Colonialism and Decolonization in Guam; Governor Initiates Community forums on Self-Determination

*****

Guam is a Colony

Michael Lujan Bevacqua

"Guam is a colony. Anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't want to confront the truth."

(The impetus for this post came from the letter to the editor of the Marianas Variety below written by Ed Benavente, former Maga'lahi of the group Nasion Chamoru and also former director of the Decolonization Commission for the Government of Guam. The letter was written in response to several columns by UOG professor Ron McNinch who has a piece every Thursday in the paper). One of the mistakes that people often conveniently make when discussing the veracity of Guam's contemporary colonial status is making the assumption that in order to call something colonial, it must be the worst and most horrible thing in the world. Make no mistake, Guam is a colony and it is an unjust and immoral fact, but it is not the worst place in the world because of it. But interestingly enough so many people attempt to argue that Guam isn't a colony, just because it it's political status today isn't that bad. They argue that because it's better than before or because it's not as bad as forms of colonialism from time's past, you can't call it a colony.

Part of the problem with this is the simplicity through which people are arguing for something. Simplicity and plain-spokenness is one of the easiest ways to appear to be speaking the truth or speaking of something in both a profoundly important and real sense, while also making your argument appear to be obviously, commonsensically true. So many who argue Guam isn't a colony will say to look at other places which have decolonized and how horrible and disgusting they are, and you shouldn't call Guam a colony because it's better to be a pathetic footnote to the United States, then your own sad sovereign basket case of a story. Others will argue that because Guam has so many privileges and is such a great place that it can't be called a colony. While these sorts of things could be evidence for making an argument about what sort of colony Guam is, or what its experience of colonialism is, they have no effect on saying that Guam is not a colony.

For many years, editor and columnist for the Pacific Daily News Joe Murphy pioneered this way of speaking about Guam's political status. It was a way of not really addressing the issue, while asserting that you were summing up the entire issue in such a commonsensical and clearly obvious way because of how plainly you were speaking about it. Alot of times this happens through references to what "the people" or "most people" think or want. Whenever you use this sort of phrase, it is a way of trying to root what you are saying in something real or true. The folks, the populace, the real people, or the majority of the people, or the people that actually matter and not some troublesome minority feel this and therefore it must be true.

I find this rhetorical tactic interesting. You are shrouding your lack of analysis through the aura of people believing or feeling something. It is similar to the way in which people argue very wrongly that the buildup will be good for Guam because for a long time so many people seemed to support it. The idea that alot of people think something is good is still very far away from something actually being good. It could be an indicator that something is good or it could just be an indicator of what people think or feel and nothing more. It could be more an indication of how stupid and detached from reality people are just as much as how in tune with it they are.

Defining colonialism is not about whether or not people like their situation or whether or not it is the worst or the best situation, it is instead a simple matter of stating what level of self-determination or sovereignty self-government a community has. It is a category which indicates that a community, a polity exists in a fundamentally unequal relationship with another. Where one community holds a gross amount of power over another and there is an absence of any formal and uncoerced acceptance of that situation that is colonialism. It doesn't have to be brutal or nasty, it can be banal and naturalized, and in fact that it is precisely what every colonizer wants, to hold excessive power over a place from which their restrictions or limitations pale in comparison. To have a place where your control which does not make any rational or moral sense over the land or the people there is justified.

One of the main ways in which you can perceive Guam's colonial status today is through the Insular Cases and much Federal-Territorial case law which has developed over the years. The initial decisions of the Insular Cases which argued that the territories of the United States have no inherent rights other than that which the US Congress gives them continue to be the law of the land for the US as of today. The Insular Cases has an interesting way of expressing the most basic way of perceiving colonialism. The Insular Cases do not argue that the people of the territories should be treated well, and neither do they argue that the people in the territories should be treated like crap. What they fundamentally argue is that it is not up to the people of the territories what happens to them, but the Federal Government of the United States. It is the choice of the Federales what they want to do. If they want to treat the people of the territories like they are regular garden-variety Americans, they can do that. If they want to segregate them or treat them differently they can. One of the things which makes this muddier now is the fact that people who are from the territories with the exception of American Samoa are US citizens, and so there remains an unresolved issue of whether or not this absolute authority extends to both the land and the people or only the land.

What we do know is that in terms of fixing Guam's colonial status, meaning the island finally undergoing a process of decolonization, Presidents and Cabinets and Congresses for decades have been very clear in how they would "allow" this to happen. That although territories are not fully within the circle of American political belonging, this exceptionalism is not supposed to afford them any extra rights, not even in terms of their decolonizing. This is where we can see colonialism in the way it usually appears in Guam's case, as a stupid joke. Guam is allowed to decolonize so long as it always remains within the authority over the colonizer, it is not allowed to decolonize in anyway which extends beyond what the colonizer wants or is willing to allow. This is of course hypocritical, immoral, wrong and all of those things and in the case of Guam all of the nice things or great feelings of Americaness that people feel do nothing to affect this simple fact. Guam is a colony and it will remain so until this is changed, and making excuses that colonialism doesn't exist or is somehow the best thing for Guam doesn't do much except implicitly articulate that Guam is one of those unique places in the world which should not have any control over its future.

It is interesting how the arguments against a place such as Guam being decolonized are built upon a quiet and unspeakable assumption that huge swaths of the world would be better off colonized and that it was a mistake for them to be decolonized. When I say unspeakable it is something which so many people feel (in both the former colonized and colonizing world), but thankfully has come to the point where it cannot really be spoken of since the arc of the moral universe has been bent to the point where it can be universally accepted as being wrong. The world is still gray on whether or not colonialism was right, since even those who have suffered feel like their identities or their existence is impossible without the violent disruptions of colonialism, but all can agree that it should not exist anymore. A contemporary colony such as Guam, while being in the periphery of the current world order, nevertheless feels the full weight of the center of this imperialist nostalgia. I find it interesting that when the topic of decolonization is proposed or discussed in Guam, even amongst so-called learned and intelligent people, it is still nearly difficult for a learned or intelligent conversation to take place. The weight of that unspoken belief that the world was better when it was colonized and that when people were under the heavy or imperceptible thumb of another things were more prosperous and more stable it inundates life in Guam even if people don't know it or feel it. The spectre of third world chaos and of not having access to the dreams the colonizer has long dangled before the widening eyes of those it has colonized feel more strongly than ever.

When people refuse to talk about decolonization or demonize it, they feel this pressure and therefore make their arguments (or lack thereof) as if they are doing the public good. Decolonization is a dangerous proposition which can only lead to Guam no longer being a Third World colony of a First World country, but simply a Third World country. The subordination and the rank dependency is a necessarily evil in order to keep Guam from joining the league of disastrous economies and tragic societies that is the formerly colonized and eternally developing world. But as I said earlier, even if many people believe this, you cannot really say it out loud. It is a thinking based on racism, not reality. It doesn't matter what pathetic little tokens you can point to which colonization brought to this society or that. Colonies were hardly as rich, as secure or as nice as people remember them to be, on both ends of the spectrum. They were and are always in some way sites of racism, imperialism and exploitation.

In the case of Guam's colonization, if the United States came to Guam in 1898 and set forth a proposal to the Chamorro people that they were going to colonize their island, deprive them of any rights for 50 years, attempt to dismantle their language and culture and then later transform their island into what they hope to eternally be their tip of the spear in the Pacific, it is safe to say that very few Chamorros, if they were given the choice, would have taken the offer. This is why you can rarely, openly argue in favor of colonialism, even if so much of the rhetoric about it as a system is that it is ultimately good for the people who are oppressed by it. It is, on its surface so commonsensically wrong, and so that is why it becomes so difficult to even find a way to nicely articulate it, which doesn't sound like you are saying that non-white people should forever be shackled to white countries in order to civilize and take care of them. Guam suffers from the fact that you can make that argument proactive, presumptively, and can argue in favor of colonization, without mentioning it, but by only invoking the specter of savage and hopeless decolonization in order to prop it up.

Even if you love the United States and want Guam's relationship with it to be permanent you still cannot deny that Guam is a colony, and in the long run it does Guam no good to think otherwise. Those who deny the clearly obvious nature of Guam's colonial status are doing the dirty work of those who would want to argue that the world was better off when the majority of it was colonies run by colonizers. They may not make this argument clearly, but they draw from the same well of racial logic.

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

Politics and Status

Ron McNinch

(Marianas Variety)

Following WWII, America experienced a “baby boom” between 1946 and 1964. Guam was no different, we had a lot of children born following the occupation. This crop of new young people actually led to the establishment of the College of Guam in 1952. By 1950, planners realized that this post-war population was creating a need for trained teachers. So a teachers college was established. By 1968, this baby boom population group was turning 18 and this pushed policy makers to upgrade the College of Guam to the University level. This week we celebrated our Charter Day at UOG and this point can be overlooked. Biba UOG!

Our society is based on competition. We have two or more political parties. We have all sorts of ideas that compete. Even this very newspaper broke the ice in recent years for print media. The contrast is very nice. We love variety, no pun intended. We avoid mediocrity. It is in the nature of America to always be dissatisfied with something. Education is a constant point of dissatisfaction.

One of the great things about the military buildup is that like it or not, our leaders have finally realized that for many years we have been pretty much ignored by Washington DC. The bottom line is simple. To improve our relationship and communications with the federal government, we have to improve our political status. So this buildup has created a marketplace of competitive ideas just as the post war population pushed education policy.

If you have been reading my column for a while, people get upset with me all the time. It is a part of my nature I guess. For many years, Guam has claimed to have a “decolonization” effort. To be frank, I don’t really think Guam is a colony. We pretty much have a self-government with little negative interference by the federal government. While the Government of Guam is often effete and self-defeating, it is our government. And Guam’s leaders are our leaders. But they have chosen not to compete. Instead of being gladiators in the arena, we often elect a cowardly crowd to serve us.

The military buildup is just a temporary distraction to blame any problem on, now and in the future.

But if we wanted to, we could change our political relationship with the United States. We could adopt an off the shelf Organic Act based constitution. We could upgrade our relationship to a higher more effective level. Of course, to do these things we have to try. And perhaps fail a few times. If we stumble in this process, we need to get back up. And try again.

Independence and free association are not very good options for Guam. Nearly every new nation since WWII, with the exception of Singapore has ended up in the Third World. We could likely make a good argument for a Federal District. Perhaps the Federal District of Guam. Part of the district status would be a voice in the US Senate.

On Guam as a Colony

Letter to the Editor

by

Eddie L.G. Benavente

Mangilao, Guam 

(Marianas Variety)

I found Dr. Ron McNinch’s recent column, “Politics and Status” quite interesting. (Marianas Variety Guam March 10, 2011.) I just find it amusing that he would use one issue, although significant, to be the wake- up call for our leaders to realize we’ve been ignored for a long time. The political reality is that Washington historically has always ignored grievances expressed by our political leaders, since the early 1900s.

Dr. McNinch argues that Guam is not really a colony. Like his predecessors of the same affinity, he paints a rosy picture that Guam is pretty much self-governing. I initially thought perhaps the professor didn’t understand the concepts of colonization, non-self-governing territories, full self-government, de-colonization and self-determination in the context of international definition and application. However, his credentials at the University speak for themselves.

His “bottom line simple approach” in resolving our problems with the federal government gives the impression that achieving a new political status is pretty much petty and for the moment. I thought the professor had a profound approach for the administering power to finally comply with treaties so our people can finally have the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination.

But this was not the case.

Instead, like others before him, he tends to ridicule and put the blame on our self-defeating government and cowardly local leaders.

Moreover, McNinch suggests perhaps we should move toward an organic-act constitution, (the old “cart before the horse” which literally means “let’s forget about political status and settle for a constitution”). He then concludes by asserting that independence and free association are not very good status options.

Wow! That leaves statehood as the only option, as opposed to the three choices in the Treaty. He defends this assertion by saying that with the exception of Singapore all other nations have become “Third World.”

I couldn’t believe these suggestions were coming from a learned individual who teaches in Guam’s highest institution of learning. What does this all mean? Does it mean that independence is only good for some nations and not for others? Are nations who choose independence not entitled to evolve? How and who measures what constitutes “Third World?”

Would Belau or the Republic of the Philippines, for example, fall under his definition of Third World? Or are the people who hold this mindset just making these absurd assertions to maintain the status- quo?

Could it be that the political science professor is not aware of the Treaty signed and ratified by the United States back in December, 1946?

Is McNinch aware that the Treaty of 46’ requires the United States Mission to the United Nations to submit reports annually to the Secretary General and other entities within the United Nations regarding Chamoru political, social and economic development?

If we were truly self-governing why would the administering power continue to report to the UN on Guam’s political development? He said it himself, that when he writes, it is in his nature to agitate some people. I welcome any intellectual discourse on the subject of self-determination, but reject any notion that “all is good” in a colony.

A detractor to the process of de-colonization and someone who advocates perpetual hegemony of a people is no different than a slave master who opposes the emancipation of blacks.

I truly feel that these political experts should stop coming up with unrealistic solutions. There is a system already in place that was conceived by the United States and 50 other nations back in 1946. Over a hundred nations within the United Nations have gone through this process. There are only 16 Territories remaining that have yet to de-colonized, Guam being one of them.

__________________________

Community Forum to Focus on Self Determination

Press Release

 
Forum the first in a series of gatherings to address federal-territorial issues

 

Governor Eddie Bazo Calvo and Lieutenant Governor Ray Tenorio invite the public to a community forum addressing federal-territorial issues Friday (11th April). 

The forum is the first in a series of forums meant to gather public input on the Guam government’s dealings with the federal government. These include all matters ranging from the military buildup to longstanding federal-territorial issues, such as war reparations and compact impact reimbursements.

These forums will run for two hours, and will focus one topic at a time. All senators, mayors, other elected officials, Chamorro rights groups, business organizations, U.S. servicemen and women, veterans, and other associations are encouraged to attend. Everyone is welcome to express their views and listen to others.

“We want to hear what you have to say,” Governor Eddie Baza Calvo said. “Leadership is listening to the people, then making decisions. I know there are diverse views. We need to come together, listen to all views and strive to come to a consensus on federal-territorial issues. This way, we can truly have a Team Guam approach when I’m dealing with the federal government.”

The Governor, who will chair these forums, believes the single-most important issue to federal-territorial relations is the inalienable right of the Chamorro people to exercise self-determination. It is for this reason that self-determination will be the focused issue in this Friday’s community forum.

Commission on Decolonization Executive Director Ed Alvarez will present the commission’s issues and the administration’s plans to move forward with a vote on self-determination. The floor will be open to hear the people’s ideas, questions and suggestions after that.

The forum is scheduled for Friday, between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. in the Cabinet Conference Room, Bordallo Governor’s Complex.

 



Anguilla Chief Minister Sees Independence as Logical Alternative following British delay on budget

*****

"I feel very disillusioned and frustrated with British administration for Anguilla. My commitment now is to press on with my programme for self determination."

THE Valley, ANGUILLA, CMC – Chief Minister Hubert Hughes said that Britain's approval of his December 2010 budget is a little too late and signalled his intention to seek independence for the British Overseas Territory.



"We lost out on so much revenue, we have lost out on the deal we had with the European Union, on the EDF 10 fiscal package, we have lost out on support from the Caribbean Development Bank because these institutions will not do business with Anguilla as long as Anguilla cannot produce a proper, credible budget." Hughes told the Caribbean Media Corporation (CMC).

Governor Alistair Harrison said that the Queen, through the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, had assented to the island's Appropriation Act which contains the 2011 budget.

He gave no details of the amount contained in the budget, but Harrison also announced that he had approved the legislation introducing the interim Stabilization Levy, as well as amendments to the Customs surcharge and the Petroleum Levy passed earlier by the House of Assembly.

“These three measures constitute the new measures necessary to implement the budget settlement for 2011," Harrison said.

At the start of the year, Henry Bellingham, the UK Minister responsible for the British Overseas Territories in a letter to the Chief Minister indicated that the London would provide two independent experts to assist the local administration with the preparation of its 2011 fiscal package.

The two consultants - paid for by the Department for International Development (DFID) have since presented a number of recommendations to the local government.

“My budget was perfect so says the team of consultants by the Foreign and Commonwealth office sent in on the advice of the Governor of Anguilla to rewrite it. But yet the day after the consultants gave the report to the cabinet, the Governor said he had permission from the Foreign office now to sign the budget and yet it took a month for him to sign it playing the fool because he was ashamed, “ Hughes said.

The Chief Minister said that Britain's action has underscored the need for his government to pursue independence.

"I feel very disillusioned and frustrated with British administration for Anguilla. My commitment now is to press on with my programme for self determination." he added. (CMC)

Déclaration Président du Congrès de la Nouvelle Calédonie

*****

Déclaration Président du Congrès de la Nouvelle Calédonie

(Session extraordinaire du vendredi 1er avril 2011, élection du président)

R.WAMYTAN, candidat du groupe FLNKS

Monsieur le Haut commissaire de la République,

Monsieur le président du gouvernement

Messieurs les membres du gouvernement

Mes chers collègues

Mesdames et messieurs

Avant de poursuivre l’élection pour la mise en place des VP, secrétaires et questeurs du congrès, je voudrais tout d’abord remercier l’ensemble des élus qui ont porté leur suffrage sur ma candidature présentée par le groupe FLNKS. Je voudrais adresser un remerciement tout à fait spécial et particulier aux élus de la mouvance qui défend tout à fait légitimement l’appartenance de la Nouvelle Calédonie à la France. Sachez que ce geste courageux qui vous honore et que j’apprécie à sa juste valeur en tant qu’indépendantiste convaincu est une marque de confiance. Permettez-moi de prendre quelques instants pour vous adresser dans ce sens mes sentiments en tant que nouveau président de notre institution.

En votant pour un indépendantiste vous avez exprimé par cet acte politique fort, une confiance totale en l’accord de Nouméa que nous avons ensemble signé le 5 mai 1998 en présence des plus hautes autorités de l’Etat français et des états du Pacifique. Cet accord demeure notre feuille de route à tous, de même que les conclusions du dernier comité des signataires de Paris en juin 2010. Comme vous le savez cet accord, à la suite des accords de Matignon-Oudinot, nous engage tous sur la voie de la paix, du développement et de l’émancipation sur le chemin de l’acte d’autodétermination que nous devons préparer dès cette année afin que nos populations puissent exercer ce droit dans les meilleurs conditions possibles et en toute connaissance de cause. Vous avez su dépasser la logique majorité/minorité pour adopter une posture que nous indépendantistes attendions depuis longtemps, celle du partage des responsabilités au plus haut niveau institutionnel afin de poursuivre ensemble l’application pleine et entière de l’accord de Nouméa. Nous sommes conscients que ce geste courageux peut vous couter gros, certains élus, tels des requins charognards, ont flairé le possible festin sur lequel surfer pour s’approprier à titre personnel les retombées politiques de ce qu’ils estiment être une manigance ou des manœuvres anti démocratiques.

Pour la première fois depuis 34 ans, le congrès de la Nouvelle Calédonie porte un indépendantiste à sa présidence. Les deux précédents responsables indépendantistes qui ont présidé cette noble assemblée et dont je salue la mémoire ont été Monsieur Yann Célene UREGEI de 1973 à 1975 et Monsieur ROCH PIDJOT, député de la Nouvelle Calédonie de 1964 à 1986 au cours du mandat 1976- 1977. Les années qui vont suivre les présidences de ces deux « vieux » seront sous le signe du réveil kanak, culminant avec les années 1984 à 1988 durant lesquelles la crise identitaire et politique néocalédonienne va atteindre son paroxysme. A 23 ans de distance de la signature de l’accord de Matignon, les esprits se libèrent lentement de la peur pour accéder enfin à un partage plus équitable des responsabilités.

Les calédoniens ne doivent pas avoir peur de voir accéder à ce poste un indépendantiste et qui plus est d’origine mélanésienne kanak du pays Drubea-Kapume cette terre où s’est construite la ville de Nouméa poumon de la vie institutionnelle, politique économique, sociale et culturelle du pays. Je les invite à suivre leurs responsables qui ont permis cet évènement majeur. Ils ont su à leur niveau considérer le devenir du pays en brulant l’arbre du deuil, c'est-à-dire la peur. Ils ont fait le geste, dans la lignée de la poignée de main de 1988, qui consiste à faire un pas l’un vers l’autre, à tenter de se comprendre mutuellement et dans la transparence pour prétendre à la grande ambition que l’on s’est tous donné de construire un pays dans un destin commun.

Le chemin de la compréhension, comme celui de la perfection est long et sans cesse à construire tel le rocher de Sisyphe, il faut à chaque fois remonter ce rocher au sommet de la montagne avant de le voir dévaler et redevaler la pente. Il en est ainsi car nos modes de pensée et d’agir sont fondamentalement différents. La Nouvelle Calédonie vit depuis prés de 160 ans suivant un modèle occidental construit selon un schéma de pensée cartésien dans lequel domine le rationnel et le dualisme décrit par le grand philosophe des lumières W. KANT dans son ouvrage « raison pure et raison pratique ». Suivant ce schéma, la vie appelle la mort, le bien s’oppose au mal, la majorité domine la minorité. Nous océaniens nous sommes dans une représentation de pensée synthétique et englobant dans lequel la pensée mythique prend le pas sur le rationnel pour aboutir à ce que le pasteur LEENHART dans son ouvrage « Do Kamo », appelait le « principe vital ». Dans ce schéma propre aux peuples dits primitifs et plus particulièrement aux océaniens de la Mélanésie, la vie et la mort s’entremêlent et chaque contraire n’est pas « classé » dans une tension permanente comme le fait la pensée occidentale, mais replacé sans cesse dans une complémentarité toujours à rechercher et donc à construire. L’énorme avantage de ce mode de pensée synthétique est que sa logique la conduit à une recherche permanente du compromis et du consensus. Après les luttes et les guerres, c’est à chaque fois le temps de la négociation de la recherche du compromis pour sortir du conflit et donc de la paix pour tenter de retrouver à chaque fois l’harmonie et la cohésion sociale. C’est ce qui a été fait par nous tous calédoniens, depuis les accords de Matignon-Oudinot. Après le temps du conflit et de la guerre est venu le temps de la paix à construire.

Les Kanak ont fait ce pas en 1983 à Nainville les roches en partageant leur droit à l’autodétermination avec ceux ont fait de cette terre, leur terre, et avec qui ils partagent leur vie, ils ont refait le pas aux accords de 1988 et 1998. Le retour coutumier du geste en terme de don et de contre don, les adversaires politiques d’hier l’ont aussi réalisé lors de ces accords et sur la levée du drapeau kanak au coté du drapeau français comme marque de reconnaissance mutuelle des deux légitimités à l’initiative du député FROGIER, Je rappelle pour la petite histoire ou la grande c’est selon… que le 9 juillet 1983 à Nainville les roches, répondant à une question du conseiller Yeiwene YEIWENE qui évoquait les trois revendications importantes pour le FI c’est à dire : que le nom kanak du pays lui soit restitué, qu’il dispose d’un hymne et d’un drapeau, que la perspective de l’indépendance soit inscrite dans le projet de statut, le secrétaire d’état aux DOM-TOM, Mr LEMOINE avait estimé parfaitement possible de juxtaposer hymnes et drapeaux nationaux et territoriaux, se référant notamment à son dernier discours tenu à Nouméa quelques mois avant.

Une fois posés ces principes de base, il est ainsi grand temps de nous remettre au travail après cet intermède de prés de deux mois. Les élus ne donnent pas une bonne image de responsable devant ceux qui nous ont porté à ces postes. Devant l’inconstance de certains, que peut penser l’opinion de la classe politique ? Que nous passons le plus clair de notre temps à nous chamailler et à dépenser l’argent public venant des impôts payés par les citoyens, affichant ainsi une piètre image du genre théâtre de guignol de nous au lieu de nous occuper de leur quotidien : la vie chère, l’éducation des enfants, l’emploi, le logement, la dérive d’une partie de la jeunesse. D’ores et déjà le bureau du congrès a fixé un emploi du temps chargé pour les commissions ad hoc dès mardi 5 avril prochain notamment pour le projet de délibération relative aux relations de travail et interdiction du harcèlement moral et sexuel au travail, la délibération concernant l’assurance vieillesse pour n’en citer que cela. De gros dossiers pointent leur nez à l’horizon ce sont notamment la réforme de la fiscalité locale, les transferts de compétence ou encore l’organisation du grand débat sur les signes identitaires pour aplanir les malentendus et les incompréhensions sur la question du drapeau.

Je demande solennellement à l’ensemble des groupes politiques absents de nous rejoindre afin de répondre aux attentes de nos populations dans la recherche de leur mieux vivre. Rejoignez nous et mettons nous au travail dans un climat de dialogue et de confiance retrouvée. Nous avons les ressources nécessaires au sein de nos identités et de nos histoires respectives pour arriver à concilier les situations paradoxales qui n’ont parfois de contraire que le nom, et nous l’avons maintes fois prouvés dans le passé, mais ceci ce réalisera si nous faisons l’effort nécessaire pour puiser au fond de ce qui constitue notre âme de calédonien dans ses diverses origines, les ressorts permettant un avenir propice et meilleur à nos enfants.

Je vous remercie.

*****

Mayotte bascule officiellement à gauche et fête la départementalisation

*****

MAMOUDZOU, Mayotte
03 avril 2011 (AFP)

Mayotte a basculé officiellement à gauche dimanche, avec trois jours de retard par rapport au calendrier normal, avant une après-midi de festivités populaires célébrant la transformation de la collectivité en département.

(For an analysis on the annexation of the island, recognised by the United Nations as part of the African state of the Comoros, please read: France Seeks Referendum in Mayotte despite UN Resolutions  )


Mayotte, française depuis 1841, est devenue officiellement jeudi le 101e département français, le cinquième d’outre-mer et la première collectivité unique d’outre-mer.

Daniel Zaïdani, DVG, du Mouvement départementaliste mahorais (MDM), 35 ans, a été élu président du conseil général du "Département de Mayotte" par dix voix sur 19, succédant à l’UMP Ahamed Attoumani Douchina, qui dirigeait une majorité UMP-NC-PS depuis 2008.

M. Zaïdani, "plutôt de gauche", qui avait fait campagne sur le thème "le MDM n’est ni à droite, ni à gauche" a réuni sur son nom les voix des "forces progressistes" (2 PS, 7 DVG et un DVD, dont quatre MDM).


M. Douchina a recueilli 9 voix (dont 6 UMP et 1 PS).

Les cinq vice-présidents de M. Zaïdani ont recueilli entre 11 et 12 voix, preuve que des voix de l’autre camp se sont jointes à celles des "progressistes".

La gauche dirige ainsi depuis dimanche les conseils généraux des cinq départements d’outre-mer.

L’élection de M. Zaïdani n’avait pu avoir lieu jeudi dernier faute de quorum, huit élus (cinq UMP, un PS, un DVD et un élu inclassable) devenus minoritaires, ayant boycotté la séance, créant une grande émotion dans la population.

Mme Penchard, en stand-by à La Réunion depuis jeudi par souci, selon ses termes, de "réserve républicaine", a été accueillie à l’aéroport par M. Zaïdani, les deux sénateurs de Mayotte, dont Adrien Giraud, président du MDM, le député, ainsi que 101 femmes mahoraises habillées en bleu, blanc et rouge.

Les habitantes de la collectivité se sont battues pendant plus d’un demi-siècle pour que Mayotte reste sous tutelle de la France et devienne un DOM.

M. Giraud s’est déclaré "satisfait" de l’élection de M. Zaïdani, à laquelle il a beaucoup contribué, en affirmant : "c’est la majorité plurielle aujourd’hui, nous avons copié le président de la République".

Il a confirmé que M. Zaïdani avait choisi le camp "progressiste" parce qu’il lui proposait le poste de président alors que l’UMP lui offrait seulement une place de deuxième vice-président.

M. Zaïdani, présentant la nouvelle majorité comme étant de "centre-gauche", a tenu un long discours rassembleur, à tonalité sociale, devant 8.000 personnes réunies à Mamoudzou sur le parvis du comité du tourisme.

Il a souligné qu’il serait épaulé par des gens "d’expérience", comme Saïd Omar Oili (DVG) ou Ibrahim Aboubacar (PS) repassé à gauche, dans une collectivité de 200.000 habitants environ, dont la population pourrait atteindre les 300.000 personnes d’ici 15 ans, où le taux d’activité est très faible.

Mme Penchard a lu un message du président Sarkozy jugeant "légitime la volonté des Mahorais de voir Mayotte devenir un département de France" en dépit de "l’immensité de l’effort à accomplir".

Selon ce message, la départementalisation ne connaîtra "ni accélérations, ni retards".

"A titre personnel", M. Zaïdani a estimé que les 20 ou 25 ans prévus pour arriver aux mêmes minima sociaux qu’en métropole et dans les autres DOM, pouvaient "paraître longs".

Mme Penchard a affirmé qu’"il faudra regarder la situation économique" du département et veiller à ne pas le "déséquilibrer".

Une chorale de 101 enfants en bleu, blanc et rouge, a entonné la Marseillaise, avant que des danses traditionnelles clôturent la fête.

Cayman 'People for Referendum' Encouraged by UN Seminar to be held in its Territory

*****

PEOPLE FOR REFERENDUM
(STEERING COMMITTEE)
C/O P. O. BOX 900
GRAND CAYMAN KY1-1103
CAYMAN ISLANDS

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 4, 2011

Contact: Dennie Warren Jr.
Phone: 345-926-0716
E-mail address: d@warrens.ky

UN Decolonisation Seminar Set for Cayman Islands 24-26 May

People For Referendum welcomes the announcement from the United Nations Decolonisation Committee that their annual UN Decolonisation Seminar for 2011 will be held in the Cayman Islands May 24 to 26, 2011. Dennie Warren Jr., Chairman of People For Referendum said:

“For many years our organization and all other organizations in the Constitutional Working Group requested government to first work towards ensuring that the Annual UN Decolonisation Seminars be held only in one of the remaining sixteen (16) listed Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT’s) and that the Cayman Islands be one of those NSGT’s hosting this very important UN committee. Governance education in the NSGT’s is generally very poor and holding these meetings in the NSGT’s is one way to educate the public on their governance system thereby enabling the electorate to make informed decisions in elections and referendums.”

All matters discussed by this UN committee directly relate to the governance relationship between the territories and our respective Administering Powers. Holding seminars in the NSGT’s helps to educate the people about the governance options UN Resolutions obligate all Administering Powers make available to their NSGT’s:

A) Integration with the Administering Power or,
B) Free association governance relationship with the Administering Power or,
C) Becoming an independent state.

Some UN member states such as New Zealand , France and Holland appear to be compliant with their UN obligations by allowing the electorate in their various territories the UN mandated self-determination right of choosing between the three available options.

Unfortunately for the UK NSGT’s, the UK is historically non-compliant with their UN obligations by repeatedly stating that all of their NSGT’s must take the constitutional relationship the UK decrees or go independent. They retain the power of “Order in Council” in the UK maintains total governance by decree powers in the Colonies, in all governance subjects; in retaining the power of “Order in Council”, the UK refuses to devolve any governance powers to their NSGT’s.

Dennie Warren said:

“In the constitutional negotiations People For Referendum called upon our government and the UK government to hold the constitutional negotiations in the Cayman Islands, to make all meetings open to the public and to make all proceedings freely available on the internet. Some of the negotiation meetings were held in the Cayman Islands but behind closed doors. Since then, and for the first time, proceedings of the constitutional negotiation are now available to the public on the internet.”

People for Referendum is again calling on the UN, the UK and the Cayman Islands government to hold the UN Decolonisation 2011 Seminar in the Cayman Islands open to the public.

For more information visit:

2011 UN Decolonisation Seminar Press Release:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2011/gacol3217.doc.htm

http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2011/03/un-decolonisation-seminar-set-for.html

UN Decolonisation website:
http://www.blogger.com/goog_736652239

UN Decolonisation Cayman Islands 2011 Working Paper:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/237/29/PDF/N1123729.pdf?OpenElement

Overseas Territories Review:

Constitutional Reform and Political Identity in the Non-Independent Caribbean http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2010/01/constitutional-reform-and-political.html

Political Analyst Questions Direction of Bermuda - UK Relationship
http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2011/03/political-analyst-questions-direction.html

Wikileaks Reveals U.S. Perspectives on British Dependent Territories
http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2011/02/wiklileaks-revels-us-perspectives-on.html

"Colonial situations are completely outdated" - U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2011/02/colonial-situations-are-completely.html

Wikileaks Reveals US Synopsis of UK Dependent Territory Developments
http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2011/02/wikileaks-reveals-us-synopsis-of-uk.html

Anguilla Eyes Complete Internal Self-Government in Wake of British Colonial Pressures
http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2011/01/anguilla-eyes-complete-internal-self.html

UN Adopts 2011 Decolonisation Recommendations for Island Territories
http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2011/01/un-adopts-2011-decolonisation.html

UN Member States Formally Commemorate Decolonisation Achievements, Acknowledge Need for Implementation of Mandate
http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2010/12/un-member-states-formally-commemorate.html

The United Nations Decolonisation Declaration 50th Anniversary
http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2010/12/united-nations-decolonisation.html

UN Decolonisation Committee Faces Serious Issues
http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2010/06/un-decolonisation-committee-faces.html

M Oscar Temaru new president of French Polynesia

*****

Special to Overseas Territories Review

The Assembly of French Polynesia (Tahiti Nui) deposed on the 1st of April the government of M Gaston Tong Sang, leader of the autonomous political party TTA (To tatou aia : Our Nation), political party close to president of France Nicolas Sarkozy.

A vote of no confidence handed in by union of political parties UPLD (Union for Democracy) and TMM (Te Mana o te mau Motu: The power of the islands) has been voted by 29 out of 57 representatives of the Assembly.


The pro-independence leader M Oscar Temaru is now president of the government of Tahiti Nui (French Polynesia).

During the debate at the Assembly, M Gaston Tong Sang who reported on his activity as president, strongly criticised the move of the representatives of TMM who rallyed the pro independence parties in this vote of no confidence. After, the debate, the so-called autonomous representatives left the assembly and did not participate in the vote.

The independist leader M Oscar Temaru, in his speech in French and Tahitian, reaffirmed his ideology for sovereignty and his wish to see Tahiti Nui on the UN list of countries to be decolonised.

In a Polynesian metaphore he adresses the autonomous members: 

"We could not let our canoe O Tahiti Nui Freedom in such a desperate state. If you do not know where you are going, we do know where we are going."

The members of TMM and UPLD which now form a new majority at the assembly agreed that French Polynesia should be listed on the UN list of countries to be decolonized as is the case with New Caledonia, the other French non self-governing territory of the South Pacific.

Since 2004, this is the fifth time that M Oscar Temaru comes back to power.

According to an Oceania Flash news report, Temaru indicated that one of the objectives of his government would be to put back on the agenda the question of self-determination for French Polynesia in order to achieve a "sovereign State".

The other pillar of his action would be based on moves to restore a fledging economy, already badly affecter by over five years of chronic instability due to regular changes of governments caused by shifts in alliances and subsequent votes of no confidence motions, according to the news report.


TAHITI POLITICAL PARTY TO LOBBY MELANESIA TALKS

Radio New Zealand
Huiraatira seeks support for UN decolonization

French Polynesia’s pro-independence Tavini Huiraatira Party is to make a fresh push to get the region’s leaders to support its bid to have the territory re-inscribed on the UN list of territories to be decolonised.

The party’s Richard Tuheiava, who is also a member of the French Senate, (recently went) to Fiji...to lobby the Melanesian Spearhead Group.

The MSG includes New Caledonia’s pro-independence FLNKS Movement which has had regional support to be put on the UN list.

Mr Tuheiava has told Tahitipresse that he and his party’s leader, Oscar Temaru, will make their case in the next few weeks throughout the region and also attend the Pacific Islands Forum in Auckland in September.
He says if a resolution is adopted it could be taken to the UN in December.

Mr Temaru’s 30-year decolonisation campaign has been ignored by both France and Pacific Islands Forum countries, including New Zealand, which still has Tokelau on the UN list.

See also:


http://en.tahitipresse.pf/2011/04/oscar-temaru-becomes-french-polynesia-president-again/
http://tahitipresse.pf/2011/04/motion-de-defiance-adoptee-chute-du-gouvernement-tong-sang/

La Agenda Colonial de Obama (Puerto Rico)

*****

La Agenda Colonial de Obama 

Asociación y Soberanía

Orlando Parga Figueroa

El 6 de octubre de 1899 el reverendo Henry K. Carroll sometió a Washington un informe sobre Puerto Rico para el que le comisionó su amigo, el presidente William McKinley. Carroll arribó en enero de 1899, visitó casi todos los pueblos y ciudades de la Isla, se reunió con líderes y portavoces de la sociedad puertorriqueña y sometió al gobierno federal un concienzudo reporte con recomendaciones para administrar la nueva posesión americana.

Aquellas recomendaciones del Informe Carroll corrieron igual suerte a la que posteriormente tuvieron múltiples informes sometidos por comisionados presidenciales y comités del Congreso a lo largo del Siglo XX: se recibieron y se archivaron. La Ley Foraker aprobada en 1900 y la Jones de 1917, en gran medida ignoraron las recomendaciones que Carroll hizo en 1899; la Ley 600 a mitad del siglo pasado nos otorgó facultades de gobierno propio, y nos dejó malcontentos y condenados a un debate sempiterno sobre status político; el Informe del “US-PR Status Commission” de 1966 condujo al plebiscito de 1967, con igual resultado de inacción legislativa y ejecutiva.

Lo trágico y abominable de este peregrinaje histórico es que, 112 años después de sometido el Informe Carroll, Washington nos viene con una copia al carbón de aquella agenda colonial que en 1899 el amigo del presidente McKinley sometía a Washington para administrar la nueva posesión americana.

Con el simple ejercicio de acoplar las recomendaciones sobre comercio e industria, educación, salud, seguridad pública, cultura e idiosincrasia, política y relaciones con los Estados Unidos que el buen Reverendo sometió a finales del siglo XIX, los burócratas del presidente Obama se habrían ahorrado tanta penuria. Queda así una pregunta simple y sencilla. En pleno siglo XXI, ¿debe Puerto Rico someterse a la agenda colonial del presidente Obama?

Amer. Samoa Congressional Delegate to Visit Rapa Nui on Fact-Finding Mission

Press Release

(Congressional Delegate Eni F.H.) Faleomavaega announced today that he will be traveling to Easter Island during the Congressional recess to assess recent developments between the legitimate representatives of the Rapa Nui clans and the Chilean government. Easter Island, or its Polynesian name of Rapa Nui, is one of the world’s most isolated inhabited islands.

“Conflict between the Rapa Nui natives and the Chilean government has existed since 1888 when Chile signed a disputed treaty with the Rapa Nui people,” Faleomavaega said. “At that time, Chile took control of the island and confined the Rapa Nui people to a small area of land, approximately one square mile.”

“In 1933, Chile leased the remaining land to private sheep-herding enterprises and took ownership of all untitled lands. In 1966, Chile passed a law which authorized the President to grant land titles to the Rapa Nui people and prohibited the transfer of lands to non-indigenous individuals. However, land was illegally privatized and sold to mainland Chileans during the Pinochet Dictatorship.”

“Today non-indigenous individuals and corporations possess most of the land, and the Chilean government continues to favor private companies interested in exploiting the Rapa Nui culture for private gain instead of restoring the land to the Rapa Nui people. Within the past five months, Chilean armed forces have been carrying out forced evictions of Rapa Nui natives.”

“In a letter dated February 3, 2011, U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka and I wrote to the President of the Republic of Chile, His Excellency Sebastian Pinera, expressing our deepest concerns about the current situation unfolding in Easter Island and, in response to that letter, I have since met with Ambassador Arturo Fermandois of the Republic of Chile and he has assured me that he is committed to a productive exchange of views and welcomes my visit to Rapa Nui,” the Congressman said.

“I will be traveling to Rapa Nui in my capacity as the Ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and also as a Member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. Prior to my arrival in Rapa Nui, the Government of Chile will be arranging a series of meetings for me in Santiago with Minister of Foreign Affairs Alfredo Moreno, Minister of Planificacion Felipe Kast, Undersecretary for Regional Development Miguel Flores, and Special Advisor for Indian Affairs (SEGPRES) Sebastian Donoso.

While in Easter Island, the Rapa Nui Parliament is arranging meetings with Governor Carmen Cardinali, Mayor Luz Sasso, the Municipal Council, the Elders Council, the MakenuRe’o Rapa Nui women’s organization, the Development Commission and other interested parties.”

“I am pleased by these developments and, once more, I thank Ambassador Arturo Fermandois for making this visit possible and arranging this itinerary. I also thank the Rapa Nui Parliament for its assistance. It is my sincere hope that President Obama will support the indigenous rights of the Rapa Nui people during his planned visit to Chile this week since the United States should be a leader in promoting democracy and human rights. I also hope that the government of Chile will be responsive and allow for the people of Rapa Nui to live in peace on their land,” Faleomavaega concluded.


UPDATE

Radio New Zealand International



American Samoa’s...(Delegate) of the US Congress says he believes Chilean armed police on Easter Island overstepped their authority by shooting peaceful demonstrators from Rapa Nui clans during a violent clash in December.

Faleomavaega Eni Hunkin has met Rapa Nui leaders and Chilean officials in the hope of finding out more about a long-standing conflict over ancestral land rights on Easter Island. He says the dispute is over inconsistent policies set by the Chilean government towards the indigenous people and believes addressing land claims is a priority.

“The gist of my observations in meetings is that I honestly believe that the Chilean carabineros or the police, the armed police, I think they kind of went over their authority to end up shooting people who I understand were unarmed. And that was one of the things that I came back with in understanding that this is what took place and I’m going to continue pursuing this matter with Chilean officials in the government.”


Faleomavaega Eni Hunkin says he has also addressed the matter in writing to the President of Chile, Sebastian Pinera, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

UN Decolonisation Seminar Set for Cayman Islands 24-26 May

*****

United Nations Press Release
Special Committee on Decolonization
2nd Meeting (AM)

Special Committee on Decolonization Decides to Hold Caribbean

Regional Seminar in Cape Town (sic), Cayman Islands, 24-26 May

The General Assembly’s Special Committee on Decolonization decided today to hold its Caribbean regional seminar on implementation of the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2011-2020) in Cape Town (sic), Cayman Islands, from 24 to 26 May.

The Committee... also authorized its Chair, Francisco Carrion-Mena (Ecuador), to finalize the composition of the official delegation, as well as the list of experts and non-governmental organizations that will be invited to attend.

Mr. Carrion-Mena told Member States that the official delegation would comprise the Bureau and one Special Committee member from each regional group: Africa; Asia; Latin America and the Caribbean; and Eastern Europe. As such, it would consist of eight representatives, he said, adding that the United Nations would bear the cost of the delegation’s travel. Owing to the shortage of time, he requested that Committee members entrust him with the mandate to complete the list of the formal delegation following informal consultations among the regional groups. He would, he said, duly inform the Committee of the final list.

As in previous years, the Bureau planned to invite three experts and three representatives of non-governmental organizations to speak at the Seminar, all six of whom would be funded by the United Nations. The list of proposed participants would be reviewed by the Bureau and circulated in short order to all Committee members under separate cover.

Mr. Carrion-Mena said that he would request, through the Secretariat, those Committee members who wished to submit additional names for the list of experts to do so. “I think it’s important to have a greater participation,” he stressed, adding that “we shouldn’t just use a list we already have”.

He also informed Committee members that, in determining the venue, a number of factors were considered, including the political situation and logistics of several countries in the Caribbean. Following a request from Cuba, information and statistical data on the Territories had been provided on the Special Committee’s web page. In the end, however, the Committee had followed through with its intention to hold the meeting in the Cayman Islands.

He further noted that all elected and appointed officials of the Non-Self-Governing Territories would be invited, while invitations would also be extended to other Member States, administering Powers, specialized United Nations agencies and some regional organizations.

(For coverage on the last UN Decolonisation Seminar, see: Intensification of Decolonisation Process Discussed at the United Nations )


Following those announcements, the Special Committee also approved the guidelines and rules of procedures, including the seminar’s agenda (document A/AC.109/2011/18), and endorsed English as the seminar’s official language. As in the past, the Special Committee will celebrate the Week of Solidarity with the Peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories at the seminar.

After a suggestion by the representative of Saint Lucia, the Committee decided to seek proposals for the themes of the Third Decade, which was declared by the General Assembly at its sixty-fifth session, prior to the seminar to facilitate discussion.

Before closing the meeting, Mr. Carrion-Mena, who was elected Chair at the previous meeting of the Special Committee, paid particular tribute to the outgoing Chair Donatus Keith St. Aimée ( Saint Lucia), as well as the work conducted under his helm. “I hope I can keep up the same pace,” he said, underscoring his commitment to the milestones that had already been set.

Congressional Delegate Calls for a Legitimate Act of Self-Determination for Guahan (Guam)

*****

Political leaders in Guam have stepped up their efforts to bring about the modernisation of the political status of the territory through a self-determination process in the U.S.-administered territory in the Pacific. Recently, Guam Congressional Delegate Madeleine Z. Bordallo called for the resolution of the political status dilemma in the territory through “a legitimate act of Chamorro self determination.” In an address to the people of Guam delivered at the Antonio R. Unpingco Legislative Session Hall at the Guam Legislature in Hagatna, Delegate Bordallo made the following points:

“As we embark on this journey to our future, one of the first steps—maybe the most important step—is to resolve our political status through a legitimate act of Chamorro self determination. Last year Congress passed, and the President signed, a bill I authored to provide federal funding for political status education in the territories.

I have asked Assistant Secretary Tony Babauta to make this a top priority, even as his budget cuts dictate that not all needs will be met in this fiscal year. I commend the Governor for stating that this is also his priority, and Senators Pangelinan and Respicio for their initiatives to move us toward decolonization.

Resolving our political status, and decolonizing Guam, is a process that will cause us to examine our relationship with the United States, and determine what is best for our island and our people. We need to get on with this process and I will do my part in joining with the Governor and Legislature to make the self-determination vote a reality.”

This statement of Delegate Bordallo follows the extensive report on political status issued by the transition team of Governor Guam Governor Eddie Baza Calvo who began his first term last January. The report provided an extensive history of past action on the political status front, and made a number of key recmmendations:

"While the Government of Guam’s participation in political status and the area of Chamorro Self-Determination has been minimal over the past eight years, there have been a number of initiatives on the part of civil society that has advanced this area of work. Initiatives towards this end have included the following: testimonies before the United Nations’ (UN) Committee on Decolonization, the General Assembly’s Fourth Committee, and the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues; participation in the UN Pacific Seminars bi-annually; revitalization of the Chamorro Registry; University of Guam educational initiatives; the production of scholarly articles deepening the legal understanding of Chamorro Self-Determination; and the passage of a Congressional authorization to fund a local political status educational campaign...

Executive Summary of Recommendations

The Political Status &  External Affairs Subcommittee recommends that Governor-Elect Calvo and Lt. Governor-Elect Tenorio reactivate the work of the Commission on Decolonization in order to fulfill their intentions of conducting a political status plebiscite during their term of office."

As the international community has embarked on the third decade to focus attention on the decolonization of the remaining territories worldwide, the increased attention to the issue in Guam concides with the issuance of the 2011 White House Report on Puerto Rico which has important implicatins for the evolution of a permanent political status for the five U.S. territories.

UPDATE:  Guam senator: Move forward on Chamorro-only vote

See also:

Self-Determination Legislation - Opportunity for US Administered Territories?
US House Approves Political Status Education Bill
US Congressional Committee Approves Self-Determination Assistance to Territories
US Virgin Islands Delegate Clarifies Status of Political Status Legislation

Statia Coalition Government Addresses People

****** 

CARIBARENA

 SINT EUSTATIUS – On Friday, March 11th 2011 the newly installed Executive Council of St. Eustatius held its first monthly Press Conference along with the Deputy Kingdom Representative, Mr. Hans Gerritsen in the V.A. Lopes legislative Hall.

The Island Governor, Mr. Gerald Berkel opened the press conference addressing the immediate actions by the newly appointed commissioners on their first day. He used the expression” on day one they hit the ground running.” He passed the word over to Commissioner Clyde van Putten followed by Commissioner Glenn Schmidt and concluded with the deputy Kingdom representative Mr. Hans Gerritsen.

Mr. Clyde van Putten highlighted the areas discussed in the Executive Council with the Kingdom representative. He talked about the education conference for March 25 and 26th 2011 where the Minister of Education of the Netherlands, Mrs. Maria Bijsterveld would be present.

The Commissioners of Education and stakeholders of the various Territories (Saba and Bonaire) would also be participating in this conference. To assure that St. Eustatius is well prepared he announced that he would talk to his predecessor Mr. Roy Hooker, who was responsible for education for two terms.

The outcome of the elections was briefly touched. He hopes that the results of the election sends a clear message to the Dutch Government stationed in the Hague, that the people of Statia wanted change. He said that the newly formed coalition does not oppose the status but the content needs to be reviewed, areas like healthcare and taxes needs to be looked at.

Another area which successive governments talked about is proper housing for the government administration. When we talk about good governance we need to assure that civil servants have the necessary tools and good housing facility to accomplish this. The lengthy procedures of government for decision-making should be something of the past. One of their campaign promises was to assure that the general public acquire timely and active information from the Island Government through the office of the Government Information Service.

To accomplish this goal they wish to restructure the government information service to be able to have nightly TV programming. Mr. van Putten concluded that the newly formed coalition government is for all the people of St. Eustatius.

Commissioner Schmidt, described his first day as exciting, although they just went through the recent election followed by the inauguration on March 10th and immediately at work on March 11th 2011. His introductory meeting in his new capacity as commissioner with Mr. Hans Gerritsen was pleasant. In this meeting they became knowledgeable of his interest and concerns.

They hope to have a good working relationship with him to get the necessary results for the people of Statia. They talked about many issues of which Transparency in government stood out. Reviewing this topic in general and the functioning of government it must be transparent to the public. He explained about his relatively large family of which his sister and other relatives are employed at finance and other areas of government.

When certain services are to be carried out through these sectors, the people need to know that it has the Executive councils approval. Another important topic was that of the governing programme of the government. Mr. Glenn Schmidt explained that the coalition parties are in the process of putting a committee together to complete the governing programme. He gave a time frame of 60 days in which the programme will be completed. Thereafter it will be presented to the Island council who will hold the Executive Council accountable for carrying it out within 4 years.

The Deputy Kingdom Representative, Mr. Hans Gerritsen opened his address by congratulating the Island Governor, Mr. Gerald Berkel for the good flow of the elections. He also extended his congratulations to the newly appointed commissioners for the accomplishments of their parties. They briefly talked about the role of the Kingdom Representative, with the chief responsibility to look at the governments on the islands with the objective that there is good governance.

Listening to the steps to be taken by the commissioner with regard to transparency in government was of an important and positive nature. He mentioned the Dualism, which is the change in the ground rules. He indicated in the Executive Council Meeting the urgency of the appointment of a Griffier (recorder) responsible for the preparations of everything surrounding the Island Council meetings.

It is customary to host a press conference after each visit of the Kingdom Representative to inform the general public of the points that were discussed. Although these press conferences are usually short in nature, the government will enlighten the public more detailed on these topics through the Government Information Service weekly press conferences.

Political Analyst Questions Direction of Bermuda - UK Relationship

*****

A Changing Relationship?

by Walton Brown

The British once proudly proclaimed, “The sun never sets on British soil” so vast was its colonial empire. The Irish refrain was: “Because God doesn't trust them in the dark.” Trust has been a difficult matter to countenance when involving the UK and its colonial territories since British public pronouncements have often varied wildly from its actions. In this light, the comment last week by Andrew Rosindell, chairman of the UK Overseas Territories Parliamentary Group, that his government wants a “modern relationship not a colonial one” beggars belief.

Britain's credibility regarding Bermuda was vanquished when, during our two most significant struggles for social justice the fight to end racial segregation and the quest for universal suffrage it sat by and made no demonstrable effort to lead. And this is despite signing the UN Charter pledging, under Article 73, it was a “sacred trust” to promote our well-being. This pattern continued for decades. In 1999 there was a re-packaging of the UK-colony relations under New Labour with the seductively labelled “Partnership for Progress” White Paper. All one had to do was actually read the document to see the proposed new relationship had virtually nothing to do with partnering and everything to do with a series of unilateral decisions imposed by the British.

If the UK government is serious about a modern relationship with Bermuda and the other colonies then their actions must be based on a coherent set of principles and they must cease navigating the waters of opportunism and expediency. A good place to start could well be to fix the “democratic deficit” mentioned by Mr Rosindell. The reality is that Bermudians in Bermuda have neither full political rights here nor in the UK: we have no say, for example, in Britain going to war and we do not make our own decisions in the international arena. Mr Rosindell's answer is to form a standing committee of the UK Parliament where Bermuda could have representation. While this may be helpful, it does little to reduce the democratic deficit.

If the UK government is serious about a modern relationship they will end the strategy, bordering on a conspiracy, to encourage Bermudians to acquire a British passport by denigrating the Bermuda passport. Until 2006, Bermuda passport holders could travel without a visa to most countries in Europe and many around the world. This was because of the efforts initiated by former Immigration Minister Sir John Sharpe in the 1980s. A visa regime was imposed on Bermuda for the Schengen countries in Europe solely because in 2006 the UK government incorrectly informed the European Union that Overseas Territories citizens did not have the “right of abode” in the UK. This was four years after the same UK government granted full UK citizenship to all of its colonial subjects. Further, the British have imposed the ridiculous policy of requiring Bermudians to hold a British passport to secure their residency in the UK. If we are British we are British. A British woman born and raised in Liverpool is British whether or not she has a British passport.

A modern relationship should start with respect for the powers the Bermuda Government holds under our Constitution. If those powers are to change it should be the result of a negotiated agreement between the two governments. It certainly should not be singular action by the UK based on what they have referred to as “contingent liability”.

If Mr Rosindell embodies what we can look forward under the relatively new British Government then we have much to be concerned about. When he referred to “Britain fulfilling its responsibilities as the mother country” that comment should have sent a collective shiver felt by all, save for the colonial-minded. One can only speak of the “mother” country with their being a concomitantly clear sense of the child in tow immature, in need of protection and guidance and certainly not equal.

One simply cannot have a modern relationship with a 19th Century ethos.

Walton Brown is a social and political commentator. Follow his blog on: http://www.respicefinem1.blogspot.com/.
He can be contacted at walton@researchmix.com

British Ban Island Journalists in Turks and Caicos Islands

*****

 Press freedom under attack by British 'interim' government which instituted direct one-man rule from London in 2009, abolished democratic institutions, and recolonised the colony.

**********

Two journalists banned from (interim) government press conferences

Written by Richard Green
richard@fptci.com
FP Turks and Caicos

Turks and Caicos Islands Attorney General Huw Shepheard has banned outspoken radio talk show hosts Robert Hall and Devon Williams from attending government press conferences and will do the same to any other journalists who “behave unprofessionally or who associate themselves too closely with illegal activity.”

Hall, who hosts the “Expressions” talk show on government-run Radio Turks and Caicos (RTC), and Devon Williams, CEO of privately owned Blaze 97.5 FM, were both banned because of their actions in the March 8-12 protest that included an illegal blockade of Airport Road on Providenciales, Shepheard said.

Williams, who is also spokesman for Turks and Caicos Islanders United for Justice and Equality (TCIUJE) which planned the blockade, was one of the leaders of the protest and was arrested with several others for obstruction. Hall covered the event as an RTC journalist, but he also took the microphone during the protest and spoke in support of protesters’ demand for the interim government to set a date for elections. However, he urged them not to block the main road to the airport but to conduct peaceful demonstrations.

The blockade caused two American Airlines flights to be canceled, but traffic was quickly routed to another airport entrance to get travelers to and from their flights to this British Overseas Territory. His Excellency the Gov. Gordon Wetherell supports the attorney general’s actions.

“There is an ordinance today, particularly in the case of public broadcasting, which has actually been infringed in this case,” Wetherell said at a press conference March 23 with Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials. “As custodian of the law, the attorney general wrote to the RTC in pursuance of that.”

Asked if other journalists had to fear similar action, the governor said, “I don’t see why that should affect anyone in this room. I don’t think you have anything to worry about.” On March 11, Hall hosted a special afternoon edition of “Expressions” with protest leaders and others. Hall said the program was “brought to you by” the TCIUJE. That program caught the attention of the attorney general, who spoke with RTC station manager Chris Jarrett that day and followed the conversation with a letter to Jarrett, which Hall read on his show March 21.

“I expressed the concern that Mr. Hall had departed from the requirements in the broadcasting ordinance that impartiality is preserved as respects issues of political controversy or current public policy, Section 5.2(c) of the ordinance, and I have heard further that the overall coverage of the protest may also have fallen short of the statutory requirement of impartiality,” Shepheard said.

The attorney general said he was awaiting recordings of the broadcasts from Jarrett.

“In the meantime, I think it is important that I reemphasize the government’s policy in relation to journalistic activity,” Shepheard said. “The government clearly recognizes that TCI’s media have a key role to play in reporting and critically assessing government policies on behalf of the TCI public, and the government welcomes the full engagement of TCI’s many journalists and their robust questions.

“Although the standards set out in the broadcasting ordinance only apply directly to public broadcasters, those of decency, accuracy and responsibility at least are hallmarks of professional journalism, whether in public service broadcasting or elsewhere. Accordingly, journalists who either behave unprofessionally or who associate themselves too closely with illegal activity such as by blocking the Airport Road will not be invited to government press conferences. However, they will continue to receive all government press releases.”

As to what Hall said shortly after 2 p.m. on the radio, “I’m yet to see or hear what that concern is,” Hall said.

Hall said he thought the interim government “would have at least said or wrote to me citing what infractions I may have committed, if indeed I did commit any infraction, and give me an opportunity to respond to them. I’m still waiting. But nevertheless, they have made their decisions. I’m not angry about it.”

Hall’s program is still on the air.

Hall said he didn’t associate with those who illegally blocked the road, pointing out that he encouraged protesters to remove the blockade because of the inconvenience to tourists and the chance of slowing medical emergency responses.

On March 22, Williams received a letter from Shepheard saying Williams too was banned from government press conferences.

“The government has decided that, while it is perfectly content to receive other journalists at its press briefings, you will no longer be permitted to attend,” Shepheard told Williams.

In a press release early March 24, Williams said, "While I am deeply and profoundly offended by the tone and content of the AG’s correspondence, my significant concern is about the danger which it embodies and signifies and the rather serious implications which it has for the wider Turks and Caicos Islands in general and this country’s media in particular."

While both Hall and Williams have regularly attended government press conferences as journalists, they vigorously voice their opinions during press conferences and on their radio shows.

A Commission of Inquiry in early 2009 revealed allegations of corruption in the Progressive National Party’s (PNP) elected government that had plunged the country deep into debt. The elected government and parts of the Constitution were suspended, and the governor took over what was initially envisioned as a two-year direct U.K. rule to right the country’s finances and weed out corruption.

But when the government's financial troubles were worse than expected, and criminal and civil investigations into corruption were not complete, the U.K. decided that elections would not be held as scheduled in July 2011. The U.K. then extended its control indefinitely, but the governor says the U.K. hopes to restore local government with elections sometime in 2012.

However, the U.K.’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office insists that elections won’t happen until the TCI revises and strengthens the country’s Constitution, addresses past government mismanagement and gets the country’s finances in order.

Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee has expressed concern that allegedly corrupt former government officials might seek office if elections were held before completion of criminal investigations.

A number of former PNP officials under investigation, including former Premier Michael Misick, participated in and supported the protest and demand for elections, while the opposition People’s Democratic Movement has spoken out against the demonstration.

Maritime Boundaries Commission Set in St. Kitts & Nevis over borders with French/Dutch overseas entities

*****

The governance of the maritime area within the OECS is characterised by unresolved maritime boundaries and related disputes.

By Erasmus Williams, CUOPM

BASSETERRE, ST. KITTS, FEBRUARY 24TH 2011 (CUOPM) – St. Kitts and Nevis has set up a Committee to settle disputes and uncertainties regarding the twin-island Federation’s maritime boundaries.

Minister of Tourism and International Transport, Sen. the Hon. Richard Skerrit has informed the Cabinet that St. Kitts and Nevis has overlapping or disputed maritime boundaries with the Netherlands Antilles (St. Eustatius), Venezuela, The French Antilles (St. Barthelemy), Antigua and Barbuda, and Montserrat (effectively, the United Kingdom).

(Editor's Note: The five-island 'Netherlands Antilles' ceased to exist on 10th October 2010, with St. Eustatius, nearby Saba and more distant Bonaire becoming partially integrated 'public entities' of the Dutch Kingdom. Future border disputes involving St. Eustatius or the other new integrated parts of the European Union are now to be discussed with the Dutch Kingdom which has initiated direct ties with the three islands. This power was formerly exercised by the previous central government of the Netherlands Antilles in Curacao. That central govenrment has now been now dismantled, and Curacao and Sint Maarten have become two new autonomous countries associated with the Dutch Kingdom. See also http://www.normangirvan.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/corbin-caribbean-self-determination.pdf ).

“The Cabinet of Ministers was asked to support a proposal to engage the relevant countries to begin a process of resolution of our maritime boundaries,” Minister of Information, Sen. the Hon. Nigel Carty said following the weekly Cabinet Meeting. He said that Government believes that there are clear benefits to the resolution of the country's maritime boundaries.

“Firstly, it will definitively establish the maritime space over which St. Kitts and Nevis will be able to exercise various rights as a matter of international law. For example, a stable basis will be provided for the better management of fisheries and other marine resources. Secondly, the settlement of the maritime boundaries will give rise to better control and monitoring of shipping of dangerous and illicit commodities through our waters. There are of course other benefits,” said Minister Carty.

He said that the Cabinet approved a committee consisting of a wide range of skilled persons that will spearhead the negotiation process for the settlement of our maritime boundaries. Cabinet Secretary, Mr. Joseph Edmeade said the names of the Committee members will be made public once the individuals have agreed to serve.

Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) Heads of Government in recent years have been giving consistent focus to the subject of the delimitations of our countries’ maritime boundaries. The governance of the maritime area within the OECS is characterized by unresolved maritime boundaries and related disputes.

West Papua: Theological Declaration of Churches in Papua

*****

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AHRC-FST-014-2011

A Statement from a Group of Papuan Church Leaders forwarded by the Asian Human Rights Commission

INDONESIA: Theological Declaration of Churches in Papua

LEADERS OF PAPUAN CHURCHES

Dear brothers and sisters

We, Papuan Church leaders send you as our partners, our theological statement issued recently as reflection of our faith over the worsening Human Rights situation in Papua.

The recent document issued by ministry of Home Affairs in Jakarta on January 13, 2011 which support election process of Papua People's Assembly (Majelis Rakyat Papua) heavily guarded by TNI (Indonesian Army) and Red & whites militias (which gave no room and freedom to Papua communities) as Kairos, moment of truth to issue this theological statement.

We thank you for your continued support and participation in our pastoral ministry here.

May God continue to bless us and our work.

Jayapura
Signed
Elly D. Doirebo M.Si
Deputy Chairperson of Synod of Evangelical Christian Church of Papua

Rev.Dr. Benny Giay
Chairperson of Synod of Papuan Christian Church


Rev. Socrates Sofyan Yoman MA
Chairperson of Fellowship Papuan Baptist Churches

THEOLOGICAL DECLARATION OF CHURCHES IN PAPUA REGARDING FAILURE OF THE INDONESIAN GOVERNMENT IN GOVERNING AND DEVELOPING THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF PAPUA

Today on January 26th, 2011 we, Leaders of churches in the Land of Papua, along with Christian congregations, gather to declare our stance and position with regard to the state of government and its development policies pursued in the Land of Papua since annexation of Papua by the Unitary Republic of Indonesia, specifically with the introduction of the Law No. 21/2001 regarding the Special Autonomy for Papua.

As Churches, we are deeply concerned over the condition of our peoples, especially the indigenous Papuans, owners of this land, whose fate has been cornered to uncertainty amid development policies staged by the Indonesian Government in the Land of Papua. Such development policy is more characterized by physical structures/infrastructural development and to promote the interests of Indonesia in the Land of Papua.

The implementation of Special Autonomy for Papua has been inconsistent and inconsequent is a strong indication of insincerity of the Indonesian Government which led Papuans to view that OTSUS has FAILED. MRP, as a manifestation of the Special Autonomy with its members hastily selected and further exacerbated with the government's ignorance of Ii point recommendations produced by the grand meeting of MRP (Papuan Peoples' Assembly) itself, is therefore considered as an insult to the people of Papua, as people created in the image of God. The Churches also question the letter issued recently by the Minister of Home Affairs No, 188.341/1 l0/SJ regarding clarification pertaining to Special Regulation for Papua Province dated 13 January 2011 which further annihilate the right and existence of indigenous Papuans in their own motherland.

We see such situation as Kairos, a momentum for Churches to speak and express our stance and deep concerns in the form of the following Theological Declaration.

First, we are convinced that these processes repeat the same old process of annexation of Papua into Indonesia which is legally and culturally a flaw. The process of the Act of Free Choice (Pepera) in 1969 has been the root of problem on democracy and legality for the people of Papua. Ever since its integration into Indonesia, Papua has become a troubled territory under the authority of the Indonesian government.

Second, Papuans have undergone a 'Silence history of suffering' or memmoria passsionis leading to Genocide. The discourse of genocide has long been voiced by so many observers who are deeply concerned over the very existence of Papuans. The term genocide perhaps does not meet the criteria set forth by the UN, or other nations, or by Indonesia. But from our own view as victims, genocide is indeed taking place through the conditioning staged by Jakarta in the forms of ideology and development policies that are against the indigenous Papuans. Transmigration policy and unrelenting military operations are, in our view well-planned programs to eventually annihilate indigenous Papuans. Papuans are positioned as "the other" and as such warrant surveillance, control, and civilization. Papuans are not equal citizens of Indonesia. Some observers in Jakarta view this as an internal colonialism or disguised slavery against Papuans.

Third, we, churches of Papua acknowledge our own failures and sins for being silent for too long over demonic and destructive nature of the development policy and modernization on indigenous Papuans, which according to observers in Jakarta as internal colonialism and disguised slavery. Papuan churches have misarticulated the Scripture which states: "the government is the Lord's representative on earth, worthy of respect." Up until now, this has caused us incapable of playing our prophetic role.

Fourth, to respond to the challenges faced by Papuans, we, the churches are determined to return to our roots, to our Christian traditions, namely to the Scripture and church history. Thus, we view the sufferings of our Papuan people from the biblical perspective (Matthew 16:3b) "signs of times" and see it as theological and missiological challenges. This implies that the Lord is sending us, Papuan churches to His people who are traversing a dark history of suffering and oppression. It is therefore, as churches in Papua we want to hear to regularly raise questions and communicate with the Lord "what do you have in mind with regard to the behavior of those who indulge in disguised slavery against our people? Do you agree and applaud them?"

Fifth, consequently we want to view this critical position of churches in Papua in expressing the grievances of Papuans in the land of Papua is an integral part of our calling to spread the good News commanded by the Holy Scripture. The Scripture and church history are our basis for action. In this mission, the church is sent to shepherd the Lord's people, keep the image of the Lord to be free from abuse (John 10:11; 21:12, 16, 19). As shepherds, we are obliged to listen to the voices of our sheep (congregation); in this light we raise our voice because "our life boat is drowning; the candle of our people is being put off in the name of development and territorial sovereignty."

Sixth, with regard to development policy and current government administration, we hereby declare: (a) that the Indonesian government has FAILED to promote the welfare of indigenous Papuans especially since the Special Autonomy was passed. Therefore we urge the government to immediately halt the whole process of election of members of the MRP (Papuan People's Assembly) taking place currently and respond to the 11 point recommendation made by the MRP grand meeting; (b) and as a solution, we urge the Indonesian government to open itself and hold a dialogue with indigenous Papuans to be mediated by a neutral third party; (c) we are appalled by the attitude exhibited by indigenous Papuan state officers who are ignorant of the rights of their own people.

Seventh, we urge our Papuan communities to stand up, to work on your own salvation, and express the truth before the present tyrant state authorities, who is on a rampage of internal colonialism, ethnic cleansing (genocide), and disguised slavery against your own Nation.

Eight, to our Papuan communities, in Indonesia, and anywhere else, do pray for us in solidarity to make us stand firm in embracing today's challenges in Papua that are full of pain and tears.

End of this declaration.



Leaders of Churches in Papua
Signed
Elly D. Doirebo M.Si
Deputy Chairperson of Synod of Evangelical Christian Church of Papua

Rev. Dr. Benny Giay
Chairperson of Synod of Papuan Christian Church


Rev. Socrates Sofyan Yoman MA
Chairperson of Fellowship Papuan Baptist Churches

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in Asia, documents violations and advocates for justice and institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion of these rights. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

DIÁLOGO ENTRE ESCRITORES A ATENEO PUERTORRIQUEÑO

********

ATENEO PUERTORRIQUEÑO

SECCIÓN DE HISTORIA

ARCHIVO NACIONAL DE TEATRO Y CINE

COMUNICADO DE PRENSA

21 de marzo de 2011

NEGROS Y NEGRAS CONTEMPORÁNEOS

El señor Presidente del ATENEO PUERTORRIQUENO, el Dr. José Milton Soltero Ramírez, el Director de la Sección de Historia del Ateneo, el Lcdo. Daniel Nina, con la colaboración del Archivo Nacional de Teatro y Cine del Ateneo invitan al público en general a participar del DIÁLOGO DE ESCRITORES NEGROS Y NEGRAS CONTEMPORÁNEOS: COMO REPENSAR LA HISTORIA Y SU NARRATIVA DEL SIGLO 19, este próximo sábado, 26 de marzo de 2011, en la Biblioteca del Ateneo a las 5:00 de la tarde.

Sobre la razón de este Diálogo, el Lcdo. Nina se expresó: “Ya terminó la concepción de que los negros del siglo XIX solo servían para la esclavitud. Los recientes trabajos de José “Chuco” Quintero sobre la música y la danza de los negros y los de Roberto Ramos-Perea sobre la intelectualidad y la literatura negra del siglo XIX y principios del XX, han demostrado claramente que hay una nueva visión del rol del negro y la negra en los entendidos sociales e históricos, como creadores de productos culturales trascendentes y también como literatos e intelectuales en el mismo siglo XIX y que éstos se transfieren a una literatura negra contemporánea en Puerto Rico. Dialogar sobre ese viaje de narrativas se hace imperioso. Ya no somos esclavos.”

Para la activa participación en este diálogo han sido invitados los escritores e investigadores la Dra. Marie Ramos, el Lcdo. Ebenecer López Ruyol, el Prof. Héctor Bermúdez, el Prof. Juan de la Matta “Prietusco”, el Prof. Roberto Ramos-Perea y Lcdo. Daniel Nina. El diálogo comenzará puntual a las 5:00 de la tarde en la Biblioteca del Ateneo y la entrada es libre.

Para mayor información: 787-977-2307 y 787-722-4839.



.

Northern Marianas Should Reassess Commonwealth Political Status, Says N. Marianas Lawmaker

*****

Representative Stanley T. Torres says that the  CNMI should ‘reassess’ US ties.

By Emmanuel T. Erediano 
Marianas Variety

 THE commonwealth and federal governments need to sit down again and assess their political ties, according to Rep. Stanley T. Torres. He noted that his colleagues are finally considering his political status bill that has been with the House Committee on Judiciary and Governmental Operations for more than one year now.

House Bill 17-7, which Torres introduced on Jan. 22, 2010, proposes to create a commission that will revisit the Covenant and look at an “alternative” political and economic status for the islands. Chaired by Rep. Ralph S. Demapan, Covenant-Saipan, the committee plans to hold a public hearing on the measure at 6 p.m. on Monday next week at the multi-purpose center in Susupe.

In an interview yesterday, Torres, Ind.-Saipan, said the timing is “very right to bring this proposal up because it appears that the federal government has been screwing us for a long time.” With all the problems the commonwealth is now suffering due to federal restrictions, Torres said it’s about time to reassess the islands’ political relationship with the U.S. as established by the 1976 Covenant.

“The feds give us money but instead of letting us make the best use of it ourselves, they put a lot of restrictions,” Torres said.

H.B. 17-7, he added, will bring the CNMI and the federal government back to the negotiating table which he hopes will make the U.S. “realize” the “hardship” it has imposed on the commonwealth. Once the new political status commission is formed, Torres said it can renegotiate the exclusive economic zone that, he added, the federal government “took” from the CNMI people.

The second Marianas Political Status Commission proposed by Torres will consist of 11 voting members and the presiding officers of the Legislature as non-voting ex-officio members. They will reexamine the political status of the NMI as commonwealth of the U.S. and the federal interpretation of the Covenant.

The panel members will also asses how the local and federal government lived up to their obligations under the Covenant. They will also look at a future political and economic status for the NMI that includes but is not limited to complete independence from the U.S., free association, or statehood.

“I invite the people to attend the public hearing and bring up their frustration about our political relationship with the U.S.” Torres said.

 See also:  International Governance Expert Discusses Changes in Northern Marianas Covenant