations, the Court observes that the General Assembly “may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the . . . Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the . . . Charter”, and that “the Charter has specifically provided the General Assembly with competence to discuss ‘any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security brought before it by any Member of the United Nations’ and . . . to make recommendations”. The Court further observes that the request for an advisory opinion does not contravene the provisions of Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Charter which prohibit the General Assembly from making any recommendation with regard to a dispute or situation in respect of which the Security Council is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter. The Court then notes that the question put by the General Assembly “certainly appears to be a legal question” within the meaning of Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of its Statute, and concludes from the foregoing that it has jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion in response to the request made by the General Assembly. It points out, in so doing, that the fact “that a question has political aspects does not suffice to deprive it of its character as a legal question” and also makes clear that “in determining the jurisdictional issue of whether it is confronted with a legal question, it is not concerned with the political nature of the motives which may have inspired the request or the political implications which its opinion might have”.

The Court then observes that the fact that it has jurisdiction “does not mean, however, that it is obliged to exercise it”, pointing out that the discretion accorded to it under Article 65 of the Statute whether or not to respond to a request for an advisory opinion exists “so as to protect the integrity of [its] judicial function and its nature as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations”.

After recalling that its answer to a request for an advisory opinion “represents its participation in the activities of the Organization, and, in principle, should not be refused”, the Court notes that it “must satisfy itself as to the propriety of the exercise of its judicial function in the present case” and that it has therefore “given careful consideration as to whether, in the light of its previous jurisprudence, there are compelling reasons for it to refuse to respond to the request from the General Assembly”. First, the Court considers that the motives which lie behind the request for an advisory opinion “are not relevant to the . . . exercise of its discretion whether or not to respond”. Second, it notes that it cannot accept the argument put forward by some of those participating in the proceedings that resolution 63/3 (in which the General Assembly made its request to the Court for an advisory opinion) gave no indication “of the purpose for which the General Assembly needed the Court’s opinion and that there was nothing to indicate that the opinion would have any useful legal effect”. The Court recalls that it “has consistently made clear that it is for the organ which requests the opinion, and not for the Court, to determine whether it needs the opinion for the proper performance of its functions”. Third, it also cannot accept the suggestion of some of those participating in the proceedings that it should refuse to respond on the grounds that its opinion might lead to adverse political consequences.

The Court then considers an issue which it deems “important”, that is, whether it “should decline to answer the question which has been put to it on the ground that the request for the Court’s opinion has been made by the General Assembly rather than the Security Council”. It notes that “[w]hile the request . . . concerns one aspect of a situation which the Security Council has characterized as a threat to international peace and security and which continues to feature on the agenda of the Council in that capacity, that does not mean that the General Assembly has no legitimate interest in the question”. It recalls that “the fact that, hitherto, the declaration of independence has been discussed only in the Security Council and that the Council has been the organ which has taken action with regard to the situation in Kosovo does not constitute a compelling reason for the Court to refuse to respond to the request from the General Assembly”. Further, it adds that “the fact that it will necessarily have to interpret and apply the provisions of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) in the course of answering the question put by the General Assembly does not constitute a compelling reason not to respond to that question”. It observes in this respect that, while the interpretation and application of a decision of one of the political organs of the United Nations is, in the first place, the responsibility of the organ which took that decision, the Court, as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, “has also frequently been required to consider the interpretation and legal effects of such decisions”, and that it has already done so both in the exercise of its advisory jurisdiction and in the exercise of its contentious jurisdiction. The Court therefore finds that there is “nothing incompatible with the integrity of [its] judicial function” in answering the question put by the General Assembly.

It points out that the question is, rather, whether it should decline to respond to the request from the General Assembly unless it is asked to do so by the Security Council, the latter being, as the Court recalls, both the organ which adopted resolution 1244 and the organ which is responsible for interpreting and applying that resolution. The Court observes that “[w]here, as here, the General Assembly has a legitimate interest in the answer to a question, the fact that that answer may turn, in part, on a decision of the Security Council is not sufficient to justify the Court in declining to give its opinion to the General Assembly”.

The Court accordingly concludes that “there are no compelling reasons for it to decline to exercise its jurisdiction in respect of the . . . request” which is before it.

II. SCOPE AND MEANING OF THE QUESTION

The Court notes that the General Assembly has asked it whether the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 was “in accordance with” international law: the answer to that question therefore turns on whether or not the applicable international law prohibited that declaration of independence. The Court adds that, if it concludes that international law did prohibit the said declaration, then it should answer the question put by saying that the declaration of independence was not in accordance with international law. The Court observes that the task which it is called upon to perform is therefore to determine whether or not the declaration in question was adopted in violation of international law. It points out that it “is not required by the question it has been asked to take a position on whether international law conferred a positive entitlement on Kosovo unilaterally to declare its independence or, a fortiori, on whether international law generally confers an entitlement on entities situated within a State unilaterally to break away from it”.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court continues its reasoning by indicating that the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 “must be considered within the factual context which led to its adoption”. It briefly describes the relevant characteristics of the framework put in place by the Security Council to ensure the interim administration of Kosovo, namely, Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). It then gives a succinct account of the developments relating to the so-called “final status process” in the years preceding the adoption of the declaration of independence, before turning to the events of 17 February 2008.


IV. THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW

In this fourth part, the Court examines the substance of the request submitted by the General Assembly. It recalls that it has been asked by the General Assembly to assess the accordance of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 with “international law”.

The Court first turns its attention to certain questions concerning the lawfulness of declarations of independence under general international law, against the background of which the question posed falls to be considered, and Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) is to be understood and applied. In particular, it notes that during the second half of the twentieth century, “the international law of self-determination developed in such a way as to create a right to independence for the peoples of non-self-governing territories and peoples subject to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation” and that a “great many new States have come into existence as a result of the exercise of this right”. The Court observes that there were, however, also instances of declarations of independence outside this context and that “[t]he practice of States in these latter cases does not point to the emergence in international law of a new rule prohibiting the making of a declaration of independence in such cases”.

The Court states that several participants in the proceedings have contended that a prohibition of unilateral declarations of independence is implicit in the principle of territorial integrity. It “recalls that [this] principle . . . is an important part of the international legal order and is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular in Article 2, paragraph 4”, under the terms of which “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”.

The Court adds that in General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), entitled “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”, which reflects customary international law (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, pp. 101-103, paras. 191-193), the General Assembly reiterated “[t]he principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State”. This resolution then enumerated various obligations incumbent upon States to refrain from violating the territorial integrity of other sovereign States. The Court points out that, in the same vein, the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe of 1 August 1975 (the Helsinki Conference) stipulated that “[t]he participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating States” (Art. IV). Hence the Court considers that “the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States”.

After recalling that several participants have invoked resolutions of the Security Council condemning particular declarations of independence (see, inter alia, Security Council resolutions 216 (1965) and 217 (1965), concerning Southern Rhodesia; Security Council resolution 541 (1983), concerning northern Cyprus; and Security Council resolution 787 (1992), concerning the Republika Srpska), the Court “notes, however, that in all of those instances the Security Council was making a determination as regards the concrete situation existing at the time that those declarations of independence were made; the illegality attached to the declarations of independence thus stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations as such, but from the fact that they were, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law, in particular those of a peremptory character (jus cogens)”. “In the context of Kosovo”, the Court continues, “the Security Council has never taken this position. The exceptional character of the resolutions enumerated above appears to the Court to confirm that no general prohibition against unilateral declarations of independence may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council.”

Turning to the arguments put forward by a number of participants concerning the extent of the right of self-determination and the existence of any right of “remedial secession”, the Court considers that the debates on these points “concern the right to separate from a State”. The Court recalls that “as almost all participants agreed, that issue is beyond the scope of the question posed by the General Assembly”. It notes that, to answer the question posed, it need only “determine whether the declaration of independence violated either general international law or the lex specialis created by Security Council resolution 1244 (1999)”.

The Court concludes that “general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence” and accordingly that the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law.

The Court then examines the legal relevance of Security Council resolution 1244, adopted on 10 June 1999, in order to determine whether the resolution creates special rules, and therefore ensuing obligations, under international law applicable to the issues raised by the present request and having a bearing on the lawfulness of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008.

The Court first notes that resolution 1244 (1999) was expressly adopted by the Security Council on the basis of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, and therefore clearly imposes international legal obligations. The Court observes that “none of the participants has questioned the fact that [this] resolution . . ., which specifically deals with the situation in Kosovo, is part of the law relevant in the . . . situation [under consideration]”.

The Court then addresses the UNMIK regulations, including regulation 2001/9, which promulgated the Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government and which defined the responsibilities relating to the administration of Kosovo between the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo. It notes that these regulations are adopted by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the basis of the authority derived from Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) and thus ultimately from the United Nations Charter. It goes on to state that “[t]he Constitutional Framework derives its binding force from the binding character of resolution 1244 (1999) and thus from international law” and that “[i]n that sense it therefore possesses an international legal character”.

The Court further adds that at the same time, “the Constitutional Framework functions as part of a specific legal order, created pursuant to resolution 1244 (1999), which is applicable only in Kosovo and the purpose of which is to regulate, during the interim phase established by resolution 1244 (1999), matters which would ordinarily be the subject of internal, rather than international, law”; the “Constitutional Framework therefore took effect as part of the body of law adopted for the administration of Kosovo during the interim phase”. The institutions which it created were empowered by the Constitutional Framework to take decisions which took effect within that body of law, the Court continues, observing “[i]n particular, [that] the Assembly of Kosovo was empowered to adopt legislation which would have the force of law within that legal order, subject always to the overriding authority of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General”.

The Court notes that “neither Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) nor the Constitutional Framework contains a clause providing for its termination and neither has been repealed; they therefore constituted the international law applicable to the situation prevailing in Kosovo on 17 February 2008”. It concludes from the foregoing that “Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) and the Constitutional Framework form part of the international law which is to be considered in replying to the question posed by the General Assembly”.

After considering the interpretation of resolution 1244 (1999) itself, the Court concludes that “the object and purpose of [the] resolution . . . was to establish a temporary, exceptional legal régime which, save to the extent that it expressly preserved it, superseded the Serbian legal order and which aimed at the stabilization of Kosovo, and that it was designed to do so on an interim basis”.

The Court then turns to the question whether resolution 1244 (1999), or the measures adopted thereunder, introduces a specific prohibition on issuing a declaration of independence, applicable to those who adopted the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008. In order to answer this question, it is first necessary for the Court to determine precisely who issued that declaration.

In the part of its Advisory Opinion devoted to the identity of the authors of the declaration of independence, the Court seeks to establish whether the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 was an act of the “Assembly of Kosovo”, one of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, established under the Constitutional Framework, or whether those who adopted the declaration were acting in a different capacity. On this point, the Court arrives at the conclusion that “the authors of the declaration of independence . . . did not act as one of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government within the Constitutional Framework, but rather as persons who acted together in their capacity as representatives of the people of Kosovo outside the framework of the interim administration”.

The Court then turns to the question, debated in the proceedings, whether the authors of the declaration of independence acted in violation of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999). After outlining the arguments submitted by the participants in the proceedings on this point, the Court undertakes a careful reading of resolution 1244 (1999) in order to determine whether that text prohibits the authors of the declaration of 17 February 2008 from declaring independence from the Republic of Serbia.

It first points out that the resolution did not contain any provision dealing with the final status of Kosovo or with the conditions for its achievement. In this regard, the Court notes that contemporaneous practice of the Security Council shows that “in situations where the Security Council has decided to establish restrictive conditions for the permanent status of a territory, those conditions are specified in the relevant resolution”. The Court notes that “under the terms of resolution 1244 (1999) the Security Council did not reserve for itself the final determination of the situation in Kosovo and remained silent on the conditions for the final status of Kosovo”. It finds that resolution 1244 (1999) “thus does not preclude the issuance of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 because the two instruments operate on a different level: unlike resolution 1244 (1999), the declaration of independence is an attempt to determine finally the status of Kosovo”.

Turning to the question of the addressees of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999), the Court recalls that, when interpreting Security Council resolutions, it must establish, “on a case-by-case basis, considering all relevant circumstances, for whom the Security Council intended to create binding legal obligations”. It recalls that “it has not been uncommon for the Security Council to make demands on actors other than United Nations Member States and intergovernmental organizations”, more specifically, in this case, on the Kosovo Albanian leadership, but points out that such reference to that leadership or other actors, notwithstanding the somewhat general reference to “all concerned” (para. 14), is missing from the text of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999). The Court therefore considers that it cannot accept the argument that resolution 1244 (1999) contains a prohibition, binding on the authors of the declaration of independence, against declaring independence. It adds that “nor can such a prohibition be derived from the language of the resolution understood in its context and considering its object and purpose”, and that “[t]he language of . . . resolution 1244 (1999) is at best ambiguous” on the question of whether the resolution creates such a prohibition. The Court notes that the object and purpose of the resolution “is the establishment of an interim administration for Kosovo, without making any definitive determination on final status issues”.

While the text of paragraph 11 (c) of resolution 1244 (1999) explains that the “main responsibilities of the international civil presence will include . . . [o]rganizing and overseeing the development of provisional institutions for democratic and autonomous self-government pending a political settlement” (emphasis added), the Court nevertheless states that the phrase “political settlement”, often cited in the proceedings, “does not modify [its] conclusion” that resolution 1244 (1999) does not contain a prohibition, binding on the authors of the declaration of independence, against declaring independence. The Court explains that this reference is made within the context of enumerating the responsibilities of the international civil presence, i.e., the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Kosovo and UNMIK, and not of other actors; the Court adds that, as the diverging views presented to it on this matter illustrate, the term “political settlement” is subject to various interpretations. The Court therefore concludes that this part of resolution 1244 (1999) “cannot be construed to include a prohibition, addressed in particular to the authors of the declaration of 17 February 2008, against declaring independence”. The Court accordingly finds that Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) did not bar the authors of the declaration of 17 February 2008 from issuing a declaration of independence from the Republic of Serbia, and that “[h]ence, the declaration of independence did not violate Security Council resolution 1244 (1999)”.

Finally, on the question whether the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 has violated the Constitutional Framework established under the auspices of UNMIK, as argued by a number of States which participated in the proceedings, the Court recalls that it has already held, earlier in its Advisory Opinion, “that [this] declaration of independence . . . was not issued by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, nor was it an act intended to take effect, or actually taking effect, within the legal order in which those Provisional Institutions operated”. Accordingly, the Court states that “the authors of the declaration of independence were not bound by the framework of powers and responsibilities established to govern the conduct of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government”, and finds that “the declaration of independence did not violate the Constitutional Framework”.

V. GENERAL CONCLUSION

To bring its reasoning to a close, the Court summarizes its conclusions as follows:

“The Court has concluded above that the adoption of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law, Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) or the Constitutional Framework. Consequently the adoption of that declaration did not violate any applicable rule of international law.”

Composition of the Court
The Court was composed as follows:

President Owada; Vice-President Tomka; Judges Koroma, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Simma, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwood; Registrar Couvreur.

Vice-President Tomka appends a declaration to the Advisory Opinion of the Court; Judge Koroma appends a dissenting opinion to the Advisory Opinion of the Court; Judge Simma appends a declaration to the Advisory Opinion of the Court; Judges Keith and Sepúlveda-Amor append separate opinions to the Advisory Opinion of the Court; Judges Bennouna and Skotnikov append dissenting opinions to the Advisory Opinion of the Court; Judges Cançado Trindade and Yusuf append separate opinions to the Advisory Opinion of the Court.

___________

A summary of the Advisory Opinion is contained in the document “Summary No. 2010/2”, to which summaries of the opinions and declarations appended to the Advisory Opinion are attached. This press release, the summary and the full text of the Advisory Opinion (including the opinions and declarations of the judges) can also be found on the Court’s website (http://www.icj-cij.org/) under the heading “Cases” (click on “Advisory Proceedings”).

Information Department:

Mr. Andrey Poskakukhin, First Secretary of the Court, Head of Department (+31 (0)70 302 2336)
Mr. Boris Heim, Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2337)
Ms Joanne Moore, Associate Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2394

Sint Maarten Constitution Adopted

Unanimously adopted after intense debate

Daily Herald
21 July 2010

http://www.thedailyherald.com/islands/1-news/6126-constitution.html

PHILIPSBURG--The Constitution for Country St. Maarten was approved unanimously by the Island Council on Wednesday night, putting in place yet another vital part for St. Maarten's status of country within the Dutch Kingdom after some nine hours of debate.

Opposition Democratic Party (DP) Island Council members Sarah Wescot-Williams, Roy Marlin, Maria Buncamper-Molanus and Leroy de Weever voted for the constitution after an intense debate to have Transitional Article VII removed. DP members had indicated Tuesday that they were not ready to give the constitution their support unless the transitional article was removed or sufficient reason was given for its remaining in the constitution.

The article, later deleted from the constitution, dealt with not preventing public office holders from running in elections if they had been convicted and punished for a crime prior to passing of the constitution providing the conviction did not revoke the right to vote. The deletion came after Constitutional Affairs Commissioner William Marlin and Wescot-Williams met for talks during an adjournment Wednesday evening.

The debate primarily focused on the insertion of that article in the last draft of the constitution dated July 18 and the need for more public consultation. For the latter, Commissioner Marlin has promised that a public forum will be organised within two weeks to take the constitution to the people. The article was inserted into the constitution on the advice of constitutional and legal advisors to bring it in line with the European Union Treaty on Human Rights, Marlin told the council.

He told the council that there had been no "back room dealings" between the National Alliance (NA) and independent Councilman Louie Laveist, who has legal trouble dating back to 2008, to have the transitional article added to the constitution as the opposition had been implying. Marlin said when the debate started at 9:00am yesterday that whether the article was included in the constitution or not, it would not make a difference. He was willing to have it removed if that would allow smooth passage of the constitution in the council so the constitutional change process would not be stalled.

Non-approval of the constitution would have meant that St. Maarten was missing a vital document needed for the changes to the Kingdom Charter for the birthing of new countries-within-the-Dutch-Kingdom St. Maarten and Curaçao to take effect come 10-10-10 (10th October 2010). This would have left the island in limbo, as it would have been neither an island territory of the Netherlands Antilles nor a new country.

Laveist said in a fiery presentation that he didn't want the article in the constitution if it would mean that it would not have the two-thirds majority needed for adoption. The article, he insisted, had not been included in the constitution for his benefit and did not stem from any deal with NA.

Wescot-Williams pointed out that her party had no issue with the merits of Article VII, but with the method used to insert into the constitution as though it was an afterthought. She said that protection from punishment twice was already regulated in the constitution in Article 28. This protects everyone, including politicians, from "retroactive" punishment; thus there was no need for Article VII to be inserted, in her opinion.

The need to define who is a St. Maartener was also a prominent topic in the debate. Several council members said consultations needed to begin now on fully describe a St. Maartener.

Acting Lt. Governor Reynold Groeneveldt congratulated the people of St. Maarten, the Island Council and all advisors on achieving this milestone in history.

Voting for the constitution were Commissioners William Marlin, Frans Richardson and Hyacinth Richardson, "caretaker" Commissioner Theo Heyliger, Island Council members Sarah Wescot-Williams, Roy Marlin, Maria Buncamper-Molanus, Leroy de Weever, Louie Laveist, George Pantophlet and Rodolphe Samuel.

The Remaining Colonies in the Caribbean

CALL FOR PAPERS FOR UPCOMING BOOK

HOUSE OF NEHESI PUBLISHERS
P.O. Box 460 • Philipsburg, St. Martin • Caribbean
Nehesi@sintmaarten.net •
Offshoreediting@hotmail.com
http://www.houseofnehesipublish.com/

Submission Deadline: October 1, 2010
Edited by: Lasana M. Sekou

Inviting articles/essays/speeches/authors for a new book

Book title: The Remaining Colonies in the Caribbean Region (Working Title)

Submission deadline: 1 October 2010
Estimated publication date: December 2010

Theme of the Book: The State of the Independence Movement in the Remaining Colonies in the
Caribbean region. The position paper should include a brief background of the history of
independence-related ideas and activities in the specific territory/territories, with a focus on
discussing approaches, challenges, comparisons, stages of progress.

Copyright: Authors will retain copyright to their paper upon publication, and receive 10 complimentary copies of the book.

Papers/Essays/Articles: The paper must be unpublished and must not be submitted for publication elsewhere. Submissions should be a minimum of 10 pages and should not exceed 16 pages, letter size (8.5 x 11); typed double-spaced; 12 pt., in a common font such as Times New Roman or similar. Your autobiographical statement should be no more than 160 words. House of Nehesi Publishers (HNP) reserves the right to edit all papers, which will not be printed without the express approval of the author(s).

Submissions: Manuscripts on the above topic should be submitted in Word format by email to:

offshoreediting@hotmail.com or nehesi@mac.com  by 1 October 2010.

All submissions must be
in English. (Submissions in Kwéyòl, Papiamentu, Spanish, Dutch or French must be accompanied by the English translation from the author in order for both the original language of the writer and the English translation to be printed in the book). Reference material/works referred to should be listed in a standard bibliographical format at the end of the paper. To avoid copyrights permission delays (and to encourage originality of your paper) extensive quotes from other published/unpublished sources are not encouraged.

Papiamentu Flourishes as a Caribbean Language

 Bloglingua

by Caroline Mikolajczyk

 
In an age in which we lose an average of 10 languages forever each year, it’s heartening to see that at least one language is beating the odds. Although Papiamentu, a Creole language spoken in Curacao, Bonaire and Aruba, only boasts around 250,000 speakers, according to the New York Times it is actually gaining ground in terms of official acceptance and cultural prominence.

The Times notes that Dutch continues to be the language that Curacao’s laws are written in, as well as the language its children are taught in, at least in the upper grades. However, if you set foot on the island of Curacao, you can expect to hear Papiamentu just about everywhere. It’s on the radio, in the songs of local artists. It’s the language you hear on the TV, and the language spoken by politicians. In short, it’s a part of daily life there, not a second-class language at all.

Papiamentu is interesting because even though Curacao was a Dutch colony, the language bears little if any Dutch influence. Instead, it’s a blend of Portuguese and Spanish, with a dash of English thrown in for good measure. Linguists think that the Portuguese came from the West African slave trade, while the Spanish influences came from both the Spanish-speaking Jews who helped settle the island and, more recently, nearby Spanish-speaking Venezuela.

In the New York Times article, linguist Bart Jacobs explains why Papiamentu has a better chance of survival than most Creoles:

While English and French Creoles get more attention, the extension of Papiamentu into different domains like writing, education and policy is incredibly high. This bodes very well for the language’s chances to survive, and possibly even thrive well into the future.

What makes Papiamentu different from other, less healthy Creole languages? According to the New York Times, part of the difference lies in the fact that Dutch has fewer speakers than other colonial languages like English and Spanish. So, while people on the islands tend to learn Dutch to seek jobs in the Netherlands, there’s no incentive to allow Dutch to overshadow the language they grew up speaking. Theres also the fact that the islands that speak Papiamentu are both peaceful and wealthy.Finally, there is Papiamentu’s history as a way for islanders to resist Dutch colonial rule.

In the New York Times, Helmin Wiels, party leader for Pueblo Soberano, which favors breaking off Curacao’s official relationship with the Netherlands completely, explains:
The preservation of Papiamentu would allow us to absorb the influences of our South American brothers, he said, while keeping alive that which makes us unique.

Editor’s Note: The characterisation that Pueblo Soberano favours “breaking off Curacao’s official relationship with the Netherlands completely” is rather misleading. Under an independent Curacao the political status would naturally evolve into a modern bilateral relationship between two sovereign states based on political equality recognising the shared history, language, culture and other commonalities. Such relations would probably be strengthened, rather than broken off.

.