UN General Assembly Approves Third International Decolonisation Decade, To Mull New Plan of Action

Adopts 13 texts in all, seven by recorded vote



Taking up 13 decolonization texts, the 192 member States of the United Nations General Assembly adopted seven by recorded vote, including one related to the Implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration, another to the specialized agencies and international institutions associated with the United Nations, a third on the fiftieth anniversary of the Decolonization Declaration, and a fourth on the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism.

Once again reaching consensus on a draft resolution on the question of Western Sahara, the Assembly welcomed the process of negotiations initiated by Security Council Resolution 1754 (2007), and the commitment of the parties to continue to show political will and work in an atmosphere propitious for dialogue, in order to enter into a more intensive phase of negotiations.

Resolution on Information from Non-Self Governing Territories

The General Assembly adopted a resolution on Information from Non-Self Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73e of the Charter of the United Nations by which the Assembly requests the administering Powers concerned to transmit, or continue to transmit, regularly to the Secretary-General information relating to economic, social and educational conditions in the Territories, for which they were responsible. It would also request the fullest possible information on political and constitutional developments in the Territories concerned. The text was approved by a recorded vote:

The Vote

The resolution on Information from Non-Self Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73e of the Charter of the United Nations was adopted by a recorded vote of 172 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Benin, France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent: Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Nauru, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Tajikistan, Vanuatu.

Resolution on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories

The General Assembly adopted a resolution on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories by which the Assembly reaffirmed the right of peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories to self-determination in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, as well as their right to enjoy and dispose of their natural resources in their best interest.

Also according to the text, the Assembly called once again on all Governments that had not yet done so to take legislative, administrative or other measures to put an end to enterprises in the Territories — undertaken by those Governments’ nationals or corporate bodies under their jurisdiction — that were detrimental to the interests of the inhabitants. It called upon the administrating Powers to ensure that the exploitation of the marine and other natural resources in the Non-Self-Governing Territories under their administration were not in violation of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations and did not adversely affect the interests of the peoples of those Territories. The text was aproved  by a recorded vote:


The Vote

The resolution on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories was adopted by a recorded vote of 173 in favour to 2 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstain: France, United Kingdom.

Absent: Benin, Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Nauru, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Vanuatu

*****

 Resolution on Implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations

The General Assembly adopted a resolution on Implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations by which the Assembly recommended that all States intensify their efforts in the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system in which they were members to ensure the full and effective implementation of the Decolonization Declaration. The resolution requested the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system to examine and review conditions in each Territory so as to take appropriate measures to accelerate progress in the economic and social sectors of the Territories. The resolution requested the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system concerned to provide information on environmental problems facing the Non-Self-Governing Territories, as well as on the impact of natural disasters and other environmental problems in those Territories. The text was approved by a recorded vote:

The Vote

The resolution on Implementation of the (Decolonisation) Declaration by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations was adopted by a recorded vote of 119 in favour to none against, with 56 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent: Benin, Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Nauru, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu.

*****

 

Resolution on offers by Member States of study and training facilities for inhabitants of Non-Self-Governing Territories

The General Assembly adopted a resolution on offers by Member States of study and training facilities for inhabitants of Non-Self-Governing Territories by which the Assembly urges the administering Powers to take effective measures to ensure the widespread and continuous dissemination in the Territories under their administration of information relating to offers of study and training facilities made by States. The resolution was adopted without a vote.

******

The General Assembly adopted eight additional resolutions and one decision related to various agenda items on the decolonisation mandate. 

By the terms of  Resolution I on the question of Western Sahara, the Assembly welcomed the process of negotiations initiated by Security Council Resolution 1754 (2007). It also welcomed the commitment of the parties to continue to show political will and work in an atmosphere propitious for dialogue, in order to enter into a more intensive phase of negotiations. The resolution was adopted without a vote.

By the terms of Resolution II, on the question of New Caledonia, the Assembly urged all the parties involved to maintain, in the framework of the Nouméa Accord, their dialogue in a spirit of harmony and in this context welcomed the unanimous agreement, reached in Paris on 8 December 2008, on the transfer of powers to New Caledonia in 2009 and the conduct of provincial elections in May 2009. It also called upon the administering Power to continue to transmit to the Secretary-General information as required under Article 73e of the United Nations Charter, and welcomed all measures taken to strengthen and diversify the New Caledonian economy in all fields. By further provisions of that text, the Assembly decided to keep under continuous review the process unfolding in New Caledonia as a result of the signing of the Nouméa Accord. The resolution was adopted without a vote.

By Resolution III, on the question of Tokelau, the General Assembly noted New Zealand’s exemplary cooperation and ongoing recognition of the complete right of the people of Tokelau to undertake the act of self-determination when they consider it to be appropriate. It acknowledged General Fono’s decision that consideration of any future act of self-determination by Tokelau would be deferred. It further acknowledged Tokelau’s initiative in devising a strategic economic development plan for the period 2007-2010, and the ongoing and consistent commitment of New Zealand in meeting the social and economic requirements of the people of Tokelau, as well as the support and cooperation of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

By further provisions, the Assembly acknowledged Tokelau’s need for the international community’s continued support, and called upon the administering Power and United Nations agencies to continue to provide assistance to Tokelau as it further developed. The resolution was adopted  without a vote.

*****

Consolidated Resolution on Eleven Small Island Territories

The two-part Resolution IV on questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands was approved without a vote. In the resolution, the General Assembly, in the general section applicable to the elevent territories (part 1) of the resolution, reaffirmed a number of principles and called for specific actions to be undertaken, including the following:

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that all available options for self-determination of the Territories are valid as long as they are in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned and in conformity with the clearly defined principles contained in General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, 1541 (XV) of 15 December 1960 and other resolutions of the Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 1541 (XV), containing the principles that should guide Member States in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing concern that fifty years after the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,. there still remain a number of Non-Self-Governing Territories,

Recognizing that the specific characteristics and the aspirations of the peoples of the Territories require flexible, practical and innovative approaches to the options for self-determination, without any prejudice to territorial size, geographical location, size of population or natural resources

Convinced that any negotiations to determine the status of a Territory must take place with the active involvement and participation of the people of that Territory, under the aegis of the United Nations, on a case-by-case basis, and that the views of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories in respect of their right to self-determination should be ascertained,

Noting that a number of Non-Self-Governing Territories have expressed concern at the procedure followed by some administering Powers, contrary to the wishes of the Territories themselves, of amending or enacting legislation for application to the Territories, either through orders in council, in order to apply to the Territories the international treaty obligations of the administering Power, or through the unilateral application of laws and regulations,

Mindful that United Nations visiting and special missions provide an effective means of ascertaining the situation in the Territories, that some Territories have not received a United Nations visiting mission for a long time and that no visiting missions have been sent to some of the Territories,

Aware of the importance both to the Territories and to the Special Committee of the participation of elected and appointed representatives of the Territories in the work of the Committee,

Recognizing the need for the Special Committee to ensure that the appropriate bodies of the United Nations actively pursue a public awareness campaign aimed at assisting the peoples of the Territories in gaining a better understanding of the options for self-determination,

Noting with appreciation the contribution to the development of some Territories by the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system, in particular the United Nations Development Programme, the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean and the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, as well as regional institutions such as the Caribbean Development Bank, the Caribbean Community, the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, the Pacific Islands Forum and the agencies of the Council of Regional Organizations in the Pacific,

Aware that the Human Rights Committee, as part of its mandate under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, reviews the status of the self-determination process, including in small island Territories under examination by the Special Committee,

* Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to self-determination, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), containing the (Decolonization) Declaration;

 

* Also reaffirms that, in the process of decolonization, there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which is also a fundamental human right, as recognized under the relevant human rights conventions;

* Further reaffirms that it is ultimately for the peoples of the Territories themselves to determine freely their future political status in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter, the Declaration and the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, and in that connection reiterates its long-standing call for the administering Powers, in cooperation with the territorial Governments and appropriate bodies of the United Nations system, to develop political education programmes for the Territories in order to foster an awareness among the people of their right to self-determination in conformity with the legitimate political status options, based on the principles clearly defined in Assembly resolution 1541 (XV) and other relevant resolutions and decisions;

* Stresses the importance of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the (Decolonisation) Declaration being apprised of the views and wishes of the peoples of the Territories and enhancing its understanding of their conditions, including the nature and scope of the existing political and constitutional arrangements between the Non-Self-Governing Territories and their respective administering Powers;

* Calls upon the administering Powers to participate in and cooperate fully with the work of the Special Committee in order to implement the provisions of Article 73 e of the Charter and the Declaration and in order to advise the Special Committee on the implementation of the provisions under Article 73 b of the Charter on efforts to promote self-government in the Territories, and encourages the administering Powers to facilitate visiting and special missions to the Territories;

* Reaffirms the responsibility of the administering Powers under the Charter to promote the economic and social development and to preserve the cultural identity of the Territories, and, as a priority, to mitigate the effects of the current global financial crisis where possible, in consultation with the territorial Governments concerned, towards the strengthening and diversification of their respective economies;

* Requests the Territories and the administering Powers to take all measures necessary to protect and conserve the environment of the Territories against any degradation, and once again requests the specialized agencies concerned to continue to monitor environmental conditions in the Territories and to provide assistance to those Territories, consistent with their prevailing rules of procedure;

* Welcomes the participation of the Non-Self-Governing Territories in regional activities, including the work of regional organizations;

* Stresses the importance of implementing the plan of action for the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, in particular by expediting the application of the work programme for the decolonization of each Non-Self-Governing Territory, on a case-by-case basis, as well as by ensuring that periodic analyses are undertaken of the progress and extent of the implementation of the Declaration in each Territory…

* Reiterates its request that the Human Rights Committee collaborate with the Special Committee, within the framework of its mandate on the right to self-determination as contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with the aim of exchanging information, given that the Human Rights Committee is mandated to review the situation, including political and constitutional developments, in many of the Non-Self-Governing Territories that are within the purview of the Special Committee...

(Part 2 of the consolidated resolution containing specifically focused recommendations on each of the eleven small island non self-governing territories will be covered in a subsequent article).

*****

By Resolution V, on Dissemination of Information on Decolonization, the Assembly approved the activities of the United Nations Departments of Public Information and Political Affairs for disseminating decolonization information. It urged the administering Powers concerned to take effective measures to safeguard and guarantee the inalienable rights of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to their natural resources, and to establish and maintain control over the future development of those resources. It requested the administering Powers to take all steps necessary to protect the property rights of the peoples of those Territories. The Assembly further urged all States to provide moral and material assistance, as needed, to the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories. In the resolution, the General Assembly agreed:

* To develop procedures to collect, prepare and disseminate, particularly to the Non-Self-Governing Territories, basic material on the issue of self-determination of the peoples of the Territories;

* To seek the full cooperation of the administering Powers in the discharge of the tasks referred to above;

* To explore further the idea of a programme of collaboration with the decolonization focal points of territorial Governments, particularly in the Pacific and Caribbean regions, to help improve the exchange of information;

* To encourage the involvement of non-governmental organizations in the dissemination of information on decolonization;

* To encourage the involvement of the Non-Self-Governing Territories in the dissemination of information on decolonization;

The Assembly approved the text by a recorded vote:

The Vote The resolution on the Dssemination of Information on Decolonization was adopted by a recorded vote of 171 in favour to 3 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: France.

Absent: Benin, Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Vanuatu.

*****

By the terms of Resolution VI, on the Implementation of the Decolonization Declaration, the Assembly reaffirmed, once again, that the existence of colonialism in any form or manifestation, including economic exploitation, was incompatible with the United Nations Charter, the Declaration on Decolonization, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the resolution, the General Assembly addressed a number of issue:

The Assembly,

* Regretting that measures to eliminate colonialism by 2010, as called for in its resolution 55/146, have not been successful,

* Reiterating its conviction of the need for the eradication of colonialism, as well as racial discrimination and violations of basic human rights,

* Reaffirms its resolution 1514 (XV) and all other resolutions and decisions on decolonization, including its resolution 55/146, by which it declared the period 2001-2010 the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, and calls upon the administering Powers, in accordance with those resolutions, to take all steps necessary to enable the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories’ concerned to exercise fully as soon as possible their right to self-determination…;

* Reaffirms once again that the existence of colonialism in any form or manifestation, including economic exploitation, is incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations, the (Decolonisation) and Peoples and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

* Reaffirms its determination to continue to take all steps necessary to bring about the complete and speedy eradication of colonialism and the faithful observance by all States of the relevant provisions of the Charter, the (Decolonization) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

* Affirms once again its support for the aspirations of the peoples under colonial rule to exercise their right to self-determination, including independence, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations on decolonization;

* Calls upon the administering Powers to cooperate fully with the Special Committee on (Decolonization) to develop and finalize, as soon as possible, a constructive programme of work on a case-by-case basis for the Non-Self-Governing Territories to facilitate the implementation of the mandate of the Special Committee and the relevant resolutions on decolonization, including resolutions on specific Territories;

* Urges the administering Powers concerned to take effective measures to safeguard and guarantee the inalienable rights of the peoples of the Non-Self- Governing Territories to their natural resources, and to establish and maintain control over the future development of those resources, and requests the relevant administering Power to take all steps necessary to protect the property rights of the peoples of those Territories

The Assembly approved the text by a recorded vote:

The Vote

The draft resolution on Implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration  was adopted by a recorded vote of 171 in favour to 3 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Belgium, France.

Absent: Benin, Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Suriname, Vanuatu.

By Resolution VII on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Decolonization Declaration, the Assembly urged Member States to do their utmost to promote effectie measures for the full and speedy implementation of the Declaration in all Non-Self-Governing Territories to which the Declaration applied. The text was approved by recorded vote:

The Vote
The resolution on Fiftieth Anniversary of the (Decolonization) Declaration was adopted by a recorded vote of 168 in favour to 3 against, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United Kingdom, United States.


Absent: Benin, Bolivia, Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Suriname, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu, Yemen.

*****

 Resolution VIII approving the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, called upon Member States to intensify their efforts to continue to implement the plan of action for the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism and use those efforts as the basis for a plan of action for the next Decade. The text was approved by a recorded vote:

The Vote

The resolution on Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism was adopted by a recorded vote of 151 in favour to 3 against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Micronesia (Federated States of), Netherlands, Palau, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Absent: Benin, Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Nauru, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Suriname, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu.

*****

By the terms of the decision on the question of Gibraltar, the General Assembly urged both the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom, while listening to the interests and aspirations of Gibraltar, to reach a definitive solution to the question of Gibraltar, in light of relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and applicable principles, and in the spirit of the United Nations Charter.

*****
Overseas Territories Review will provide an analysis in a forthcoming article on the adoption of the 2010 United Nations decolonization resolutions, with commentary on the implications of the voting patterns to the committment of those member States which administer territories to meet their obligations under the United Nations Charter.

The United Nations Decolonisation Declaration 50th Anniversary

 Adopted  by United Nations General Assembly on 14 December 1960

"...After fifty years, the decolonisation era has not ended, but rather, it has entered an increasingly complex period requiring innovative solutions to ensure that the full measure of self-government with absolute political equality is attained by the peoples of the remaining non self-governing territories. Real decolonisation, as opposed to dependency reform, can only be achieved through the adherence to the international mandates contained in the United Nations Charter, relevant resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly, and the various human rights instruments concerning the inalienable right to self-determination, in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Decolonisation Declaration and its companion resolutions are as relevant today as they were fifty years ago..."

-  Dr. Carlyle Corbin, International Advisor on Governance and Multilateral Diplomacy

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

The Decolonisation Declaration

by: Mr. Edward McWhinney

Professor of International Law

Past President

Institut de Droit International

The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 14 December 1960. The deliberate location of the United Nations vote – in the General Assembly rather than in the Security Council where a permanent member’s veto would always be available to any one or more of the three permanent members that still had “colonial” legal ties or associations – was an obvious enough choice for the political activist States sponsoring resolution 1514 (XV). And the timing of the vote – in 1960, when the decolonisation process was already well under way – was hardly fortuitous. A working majority in favour of a patently anti-colonialist measure would not become politically possible until the General Assembly’s transformation from its original very narrow base of representation limited to the States members of the victorious wartime Alliance against Fascism to something more nearly reflective in cultural and ideological terms of the world community at large. By 1960, this had begun to be achieved, albeit on an intermittent, or casual, step-by-step basis, over the decade and a half from War’s end. The numerical breakthrough had occurred as late as 1955, when 16 new States had been admitted in one big step to membership, bringing the total to 76. In 1960 itself, 19 new States had been admitted, sealing the emergence of what became, in Cold War terms, a neutralist or uncommitted, majority voting coalition variously styled as the Non-Aligned bloc, the Group of 77, the Bandoeng group, the Developing or Third World countries. It was this informal electoral alliance, that provided the intellectual cohesiveness and also the political-tactical competence to secure the adoption of resolution 1514 (XV) without a single expressed dissent in the General Assembly.

Why a Declaration, and not something with more obvious and immediate concrete political and legal consequences? The answer must be that it was partly tactical, to convert potential negative votes in the General Assembly into softer, legally ineffective abstentions. But it also has something to do with the patently French civiliste, legal-systemic influences on its styling and drafting. The paradigm-model for resolution 1514 (XV) must be the great French Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen (Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen) of 1789. Resolution 1514 (XV), like that historical example, is short and succinct, and written in clear, non-technical, often poetic language.

In the end, the persuasiveness, in both political and legal terms, of resolution 1514 (XV) as Declaration must rest upon its claims to be an authoritative, interpretive gloss upon the Charter of the United Nations as originally written, amplifying and extending the Charter’s original historical imperatives so as to encompass the new historical reality of the post-World War II international society of the drives for access to full sovereignty and independence of erstwhile subject-peoples, in an emerging new, culturally inclusive, representative, pluralist world community.

In its substantive law stipulations, the Declaration postulates what may be described as ordering principles, intended to guide the progressive development of international law in accordance with the General Assembly’s own explicit mandate under Article 13, paragraph 1 (a), of the Charter of the United Nations:

- that the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights (art. 1);

- that all peoples have the right to self-determination, but that this necessarily includes the right freely to determine their political status and freely to pursue their economic, social and cultural development (art. 2);

- that all armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease (art. 4);

- that immediate steps shall be taken, in United Nations Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories (art. 5).

And there is the warning, in the premonition of possible future post-decolonisation conflicts (as, at the time, in the former Belgian Congo), against any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a (post-decolonisation) country (art. 6); and as to the obligation of all States to observe the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as to equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity (art. 7).

The Declaration’s subsequent history, as a call for legislative activism – affirmative action – within the General Assembly (and, if politically opportune, within the Security Council) and certainly also for parallel initiatives in other coordinate United Nations institutions and agencies (the International Court of Justice in particular), has helped in a process of elevating the Declaration’s claimed juridical status to the rank of imperative principles of international law (jus cogens), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter’s norms and entering into general international law in the result.

The Declaration was at the core of Security Council and General Assembly legislative initiatives that provided a legal base for reference to the International Court of Justice for Advisory Opinion in Namibia in 1971. The Declaration is also reflected, in its full spirit, in the International Court’s Advisory Opinion ruling on Western Sahara in 1975.

In the immediate political context of the drafting and the diplomatic lobbying leading on to its adoption, the Declaration was generally understood as being directed to “salt-water” Colonialism – occupation of the lands and territories of indigenous, native or aboriginal peoples, in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean, who were physically separated by the oceans from their colonial Powers. There is nothing in the language or the spirit of resolution 1514 (XV) inhibiting its legal extension to situations involving relations between European colonial Powers and other European or European-derived peoples overseas. In a major ruling, the International Court of Justice, being seised of a legal complaint of military and paramilitary support by the United States Government for forces from outside Nicaragua attempting to overthrow Nicaragua’s elected government, may have come close in its strong judicial majorities to making such a connection.

Within the General Assembly itself, the Declaration gave birth immediately to further legislative acts whose ties of consanguinity to resolution 1514 (XV) are clear: resolution 1515 (XV) of 15 December 1960, on the sovereign right of States to dispose of their own wealth and natural resources and resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, on States’ permanent sovereignty over those natural resources. The further Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order and the related Programme of Action (resolutions 3201 (S-VI) and 3202 (S-VI) of 1 May 1974), and the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (resolution 3281 (XXIX) of 12 December 1974) are demonstrations of the prophetic quality of resolution 1514 (XV) in providing an inevitable legal linkage between self-determination and its goal of decolonisation, and a postulated new international law-based right of freedom also in economic self-determination.

Collateral questions arising from resolution 1514 (XV) concern its consequences for the continued validity in legal terms of the former territorial frontiers from the colonial era in the post-decolonisation context. The new Organisation of African Unity had displayed, in the early post-decolonisation period, a concern for avoiding the internecine conflicts over territorial frontiers and the resultant pursuit by military means of “natural frontiers”. The pragmatic conclusion was that it might be wisest for the new African States to accept, at least for the moment, the legitimacy of their own newly-inherited territorial demarcations even where, as very often happened, they had arbitrarily divided indigenous peoples or “nations” belonging to distinct ethno-cultural communities. Openings in judicial terms to the Latin American legal doctrine of uti possidetis, as in the legal discussion in Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), a ruling in 1986 by a Special Chamber of the International Court of Justice, perhaps do not take full account of that doctrine’s own special, intrinsically regional character as a concept limited to disputes inter se of the South American Succession States to the former Spanish and Portuguese colonial Powers. The Badinter Commission’s attempt in 1992 to extrapolate the Latin American uti possidetis doctrine to the international boundaries of the succession States to the Former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia may be questioned substantively on the same basis.

The large conclusion must be that the Declaration has essentially fulfilled its original legislative objective of consolidating the political process, already entered upon, of legally terminating the old Colonial Empires, and of pressing on with all deliberate speed to successful conclusion of the process. With political and economic self-determination now assured for the new succession States, and their control over their own natural and other economic resources guaranteed, the way would be open to pursuing supervening, collateral issues now being canvassed – rectification of inherited frontiers, autonomous development of economic resources on a fully regional basis, and related regional security questions – under other, different legal categories and in other, predominantly diplomatic-legal arenas in aid to the General Assembly’s original great legislative act.

Related Materials

A. Jurisprudence

International Court of Justice, South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa). Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1966, p. 6.

International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 16.

International Court of Justice, Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 12.

International Court of Justice, Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 554.

International Court of Justice, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14.

B. Doctrine

M. Bedjaoui, Terra nullius, ‘droits’ historiques et auto détérmination, The Hague: Sijthoff, 1975.

M. Bedjaoui, “Non-alignement et droit international”, Recueil des Cours, vol. 151, 1976, p.406.

B. Boutros-Ghali, “The Arab League 1945-1970”, Revue Egyptienne de Droit International, vol. 25, 1969, p.67.

C.J.R. Dugard, “Organisation of African Unity and Colonisation”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 16, 1967, pp. 157-190.

E. McWhinney, Self-Determination of Peoples and Plural-Ethnic States in Contemporary International Law, Leiden, Boston, Martinus Nijhoff, 2007, particularly chapters 1-4.

E. McWhinney, United Nations Law Making: Cultural and Ideological Relativism and International Law Making for an Era of Transition, Paris, UNESCO; New York, Holmes and Meier, 1984, particularly Chapter 9 [French version: Les Nations Unies et la formation du Droit, Paris, Unesco, Pedone, 1986].

E. McWhinney, The World Court and the Contemporary International Law-Making Process, Alphen aan den Rijn, Sithoff & Noordhoff, 1979, particularly Chapters 2 and 4.

M. Mushkat, “Process of Decolonisation: International Legal Aspects”, University of Baltimore Law Review, vol. 2, 1972-1973, pp. 16-34.

A. Zamora R. (ed.), Actividades Militares y Paramilitares en y contra Nicaragua, (Nicaragua c. Estados Unidos), (Corte Internacional de Justicia), Managua, Nicaragua, 1999.

Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs Condemns Attack on Rapa Nui

UBCIC Condemns Attack on Unarmed Rapa Nui


Urgent News Release
 (Coast Salish Territory/Vancouver, Canada)

The Chilean government, and most recently the Canadian government, adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples within the bounds of their legal and constitutional frameworks. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by Chile and 143 States at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2007. Yesterday, December 3, 2010, after months of relatively peaceful reoccupation of their lands, Chilean troops opened fire on unarmed Rapa Nui (Easter Island) People.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs stated “What the Chilean government did was ugly, unbelievable and reprehensible. We as Indigenous Peoples must condemn the Chilean government for these unacceptable acts of violence and brutality. The UBCIC supports the Rapa Nui People protecting their lands, their island and their archaeological treasure, the Moai. Chile's President Sebastian Pinera must be directly involved to resolve this growing crisis."

As many as 50,000 tourists travel each year to see the Moai - huge stone heads carved by the Rapa Nui's ancestors. In recent years, tourism and migration have increased pressure to control available land on the 10 mile by 15 mile island, and the Rapa Nui have increasingly taken matters into their own hands, seizing a dozen properties they said were illegally taken from their families generations ago. The latest media reports state additional reinforcements have landed on the island and Chile's Interior Minister stating they will continue "evicting" Rapa Nui People.

“As Indigenous Peoples, our fight is the same the world over. Indigenous Title and Rights are ignored, dismissed and violated," said Grand Chief Phillip. “Chile is one of many countries who adopted the UN Declaration but continue to deny the international legal reality of our Indigenous Title and Rights. As demonstrated yesterday, it seems the Chilean government would rather attack unarmed people than find a lasting and peaceful solution. In the spirit and true intent of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UBCIC calls on the Canadian government to join the many voices of many Peoples to denounce the violent actions of the Chilean government.”

Media inquiries:
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, Union of BC Indian Chiefs
Phone: (604) 684-0231

The UBCIC is an NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.

Rapa Nui Demands Return of Indigenous Lands

Dozens injured in Easter Island land disputes

By Federico Quilodran        
The Associated Press

SANTIAGO, Chile -- A land dispute on Easter Island turned violent Friday when riot police evicting islanders from their ancestral home were surrounded by rock-throwing protesters. About two dozen people were injured in a seven-hours-long confrontation.

The clash began at 5 a.m. when officers moved in to evict 10 people from the home they had been occupying since ousting a government official from the property in September, Rapa Nui lawyer Maka Atan told The Associated Press.

The Rapa Nui resisted and the violence left 17 officers and eight civilians hurt, according to police. Three islanders and one policeman were evacuated to mainland Chile for treatment. But protesters said that 19 islanders were injured and denied seeing any police hurt.

The official native name of Easter Island, known for its stunning gigantic stone heads known as Moais, is Rapa Nui, and that's what many natives call themselves, refusing to identify with Chile, which annexed the island in 1888.

In recent years, tourism and migration have increased pressure to control available land on the 10 mile (16 kilometer) by 15 mile (24 kilometer) island, and the Rapa Nui have increasingly taken matters into their own hands, seizing a dozen properties they said were illegally taken from their families generations ago.

A woman who answered the local government official's phone in the island's main town of Hanga Roa said there would be no official comment on Friday's violence.

But Atan, speaking by phone from the island 2,237 miles (3,580 kilometers) west of Chile, said riot police used batons and shotguns against them, firing pellets at close range at their heads. He said he himself was shot in the back with pellets.  Images shared with The AP show several islanders bleeding from head wounds.

About a dozen buildings are currently being occupied by Rapa Nui people, who say Chile illegally took their family's ancestral homes on tiny Easter Island, where a total population of fewer than 5,000 people include about 2,200 Rapa Nuis.

The island's top government authority, Valparaiso Governor Raul Celis, said from mainland Chile that "the evictions will continue."  Chilean media reported that a planeload of police reinforcements was on its way to the island.

Atan said he witnessed police firing pellet guns at people's faces from a distance of just one meter (yard).
"They were shooting to kill. It seems like this is going to end with them killing the Rapa Nui," he said, adding: "The land on this island has always been Rapa Nui. That's why we're asking for our land to be returned."


Rapa Nui leader denounces Chile government over violent evictions
Radio New Zealand International


The president of the Rapa Nui Parliament has denounced Chilean leaders over the way they have tackled the land occupations on Easter Island.

Leviante Araki says the President of Chile, Sebastian Pinera, and the interior minister, Rodrigo Hinzpeter, are scoundrels and thieves following last Friday’s violent eviction of Rapa Nui occupiers of public buildings. Mr Pinera has justified the police action, saying they moved in to uphold public order and execute court orders.

But Mr Araki has told Chilean media his people have no fear and if they have to die they will. He says before last week’s violence they used to believe in Chile but now they want nothing from Chile and move away from it. The Chilean authorities say they want to end the remaining occupations within weeks.


Calls for calm in violence-hit Easter Island
TVNZ

There are calls for calm on Easter Island after Chilean security forces opened fire on indigenous land protesters, who have been occupying a government official's house for months.

Three islanders and one policeman were evacuated to mainland Chile for treatment following the violence, while another 20 were injured.

Chilean forces had gone to a property on the Polynesian island to evict 10 people who had been occupying the house since ousting the government official from it in September. They opened fire after being surrounded by rock-throwing protesters.

The protesters, who are the descendants of the original Polynesian inhabitants of the island, claim 13 properties on the island, including one hotel, were all illegally taken from their families decades ago and are demanding their return.

Last month, a Court of Appeal ruled they had a legitimate claim to ancestral ownership but the island tribunal decided to issue eviction notices anyway.

Speaking to ONE News on the Chilean mainland, the governor of the seaport city of Valparaiso, Raul Celis, said that the situation on Easter Island was complicated.

"The situation, I would not say it's serious, but complicated. There was an eviction and buildings had been occupied illegally for several months," he said.

"Obviously there isn't a situation of complete normality on Easter Island."

The Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC) has now intervened, urging all parties to seek a peaceful outcome. It says it is concerned for the indigenous people of the island.

"We are concerned about the outcome because we have not received any more news. I think there is a media clampdown on Rapanui as of now," PCC spokesperson Fe'iloakitau Tevi said.

The council has also asked the Red Cross for help in a bid to prevent violence escalating further. Easter Island, also called Rapanui, is one of the most isolated inhabited islands in the world and a territory of Chile.
The tiny island is famous for more than 800 moai or statues carved by the original Polynesian inhabitants.


Troops open fire as Rapa Nui land conflict escalates
Radio Australia

Armed Chilean troops have opened fire on unarmed civilians on the island of Rapa Nui during conflict over land rights. The Chilean government annexed the island which lies about three thousand miles off its coast, more than a century ago.

Hawaii Public Radio's Kayla Rosenfeld spoke to cameraman Santi Hitorangi who was filming the violence, when he was shot, along with dozens of other people. He has since told Pacific Beat that he has gone into hiding.

Grant McCall is an anthropologist from the University of New South Wales in Australia who lived on Rapa Nui, or Easter Island, for seven years.

Cruise Ships Visiting Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands Must Comply with New emission rules

New emission rules to target ships in Puerto Rico, USVI



By DANICA COTO

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — Federal (U.S.) officials are looking to clear the air in two U.S. Caribbean territories by requiring cruise liners, tankers and other large ships in the region to reduce their emissions or face penalties.

The plan is to take effect in late 2013. It will target ships traveling in waters around Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, which have some of the busiest ports in the Caribbean, Judith Enck, regional administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said Wednesday.

The two islands * were initially excluded from a plan adopted earlier this year by a United Nations agency to control emissions from large ships that sail within 200 nautical miles of the U.S. and Canadian coasts, she said.

"There is a real problem with local pollution," Enck said.

The Port of San Juan in Puerto Rico sees more than 1 million cruise ship passengers every year, along with nearly 3,800 cargo ships laden with 11 million metric tons of goods. Some 800 cruise ships arrive every year in nearby St. Thomas, which is the largest cruise port in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Under the plan, ships will have to use cleaner fuel or install special equipment to reduce air pollution. As a result, the EPA estimates sulfur dioxide and fine particles that are linked to asthma and cancer could be cut by roughly 90 percent within a decade. Many big ships outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. government often run on fuels with high sulfur levels.

Under the plan, which needs approval from the United Nations' London-based International Maritime Organization, EPA officials will randomly show up at ports to check whether ships are in compliance, Enck said.

The penalties have not yet been established, but impounding ships has been suggested as one option, said Elias Rodriguez, an EPA spokesman.

Shippers and cruise companies initially opposed the plan, saying it would be expensive and create arbitrary boundaries. Several cruise companies contacted Wednesday referred comment to the Cruise Lines International Association, which issued a statement saying it was committed to working with international environmental regulators. It also said cruise companies have taken several steps to reduce emissions by their ships, including operating diesel electric engines.

The EPA estimates the plan will increase the price of a cruise and the cost of transporting a 20-foot (6-meter) container by less than 1 percent.

* The US Virgin Islands is comprised of three islands, St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John).

International Governance Expert Discusses Changes in Northern Marianas Covenant

'It's always good to assess NMI political status periodically'

By Haidee V. Eugenio
Reporter

A United Nations adviser and expert on political self-determination said yesterday it is always good for the CNMI, or any other insular area, to assess its political status periodically to take into consideration recent developments, including the federal takeover of local immigration.

However, despite the federal takeover of CNMI border control in 2009, Dr. Carlyle Corbin said the CNMI remains the most autonomous, self-governing of five U.S. territories.

“Just comparing the political relationship-and this is of course prior to the changes-that the model, as it was initiated, signed and adopted, was very autonomous and it provided for internal self-government, far greater than the rest of the other U.S. territories,” he told Saipan Tribune in a brief interview after his presentation before 12 local lawmakers on small island governance.

Among other things, the CNMI indigenous population still has full control of its lands as exemplified by the land alienation provision of its constitution.

“The CNMI is probably the most autonomous model of all of us,” he said, compared to American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Guam.

American Samoa, he said, seems to be at the opposite end of the spectrum because the U.S. Department of the Interior has veto power over the territory, a statement echoed by Senate floor leader Pete P. Reyes (R-Saipan).

House minority leader Diego Benavente (R-Saipan) said the CNMI, in his opinion, may not be the most autonomous territory after the federal takeover of local immigration.

Corbin, an international adviser on global governance and former minister of state for external affairs of the U.S. Virgin Islands, said in his “observation,” it is about time the CNMI assess its political status.

“I guess it is time to look at it. It is not a recommendation but an observation. It's always good to assess periodically and I think in some cases even constitutions have a requirement to assess every five years or every 10 years. Assessment is always good,” he said in an interview.

Corbin has served as a United Nations expert on self-determination for over a decade, and as an independent expert for the UN Development Programme on U.S. missions to Bermuda and to the Turks and Caicos.

Rep. Stanley Torres (Ind-Saipan), who has been pushing for a re-examination of the U.S.-CNMI relations, particularly whether a “commonwealth” status is still desired by people under the terms of the original Covenant agreement, echoed Corbin's observations about the assessment of the islands' political status.

“I am not advocating for independence but I want the U.S. and the CNMI to come to the negotiating table and for the U.S. to fulfill its promise. To quote former justice Jesse Borja, the U.S. is supposed to provide the CNMI people with a standard of living comparable to that in the mainland,” said Torres, whose attempts since 1997 to create a Second Marianas Political Status Commission had always been rejected.

Sen. Jovita Taimanao (Ind-Rota) also said Corbin is right about the need to assess the islands' political status from time to time, “and to involve the younger generation in the discussion of the CNMI's future.”

Prior to meeting with lawmakers, Corbin also made a courtesy call on Gov. Benigno R. Fitial on Capital Hill yesterday.

Former Guam senator Dr. Hope Cristobal facilitated Corbin's visit to the CNMI after visiting Guam. Also accompanying Corbin and Cristobal yesterday to Saipan was attorney Julian Aguon.

Corbin is the author of two UN studies on the participation of non-independent countries in the UN system.

Cooperation Between Eastern Caribbean and French Overseas Territories Encouraged

BASSETERRE, ST. KITTS
(CUOPM) – 

Developing closer ties between member nations of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) and the French Overseas Territories in the Caribbean was discussed in Paris, the French capital.

St. Kitts and Nevis Prime Minister and current Chairman of the OECS, Hon. Dr. Denzil L. Douglas discussed the strengthening of cooperative links in trade, vocational education and renewal energy with France’s Minister of Overseas Territories, Her Excellency Madame Marie-Luce Penchard.
The meeting described as “warm and productive” also focused on healthcare, university exchanges and prospect of securing financing from the European Development Fund (EDF).

Madame Penchard, in conformity with the outcome of Council of Ministers of Overseas Territories also raised the possibility of involving the French Caribbean and Guianese regional authorities toward participation in future meetings of the OECS and CARICOM, a point that was particularly well received by Prime Minister Douglas.

During the talks, Prime Minister Douglas underlined the importance of these links in his capacity as Chairman of the OECS. “We ardently wish to develop cooperation between the French territories and our community in the Caribbean,” said Dr. Douglas.

Governance Expert to speak at University of Guam

Will discuss recent developments in small island governance

 The University of Guam will host Dr. Carlyle Corbin, International Advisor on Governance and Multilateral Diplomacy, who is visiting Guam from the sister territory of the Virgin Islands for a series of lectures and colloquia. He will deliver a featured address at the University of Guam CLASS Lecture Hall on November 30 at 6:00 pm. The topic of his university address is "Recent Developments in Small Island Governance: Implications for the Self-Determination Process."

The event is free and open to the public, and  is sponsored by the University of Guam Division of Social Work and the Guåhan Coalition for Peace and Justice.

Corbin is the former Representative for External Affairs in the Government of the US Virgin Islands, and has lectured widely on political and constitutional advancement. He is the author of three books and numerous scholarly articles on governance and political development with specific focus on non-independent countries.
 
He has served as an advisor to several Caribbean territorial governments, and presently is the international advisor to the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the US Virgin Islands. He has been an expert on self-determination and decolonisation for United Nations Caribbean and Pacific regional seminars for over a decade, and has served as the independent expert to United Nations missions to several non self-governing territories.
 
He presently serves as the Executive Secretary of the Council of Presidents of the United Nations General Assembly.

Puerto Rico Tax Cuts Proposed

Governor Fortuño files balance of sweeping tax reform

By : John Marino Caribbean Business
marino@caribbeanbusinesspr.com

Gov. Luis Fortuño announced Monday that the second and final phase of his proposed tax reform aimed at providing relief to all Puerto Ricans was filed with the Legislature. The reform will provide on average $1.2 billion in taxpayer relief every year for each of the next six years, which constitutes the largest tax relief granted in Puerto Rico history, he added.

“Today we responsibly comply with the pledge we made to all Puerto Rican workers: the most sweeping, equitable and just tax reform every adopted in Puerto Rico,” the governor said. “This reform is based on our commitment to bring relief to Puerto Ricans through just tax rates and control of government spending that will be the formula for our economic development.”

The highlights of the reform, which will phase in the reduced tax rates over the six-year period, include:

— A zero tax rate for those who earn less $20,000 annually.

— A 7 percent rate for those who earn from $20,000 to $30,000.

— A 14 percent rate for those who earn from $30,000 to $70,000.

— A 25 percent rate for those who earn more than $125,000.

— A reduction in the maximum tax rate for businesses to 30 percent from 39 percent.

— An increase to $600 from $300 in the maximum earned income tax credit and an increase to $35,000 from $20,000 in the income cap to be eligible for the program. This will benefit 217,000 additional taxpayers.

— A $400 tax credit for people 65 and older with income under $15,000 annually.

— A deduction of up to 100 percent for charitable donations, up to a limit of 50 percent of adjusted gross income.

The governor also touted the reform’s simplifying of the tax code, reducing to three from five the different taxpayer classifications and eliminating all deductions, except for mortgage interest, charitable donations, medical costs, student loan interest and contributions to retirement or education funds.

The tax reform will mean an average annual savings of $1,500 per taxpayer, with average individual tax rates cut 50 percent and business tax rates 30 percent. It also provides incentives for work and is geared toward economic development and the creation of jobs, Fortuño said.

“History has taught us that a dollar in the hands of Puerto Ricans goes much further than a dollar in the hands of the government,” the governor said. “By putting more money into the pockets of our workers, we are recognizing the fact that they — and not the government — have the power to determine what is best for themselves and their loved ones.”

'We Are Guahan' Joins lawsuit Against Military Build-up

Almost one year exactly after the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, We Are Guåhan has joined the Guam Preservation Trust and National Trust for Historic Preservation in a lawsuit against DoD (U.S. Department of Defence).

http://weareguahan.com/2010/11/19/we-are-guahan-joins-lawsuit-against-dod/

. This lawsuit is about Pågat, but it is not just about Pågat. This lawsuit is also about DoD deciding that “operational efficiency” was more important than the requests of our Legislature, our Governor, our Congresswoman and our community. In the name of military convenience, DoD has broken promises and, as will be shown in this lawsuit, it has broken the law.
 
How can we expect DoD to voluntarily help us pay for the 9 new schools and 500 additional hospital beds that will be needed outside the fence when a lawsuit is required to force DoD to follow the law?
 
To be clear, this lawsuit is about protecting Pågat, a site that has great cultural and historical significance to our island. But to be equally as clear, We Are Guåhan has and will continue to oppose the buildup as proposed. We are here, and we will use every tool that is available to us to protect our home, including legal action.


See also:  "Guam Preservation Trust and We Are Guahan, joined by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Files Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief"

Lawsuit Calls for New Elections in Guam

*****

Gutierrez Files Lawsuit Seeking to Overturn Results of 2010 Gubernatorial Election

Written by Kevin Kerrigan
PNC Pacific News Center
Guam News

Guam - Lawyers for the Gutierrez-Aguon Gubernatorial Campaign this afternoon [Friday] filed a lawsuits in District Court seeking to overturn the results of the 2010 Gubernatorial Election that has already been certified in favor of the rival Republican team of Calvo-Tenorio.

The lawsuit was filed by Attorney David Lujan on behalf of Carl Gutierrez ... Frank Aguon Jr...The Democratic Party of Guam and 1-thousand John Doe's ...citizens of Guam, all of whom, the lawsuit alleges, were "illegally and arbitrarily deprived of their right to vote." Among the factual allegations in the lawsuit are:

* locked ballot boxes were opened at polling sites ... secret ballots were removed and exposed to the public
* ballots were removed by Guam Election Commission Executive Director John Blas who transported them to other polling sites.

* absentee ballots were destroyed or removed

* absentee ballots were not mailed to voters who requested them

* absentee ballots were mailed too late for voters to return them in time

* registered voters were turned away at numerous polling sites and not allowed to vote

* the chain of custody was compromised when ballots were secured and held by a private security company owned and/or controlled by Republican Lt. Gubernatorial candidate Ray Tenorio.

* the number of ballots issued to voters did not match the number of ballots returned at various precincts

* residents of other U.S. jurisdictions ... like Saipan, were allowed to vote in Guam's election.

* underage voters were allowed to cast ballots

*illegal ballots were counted

*voting tabulation machines malfunctioned

The lawsuit also reveals new totals in the election count:

Calvo-Tenorio: 19,879 or 50.38 %
Gutierrez-Aguon 19,296 or 48.90 %

* 484 over-votes
* 702 under-votes

On the issue of the over and under votes, the lawsuit notes that the tabulation machines rejected those votes on November 2ed election night. But the Election Commission Board Members spent much of their time during the re-count on November 6th trying to determine voter intent. But that process too comes under criticism in the lawsuit which states:

"The machine re-count ... included numerous incidents of ballots being chewed up/mutilated by the machines ... and there were problems with several machines ... several additional recounts had to be done for at least 6 precincts." But "despite the fact of the obvious failures of the tabulation machines ... the GEC (Guam Electoral Commission) accepted and certified the results of the machine recount."

The lawsuit cites violations of the 5th and 4th Amendments to the Constitution and it also cites the Guam Organic Act and the Help America Vote Act which all guarantee that a citizens right to vote may not be arbitrarily denied.

The lawsuits suit seeks:

*declare the results of the election for governor and lt. governor certified by the GEC legally invalid

*require the GEC to schedule and conduct a new election at the earliest practicable time.

Communiqué from (U.K.) Overseas Territories Consultative Council

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)
Press Centre

http://turksandcaicosislands.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=PressS&id=118620682



18 November 2010

Minister for the Overseas Territories Henry Bellingham met leaders from the Overseas Territories for the Overseas Territories Consultative Council on 17 November.

The UK and Overseas Territories represented at the Consultative Council discussed a number of issues of mutual interest and concern. Mr Bellingham emphasised the Coalition Government’s determination to improve and strengthen the UK’s relationship with the Overseas Territories and to represent their interests in international fora. He also made clear that other Government Departments were now more closely involved in Overseas Territories work. The Caribbean Territories welcomed the important emergency assistance provided by the Atlantic Patrol Task (North) during the recent hurricane season. The Minister noted that the Coalition Government had restarted the vital Air Access project for St Helena and had agreed to provide assistance for Tristan da Cunha’s harbour. All parties agreed on the need to work together to help the commercial and economic development of the Territories.

During the criminal justice session there were discussions about rising crime in some of the Territories; about drugs and organised crime; and about possible UK technical assistance to the Territories in these areas. In the session on transport there were discussions about maritime and aviation safety regulations; and the importance of meeting international safety standards. Territory leaders raised concerns about the cost of this and about Air Passenger Duty.

During the session on the environment, it was agreed that Territory Governments and relevant UK Departments would work together to help manage the natural environment and the impact of climate change in the Territories, including highlighting examples of good practice and successes already achieved in the Territories.

During the session on passport issues, the UK and the Overseas Territories discussed arrangements for handling the printing of passports in light of the UK Government’s decision to repatriate to the UK the printing of all British passports.

During their separate session on financial services and public finances, the UK and the Caribbean Territories and Bermuda agreed:

*   the importance of complying with international financial sector standards (on tax transparency, financial regulation and anti-money laundering/counter terrorism financing) and that these standards must be applied without discrimination

*    the importance of continuing to take action to return public finances to a sustainable footing to take forward work on a framework for fiscal responsibility

During their separate session the South Atlantic Territories agreed a number of areas in which they could work together more closely.

Chamoru Students to Discuss Decolonisation of Guam

United Nations Guam Forum

University of California Los Angeles (UCLA)

 THURSDAY NOVEMBER 18, 2010

5:30-7:30

170 DODD HALL

THURSDAY NOVEMBER 18, 2010

This forum will discuss the testimonies of the Guam Delegation who testified at the United Nations Special Political and Decolonization Committee in October 2010

SPEAKERS INCLUDE:

 Josette Quinata

Michael Tuncap

Alfred Flores

Edward Browne

UCLA Graduate Coalition of the Native Pacific

UCLA Pacific Islands' Student Association

Pacific Islander Studies Initiative
NAPA

UCLA Post Colonial Theory & Literature Colloquium

Testimony to the United Nations Special Political and Decolonization Committee

Chamoru Self-Determination in Guåhan (Guam)

October 5-6, 2010

Hafa Adai distinguished members of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) and Chairman, H.E. Mr. Chitsaka Chipaziwa. Dankolo na si yu’us ma’ase (thank you very much) for your time in allowing me the opportunity to address this esteemed international body.

Guahu si Josette Marie Lujan Quinata and I am a proud Chamoru daughter of Guåhan. I am a graduate student in the Master of Social Work program at the University of Southern California and a member of Famoksaiyan. "Famoksaiyan" translates to either "the place or time of nurturing" or "the time to paddle forward and move ahead." We are a grassroots network of activists, scholars, students, community leaders and artists who seek to push for a political, economic, and social agenda for Chamorus on local, national and international levels.

I am here today to express to you the crucial concerns that are in dire need of your attention, advocacy, and support especially during this extremely critical time in Guåhan’s history. Currently, Guåhan is under grave attack as it has been designated by the United States, its administering power, as the stage for the largest U.S. military buildup since World War II. The overwhelmingly colossal transference from Okinawa, Japan to Guåhan includes military personnel, their families, and foreign construction workers and is scheduled to take effect by 2014. This massive influx is expected to increase Guåhan’s population by 34 percent. Resources to land, community facilities, and infrastructure capacity will undeniably be impacted by the drastic number of people utilizing these amenities and will devastatingly reinforce the economic, social, and financial dependency the U.S. has over Guåhan. Therefore, the political and decision-making process for Chamorus continues to be one of an insider-outsider perspective as Chamorus remain on the outside fences barred from making decisions that ultimately impinges on their indigenous rights and native claim to the land. This inability to include Chamorus in the very decisions that affect their land, their culture, and their lives permeates the power struggle, political dominance, colonialism, and militarization that the U.S. gravely has over the native people of Guåhan.

Furthermore, what makes this potential atrocity even more horrific is that despite the multitude of people who have advocated for their voices, their concerns, worries, fears, and questions surrounding the military buildup to be addressed, the “green light” to move forward with the continued militarization of Guåhan was recently announced in the U.S. Department of Defense’s Record of Decision. This heartrending decision to move forward with the military buildup will not only alter the lives of the Chamoru people, but it will also significantly impact the environment of Guåhan. For instance, according to the Environmental Impact Statement, the aspirations of the military buildup include excavating ancestral, native and sacred lands in exchange for live firing ranges and the expansion of hotels, resorts, and housing markets. Such a disregard for the cultural ties to our land and historical sites of our ancestors will be detrimental in preserving our Chamoru culture and learning about our history.

In addition, the U.S. government has allocated funding for the development of naval infrastructures while civilian infrastructures continue to deteriorate, posing health and environmental risks on the people of Guåhan. Both the administering power and the Government of Guåhan have stated that the island’s infrastructure is inadequate to meet the needs of the military buildup and the increased number of people it will serve. However, costs needed for the upgrades to Guåhan’s infrastructures are different from the funds that are applied to the military bases. Therefore, Guåhan will not only have to support the local community, but also the demands of the military buildup without having any control of the financial expenses or responsibility over the expansion.

Thus, vital aspects of Chamoru society are impounded by the underlying theme of militarization that affects land resources, health, financial stability, and political sovereignty. The colonization of Guåhan continues to deny Chamorus decision-making power on issues that truly affect their lives. This is evidenced in the lack of inclusion that Chamorus are faced with as our voices and ethical issues are second to militarization and colonialism. And while we have provided our input in the planning process of the buildup, ultimately, we have no real control over what happens to our island and the impacts it would have on future generations.

Therefore, as we question the effects and consequences of this proposed plan, it is overwhelmingly apparent that the security interests and national policies of the U.S. are not inclusive of the Chamoru people’s plight and concerns. Guåhan to this day remains colonized even though it was placed under the United Nations list of Non-Self Governing Territories, and after the UN passed General Assembly Resolutions 1514 (the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples) and 1541(which establishes the three options for self-determination). However, we have the chance to prevent history from repeating itself and from suffering at the hands of colonialism which will lead to ongoing detrimental effects on our land, culture, and humanity. More importantly, we have the opportunity to further the process for self-determination, sovereignty, cultural preservation, and land security by collaborating with the Fourth Committee to help facilitate the political process that enforces the United States’ obligation under the UN Charter to help the Chamoru people attain their basic right to self-determination.

At a time when our homeland is threatened by militarization and heavy dependency on the United States, I recommend that the Fourth Committee immediately enact the process of decolonization for Guåhan in lieu of the severe, irreversible impacts of U.S. militarization with a fully funded and far-reaching education campaign informing all Chamorus from Guåhan of their right to self-determination and decolonization options. I also hope you will join me in understanding the social and political impacts of Guåhan, and acknowledging the Chamoru people’s desire to inspire change and evoke action that will allow us to have a real voice in our political future.

Saina Ma’ase.
Josette Marie Lujan Quinata
MSW Graduate Student
University of Southern California

Famoksaiyan

  I dedicate this testimony to all those who have inspired and motivated me in this journey, and for those who have left a legacy on our island.  I am especially grateful for my Nana, Veronica Lujan and Grandmother, Rosita Quinata who have been extremely profound throughout my journey.  I am moved by your compassion, encouragement, and belief in me and in the Chamoru people’s right to self-determination.  I especially want to say si yu’us ma’ase to Sid Gardner, President of Children and Family Futures, a non-profit organization whose mission is to improve the lives of children and families, particularly those affected by substance use disorders.  Your organization’s profound enthusiasm and outpouring support have undoubtedly been the backbone behind my 2010 United Nations testimony.  I am forever grateful for your commitment and influence in this journey.  Dankolo na si yu’us ma’ase.