US Virgin Islands Governor Mourns the passing of former Lieutenant Governor Derek M. Hodge

UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Governor de Jongh Offers Condolences on Death of Former Lieutenant Governor and Senate President Derek M. Hodge The Virgin Islands has lost a true native son, a man of integrity and enthusiasm, a brilliant attorney and politician

Governor John P. de Jongh, Jr. today offered heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of former Virgin Islands Lieutenant Governor Derek Michael Hodge who died after a prolonged illness. “Lt. Governor Hodge was one of the most respected men in the territory. His wise counsel, sharp wit, friendship and political savvy will be missed and mourned by a great number of Virgin Islanders, myself included,” de Jongh said today. The governor credited Derek Hodge with playing a pivotal role in the development of the Virgin Islands during an impressive career. De Jongh characterized the life-long Democrat as a risk taker. “He challenged his Democratic Party in 1994 to run for Governor and even though he lost, he maintained a passion and commitment to public service. On his first attempt, he was elected to the Legislature in 1984 and even though he was a freshman senator, he was selected by his colleagues as Senate President,” de Jongh said today.  In 1987, Hodge was inaugurated as the territory’s Lieutenant Governor, a position he held for eight years in the administration of then Governor Alexander A. Farrelly. “As the Commissioner of Insurance, Chairman of the Banking Board and overseer of the Office of the Recorder of Deeds, Tax Assessor’s Office, and Corporations Division, he modernized these functions and proactively worked for efficiency, accountability and accessibility. Lt. Governor Hodge was actively involved in securing federal funds for the territory through joint efforts with former Delegate to Congress Ron de Lugo. His work helped the territory receive over $20 million in appropriations for St. Croix’s Henry E. Rohlsen Airport, as well as for health care facilities, prison renovations and hazard mitigation projects. He helped re-establish the Government of the Virgin Islands’ bond rating in the municipal bond market, which led to the issuance of $230 million in bonds for the Capital Improvement Program,” de Jongh recalled, noting that he had both the honor and pleasure of working with Derek Hodge while serving as Commissioner of Finance in the Farrelly / Hodge administration. Upon leaving public office, Lt. Governor Hodge resumed his law practice. He received his Juris Doctorate degree in 1971 from Georgetown University Law Center. During his long and distinguished career, he was a member of the St. Croix firm of Hodge, Sheen & Finch, in partnership with his brother Winston; was a partner with his cousin Kathleen in the St. Thomas firm of Mackay & Hodge; and practiced law on his own. “Lt. Governor Hodge maintained an active interest in the territory and its development throughout his life. He was part of an illustrious family that served the Virgin Islands for generations in public and private initiatives on St. Croix and St. Thomas. With his family ties and network of friends and colleagues, he was in touch with all aspects of life in the Virgin Islands. It was his passion to see the territory continue to modernize and expand for the good of all residents, and he spent much of his life pursuing these goals,” de Jongh said today.  “Cecile and I offer our profound sympathies to Derek’s wife, Monique Sibilly-Hodge; his children Marisol Cohen and Jonathan Hodge and their families; his cousins and their families; other members of the Hodge circle; and his numerous friends, associates and colleagues.” The Virgin Islands has lost a true native son, a man of integrity and enthusiasm, a brilliant attorney and politician. “I hope that the territory’s outpouring of love and respect for Derek M. Hodge will help ease the loss of this husband, father, grandfather and friend,” de Jongh added.

Statement of former US Virgin Islands Governor Dr. Charles W. Turnbull on the passing of former Governor Juan Luis

*****

 

Charles W. Turnbull, Ph.D.
Former Governor US Virgin Islands  (1999-2007)
 

June 4, 2011

 

  STATEMENT
ON THE PASSING OF
FORMER GOVERNOR JUAN FRANCISCO LUIS

 

 I am deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Former Governor Juan Francisco Luis. 

The Virgin Islands has, in less than a week, lost another great and dedicated public servant and political and civic leader.
 
Governor Luis served the people of the territory well as a Senator, Lieutenant Governor and a two-term Governor.
 
He was a leader who served with humility, compassion and a deeply felt conviction that the welfare of all the people should be his paramount concern. I was privileged to serve in his cabinet for eight years as Commissioner of Education.  The Virgin Islands is a better place because he was our Governor.

My sincere condolences go out to Mrs. Luis, his entire family, friends and associates.
 
May his soul rest in peace.
        

                                                                         

Joceline Clemencia, Curacao human rights defender, joins the ancestors

***** 

Advocate for the independence of Curacao and strong proponent of the Papiamentu language has passed away at the age of 58. She leaves a lasting legacy of struggle for the mental emancipation of her people as reflected in her analysis (see below) on the implications of the dismantling of the former Netherlands Antilles which took place on 10th October 2010. May she rest well.

______________________________________________________________

 

Brief reflections on the changing of the colonial guard

by

Joceline Clemencia

Chair of the Independence Party of Curaçao

10/10/10 

America Latina en Movimiento

---

As of October 10th, 2010 the country Netherlands Antilles ceased to exist and the countries Curaçao and St. Maarten came into being. At the same moment the three other islands that used to form the Netherlands Antilles along with Curaçao and St. Maarten, i.e. Bonaire, Saba, St. Eustatius became a municipality of the Netherlands.

The question pops up is there any reason to celebrate the so called new countries? Are these countries new? The colonial ties with the Kingdom of the Netherlands will not only remain, but will furthermore be controlled by the Netherlands through the consensus laws the last government of the Antilles passed. In this era where countries, entities, regions seek to unite and strengthen their position in a globalized world, 5 small islands in the Caribbean are forced by a European colonial power to disintegrate and thus weaken their chances to create strong new countries.

Colonialism by consent, a policy used by France, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands to force upon ‘their’ colonies and legitimized through referenda, measures that will return to the colonial powers the control over vital national areas, such as public finances, good governance, education, security and others. 

So anachronistically, instead of advancing the decolonization process, as the United Nations prescribed in its Resolution 1614 of 1960, we are witnessing a harsh recolonization of the Caribbean area, as well as other regions, by former colonial powers. Already in 1986 the disintegration process of the Netherlands Antilles started when the island Aruba separated from the 5 other islands. After almost 25 years Aruba still remains a Dutch colony, although the separation was celebrated at the time as a liberation process of Aruba.

The countries and islands of the Caribbean and Latin America have every reason to join forces to ensure the well-being of their people by putting their resources under their own control instead of the control of imperial and colonial powers. Caricom, ALBA are but some evidence of this consciousness.

The colonial interventions are not surprising however considering the fact that the Caribbean, strategically of vital importance for the super powers that control the world and economically for its wealthy resources as the oil in its soil and waters, will continue to be the scene for interventions from the industrial and financial capital based in Europe and executed by their governments. Failing public finances, good governance, security, democracy have all been used as arguments for the above mentioned colonial interventions.

It is important to observe that the changes that come into being beginning October 10th will not change the colonial domination of the Netherlands on the islands of Curaçao, St. Maarten, Bonaire, Saba, St. Eustatius. To achieve the benefits from the multiple resources these islands have, the people of the island will have to continue their struggle to obtain their political independence as a step to real independence.

Long live the people of Curaçao, Bonaire, St. Maarten, Saba, St. Eustatius!

PONENCIA ANTE EL SEMINARIO REGIONAL DEL CARIBE

*****

PONENCIA ANTE EL SEMINARIO REGIONAL DEL CARIBE

DEL COMITÉ DE DESCOLONIZACION DE LA ONU

SAN VICENTE Y GRANADINAS

31 DE MAYO A 2 DE JUNIO 2011

Señor Presidente S. E.  Francisco Carrión Mena; demás directiva del Comité; distinguidos delegados y delegadas; participantes y demás público presente.

Permítame por comenzar felicitando al Embajador Francisco Carrión Mena por su elección como presidente de este importantísimo comité. Su extensa experiencia diplomática habrá de enriquecer los trabajos del mismo.

Comparezco ante ustedes en representación del Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, la institución más antigua de Puerto Rico fundada en el 1840 y que año tras año aporta a las discusiones de este Comité.

Señor Presidente, enfrentamos el tema que nos ocupa, sobre la “Implementación de la Tercera Década para la erradicación del colonialismo: metas y esperados”, con sentimientos encontrados. El hecho de que estemos discutiendo y ponderando metas y objetivos por una tercera década de por sí causa desasosiego y frustración para los que pertenecemos a pueblos que aún no han logrado su independencia. Más aún en el caso de mi patria que nunca ha libado la dulce miel de la libertad.

Revisando la situación generalizada en el Caribe y en especial en los territorios que aún forman parte de la lista de territorios no autónomos, me pregunto ¿Por qué a las alturas del siglo XXI tenemos que siquiera hablar de este tema? ¿Acaso no se proclamó en la Res. 1514(XV) la igualdad de todas las naciones grandes y pequeñas?¿Acaso no se dejó claramente establecido que el colonialismo es un crimen contra la humanidad, una violación crasa de derechos humanos?

El derecho de descolonización nace de un derecho fundamental supremo: el derecho a la libre determinación1 de los pueblos. Tal concepto se fundamenta en el principio del consentimiento de los gobernados, plasmada en la Declaración de Independencia de Estados Unidos de 1776: ”governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

El Presidente de EEUU Woodrow Wilson3 consideraba el derecho a la libre determinación como norma imprescindible en las relaciones internacionales:

“No peace can last, or ought to last, which does not recognize that governments derive all their just power from the consent of the governed and that no right anywhere exists, to hand peoples about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were property.

Peoples and provinces are not to be bartered about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were chattels and pawns in the game… Self-determination is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which state men will henceforth ignore at their peril.”

El respeto del derecho a la libre determinación de los pueblos se convirtió en uno de los pilares de un Nuevo Orden Internacional basado en el principio, no en el poder; en el régimen de la ley, no del interés.4 Desde su creación, la Organización de Naciones Unidas incorporó en sus estatutos el reconocimiento del derecho de los pueblos a la libre determinación5, a desarrollar el gobierno propio6; a establecer libremente su condición política y proveer asimismo a su desarrollo económico, social y cultural.7 El derecho a la libre determinación es un derecho fundamental, sin el cual no es posible el disfrute pleno de otros derechos8.

El derecho de descolonización vigente hoy o “the rule of law” se encuentra plasmado en la Carta de las Naciones Unidas, en los Pactos Internacionales de Derechos Humanos, en múltiples y reiteradas resoluciones de la Asamblea General de la ONU, siendo la Resolución 1514(XV) la ley especializada o la Carta Magna de la Descolonización. Todos estos instrumentos reiteran como principio, la inadmisibilidad de la intervención de los estados y la protección de los pueblos sometidos al colonialismo para garantizar el ejercicio pleno de su derecho a la libre determinación e independencia.10

Señala el tratadista Gross Espiell, que para el derecho internacional actual el colonialismo es un crimen, un delito internacional, tipificado como tal. Por lo tanto, debe destacarse que a partir de la aprobación de la Resolución 1514(XV), todos los títulos en los que se fundó o se pretendió fundar la soberanía o el dominio sobre un territorio han caducado en cuanto violan el principio de la libre determinación de los pueblos sometidos a la dominación colonial y extranjera. En virtud del nuevo decreto internacional aplicable, todos los antiguos títulos coloniales resultantes del viejo y caducado derecho internacional, han dejado de existir.

Esta es la teoría del derecho aplicable en casos de colonialismo, sin embargo la “real politik” es otra. Si la ONU pusiera en vigor estos principios, no tendríamos un Mar Caribe fragmentado y ocupado por tres potencias europeas y una del continente americano.

En teoría, la legalidad de los títulos de “potencias administradoras”, que no es otra cosa que un eufemismo para decir poder imperial, no podría sostenerse bajo ningunos de los principio estatuidos por la ONU, de hecho, estarían en flagrante violación de los mismos.

Bajo esos principios, no hay manera de entender ni justificar ni la presencia física y ocupación de países extranjeros en el Caribe y muchísimo menos sus reclamos de soberanía y su injerencia sobre territorios y aguas caribeñas.

No hay nada en los preceptos antes mencionados que justifique que el Reino Unido pueda suspender una constitución, exigir una nueva constitución y reservarse el derecho a aprobarla en las Islas de Turcos y Caicos. Tampoco podría pretender imponer un gobernador con poderes para dejar sin efecto las leyes y decisiones de los legítimos representantes del pueblo de Turcos y Caicos, porque no le convenga a los intereses de la Corona Británica. El “direct rule” deberá haberse quedado para siempre en los polvos de los libros de historia del Imperio Británico.

Tampoco hay nada en los preceptos anteriores que justifique o reconozca la legalidad de la fragmentación de territorios de por sí ya pequeños como el de San Martin entre dos jurisdicciones extranjeras, por virtud de reclamos de títulos obtenidos en el Siglo 19 que no deberían tener vigencia alguna en al siglo 21.

De hecho, lo que podría reconocerse como algún adelanto para un pueblo colonial, la reforma constitucional y el estatuto autonómico que han obtenido las Antillas Holandesas y Aruba, tiene la ganancia colateral para Holanda de tener el control de 8,300 km. cuadrados de aguas territoriales, incluyendo Curazao, Bonaire, San Eustacio y Saba y sus respectivas zonas de exclusividad de zona marítima y zona económicas.

El desmembramiento del Caribe en cuatro jurisdicciones extranjeras, cuatro idiomas impuestos por encima de las lenguas criollas y distintas monedas de intercambio comercial, han retrasado el desarrollo natural de ésta área la cual a pesar de las dificultades logísticas que todas estas diferencias han representado, ha logrado mantener una orgullosa, hermosa, diversa y vibrante cultura caribeña y ha logrado organizarse en organismos regionales como el CARICOM Y OECS.

El que un pueblo tenga que someter su constitución para aprobación por otro foráneo, es contrario al derecho a libre determinación. No obstante, las Islas Vírgenes de EEU han pasado por cinco ejercicios fútiles de aprobación de una constitución, sin que la ONU haya denunciado la ilegalidad de dicha pretensión.

Las islas de Martinica y Guadalupe fueran llevadas a un referéndum con una espada de Damocles en la cabeza ya que el Presidente Zarkozy amedrentó a los habitantes de dichas islas con las pérdidas de ayudas económicas de Francia. ¿Intervino la ONU de alguna manera para denunciar eso como una práctica atentatoria contra el más elemental ejercicio de la libre determinación?

En Puerto Rico, por tercera ocasión un Grupo nombrado por el Presidente de EEUU ha emitido un informe sobre el status de Puerto Rico. Por tercera ocasión en este siglo, EEUU ha expresado que la soberanía de Puerto Rico reside en el Congreso de EEUU, desmintiendo así lo expresado ante la comunidad internacional en 1953 en ocasión de la aprobación de la Res. 748(VIII) que relevó a EEUU de rendir informes sobre Puerto Rico y sacó a Puerto Rico de la lista de territorios no autónomos. ¿Qué mecanismos de revisión tiene la ONU para garantizar el cumplimiento de parte de las potencias administradoras con las obligaciones contraídas con la comunidad internacional? Los intentos de un país sin representación internacional propia,  pequeño y económicamente desventajado como Puerto Rico de elevar su caso a revisión no es viable ya que requiere de un país miembro para insertar el tema en la agenda de la Asamblea General, que sería el organismo con jurisdicción. Porque, fuera de la hermana república de Cuba, ¿qué otro país osaría enfrentarse al gigante del norte?

El Informe del Grupo de Trabajo del Presidente sobre el Estatus de Puerto Rico, nombrado por el Presidente Obama, en el cual no hubo representación del pueblo de Puerto Rico, rendido el 11 de marzo de 2011,  no solo reafirma y reclama para EEU la soberanía de Puerto Rico, sino que ignora como si no existiera el derecho internacional, las resoluciones de este Comité sobre Puerto Rico y niega la nacionalidad puertorriqueña al referirse a nosotros como ciudadanos de EEUU que ocupamos el territorio o pobladores del territorio. EEUU no le reconoce a los nacionales puertorriqueños fuera de Puerto Rico el derecho a participar en una consulta sobre estatus, rechaza el derecho de nuestro pueblo a convocarse soberanamente en una asamblea constitucional de estatus y ordena la celebración de dos plebiscitos, sin expresar qué estaría dispuesto a reconocer una vez se exprese el pueblo y bajo amenazas de que si no se celebra el plebiscito antes del final del  2011 entonces EEUU tomará una decisión unilateral sobre el estatus. El primer plebiscito que recomienda el informe le haría escoger al pueblo de Puerto Rico entre la incorporación del territorio o la independencia, dejando fuera las opciones reconocidas por el derecho internacional tales como la libre asociación y la integración.

Al igual que en el caso de Martinica  y Guadalupe, ante le inminencia de un plebiscito, el gobernador anexionista de Puerto Rico ya ha comenzado con la campaña del miedo declarando que optar por cualquier tipo de soberanía conllevaría la pérdida de fondos de EEUU, haciendo falsas representaciones sin distinguir entre lo que son dineros devengados por derechos adquiridos como el seguro social y pensiones y lo que por otro lado son fondos otorgados de beneficiencia social, como la asistencia nutricional.

Señores delegados, el pecado original que se cometió al someter a nuestros pueblos caribeños no ha sido expiada ni ha habido acto de reflexión ni arrepentimiento real de parte de los poderes imperiales. Las potencias extranjeras entraron en posesión de estos territorios mediante la cesión como botín de guerra, como hizo España con EEUU en el caso de Puerto Rico en el 1898 mediante el Tratado de París que puso fin a la Guerra Hispanoamericana-Cubana, o mediante compra y venta entre unas y otras refrendadas en Tratados como los de París y de Versalles de 1898. Que la legalidad de los títulos obtenidos en ese momento y de esa forma aún persista, no es distinto a que se les reconociera titularidad a los amos de los esclavos de plantaciones del siglo 19. Después de todo el colonialismo se basa en el racismo, en la creencia de que hay unas razas y unos pueblos más capacitados para gobernar porque son blancos, porque son poderosos económicamente y porque no tienen la capacidad para mirarse en un espejo y reconocerse como lo que son: explotadores y usurpadores de tierras y riquezas ajenas.

Lo que es aún más inconcebible es que la ONU tiene los instrumentos y los ha utilizado en el pasado para poner fin al colonialismo de forma rápida e incondicionalmente como lo mandata la Res. 1514(XV).  Los precedentes están ahí: Namibia, entre otros. Ante las pretensiones de Sur África de conculcar el derecho de dicho pueblos a su libre determinación e independencia, la ONU fue clara: no le reconoció a Sur África el derecho a apropiarse de un territorio que se le había encomendado la tutela para ayudar al desarrollo del territorio y encaminarlo al gobierno propio.

¿Cuál es la diferencia entre lo que pretendía Sur África con Namibia y lo que han hecho y hasta ahora se han salido con la suya haciendo Holanda, Reino Unido, Francia y EEUU?¿que no practican abiertamente el apartheid?¿Es que acaso sus prácticas de dominación por ser más sofisticadas son menos violatorias de los derechos de estos pueblos a su libre determinación?

El Comité especial en cumplimiento con el mandato de la Resolución sobre el Tercer Decenio para la Erradicación del colonialismo, debe ponerse como metas y objetivso primordiales:

1.      Declarar la ilegalidad de todos los títulos coloniales obtenidos mediante la ocupación militar, la cesión entre potencias extranjeras, la compra y venta entre potencias extranjeras, porque todos fueron obtenidos sin la consulta de los habitantes de los territorios y en violación a los preceptos del derecho internacional sobre colonialismo vigentes;

2.    

         Aplicar el precedente legal establecido en el caso de Namibia a todos los territorios no autónomos y ordenar a las potencias administradoras la inmediata preparación del territorio para su independencia;

3.      Ordenar a todas las potencias administradoras el cumplimiento específico con la Res. 1514(XV) en sus párrafo 4, 5 y 6 para la completa transferencia de poderes, el cese de la intervención militar y la represión y el respeto de la integridad territorial.

4.      Establecer mecanismos  accesibles y viables para los pueblos que padecen bajo el colonialismo para acudir ante la Asamblea General a pedir revisión de los acuerdos y obligaciones  contraídas por las potencias administradoras ante la comunidad internacional;

5.      Prohibir la celebración de consultas, referendos y plebiscitos en los territorios no autónomos y todos los que aún no hayan alcanzado su independencia, sin la supervisión y aval de la ONU;

6.      Ordenar y organizar de inmediato materiales y eventos de educación en todos los territorios no autónomos y todos los que aún no hayan alcanzado su independencia sobre su derecho a la libre determinación, los recursos y organismos  internacionales disponibles para proveer asistencia técnica, financiamiento y cualquier ayuda necesaria para garantizar un proceso de transición ordenada hacia la independencia;

7.      Nombrar un Comité Negociador presidido por el Presidente del Comité Especial de Descolonización para que las potencias administradoras paguen compensaciones económicas a los pueblos colonizados que garanticen una transición a la independencia con financiamiento adecuado y a esos efectos crear un fondo administrado por la ONU.

Estos son las metas y objetivos que mandata la Res. 1514(XV). El Secretario General de la ONU Ban Ki Moon le pidió a este Comité “vigor y creatividad.” No hay mucho que crear,  lo que se necesita es mucha vigorosidad.

Puerto Rico Bar Association Addresses contemporary colonialism at UN Seminar

*****

Representative calls for 'more vigor and creativity' from the U.N. in the Decolonisation process in the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism

Statement before the Caribbean Regional Seminar 

United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation

Caribbean Regional Seminar

St. Vincent and the Grenadines

31st May 2011

Wilma E. Reverón-Collazo

Puerto Rico Bar Association

 Mr. President H.E. Francisco Carrión Mena; other members of the Committee; distinguished delegates, participants and other public present.

Allow me to begin by congratulation Ambassador Carrión Mena for his election as president of this important committee. Your extensive diplomatic experience will certainly enrich the work of the Committee.

I appear before you on behalf of the Puerto Rico Bar Association, the oldest institution of Puerto Rico’s civil society, founded in 1840, which year after year has made important contributions to the discussions before this Committee.

Mr. President, we face the matter before us regarding the “Third Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism; goals and expected accomplishments”, with a heavy heart. The mere fact that we are here discussing a Third Decade causes frustration and desperation to the people of the territories who still have not achieved their independence, more so in the case of my motherland who has never tasted the sweet honey of freedom.

Upon reviewing the general situation in the Caribbean, specifically in  those territories that are still listed, I ask myself: Why are we talking about this in the 21^st. Century? Didn’t Res. 1514(XV) proclaim the equality of all nations big and small? Wasn’t it clearly established that colonialism is a crime against humanity, a gross violation of human rights?

The right to decolonization is born out of the people’s  fundamental supreme human right to self-determination. That right is founded on the principle of government by consent enshrined in the United States Declaration of Independence of 1776:

”Governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

US President Woodrow Wilson  considered the right to self-determination an essential norm in the conduction of  international relations:

“No peace can last, or ought to last, which does not recognize that

Governments derive all their just power from the consent of the governed and that no right anywhere exists, to hand peoples about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were property.

Peoples and provinces are not to be bartered about from sovereignty to

sovereignty as if they were chattels and pawns in the game… Self-determination is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which state men will henceforth ignore at their peril.”

The right to self-determination became one of the pillars of the New International Order based on principles, not on power; based on the rule of law, not in particular interests. Since its creation the UN included in its articles the recognition of the right to self-determination of the peoples of the world, to the development of their own governments; to freely establish their political condition  and to provide for their economic, social and culture aspects. The right to self-determination is a fundamental right, without which it is impossible to fully enjoy all other rights.

The right of decolonization today or the “rule of law”  is found in the UN Charter, the several International Covenants  on Human rights , in multiple resolutions of the UN GA, being Res. 1514(XV) the Carta Magna on Decolonization. All these instruments reiterate as a principle the inadmissibility of foreign intervention and the protection of the peoples subjected to colonialism and the duty to guarantee the full enjoyment of the right to self-determination and independence.

International law expert Gross Espiell reminds us that under international law colonialism is an international crime typified as such. Therefore, it must be stressed that upon adopting Res. 1514(XV), all titles to territorial sovereignty  founded upon dominion are obsolete inasmuch they violate the principle of self-determination of the peoples subjected to colonial foreign domination. As a result all colonial titles  which result from the old and obsolete international law, have ceased to exist.

This is the applicable theory of law in questions of colonialism, however the “real politik” is another. If the UN were to truly enforce these principles, we wouldn’t have a Caribbean Sea fragmented and occupied by three European powers and one North American power.

In theory the legality of the claim to territorial titles of the so called” administering powers” which by itself is an euphemism for “imperial power”, cannot be sustained under any of the principles decreed by the UN; rather they would in fact be in flagrant violation of the same.

Under these principles there is no justification for the physical presence and occupation by foreign countries in the Caribbean and their intervention over Caribbean territories and waters.

There is nothing in the aforesaid mentioned principles that justify or allow for the UK suspending a constitution, demanding a new constitution and reserving for itself the power to approve it as in the case of Turks and Caico. Neither could there be a pretension of suspending the effectiveness of laws and decisions made by the legitimate representatives of the people of Turks and Caico and other British possessions. Direct Rule should be something left in the dust bins of the history books of the British Empire.

There is nothing in the aforesaid principles that justify or recognize the legality of the fragmentation of territories which by nature are small in two foreign jurisdictions, like in the case of Saint Martin, based on the claims to titles obtained in the past centuries which should not exist in the 21^st. Century.

In fact, when there is what appears to be some progress from colonial rule, like in the case of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, has a collateral benefit for the Dutch Kingdom of gaining control over 8,300 km. of territorial sea including exclusive maritime zones and economic zones.

The fragmentation of the Caribbean in four foreign jurisdictions, with four official languages imposed over the creole languages and different currencies, has delayed the natural cooperation and development of the region, Despite these difficulties the peoples of the Caribbean have had the resiliency to maintain a proud, beautiful, diverse and vibrant Caribbean culture and have managed to create important regional organizations like CARICOM and the OECS.

The fact that any peoples have to submit their constitution for approval of a foreign country is contrary to the right to self-determination. For a case on point, the U.S. Virgin Island has held five constitutional conventions and have been repeatedly rebuked by the U.S. Government.

In Puerto Rico, for a third time the U.S. President appointed a Task Force to issue a report on the question of the status of Puerto Rico. For the third time also the task force appointed by the US President, the last one by Pres. Obama, have no representation from the People of Puerto Rico. The three reports reiterate that the sovereignty of Puerto Rico lies in the US Congress. This is contrary to the representation that the US Gov. did to the international community in 1953, when they requested to have Puerto Rico taken out of the list of territories, because allegedly Puerto Rico had obtained self-government. The US Gov. then committed themselves to heed any requests that the people of Puerto Rico made to further develop self-government. Yet, despite the reiterated denunciations made before this committee of the US Gov.s’ refusal to act on Puerto Rico’s request for changes in the relationship, we find no recourse to bring the US Government into compliance.

 What mechanisms does the UN have in place to guarantee that the administering power comply with the obligations acquired with the international community? The attempts by a small and economically challenged country like Puerto Rico to request the revision of its situation before the UN GA is hardly feasible since it depends on the availability of a member country willing to confront the US Gov. What are the chances of having a country, other than our sister Republic of Cuba, to do that?

The March 11, 2011, Report of the US President Task Force on the Status of Puerto Rico appointed by Pres. Obama completely ignores international law and the 29 resolutions passed by this committee on the question of Puerto Rico; it denies recognition of our Puerto Rican nationality by denominating us as “U.S. Citizens that reside in the territory”. The US denies Puerto Rican nationals living outside Puerto Rico the right to vote in status consultation and rejects our right as peoples to convene ourselves in a status constitutional assembly. The report recommends that consultations be made in two plebiscites, the first one jus to ask whether we want to be part of the US or opting for a sovereign status, and a second plebiscite amongst the option recognized by them should the people decide to belong to the US. No prior declaration or definition is made of what the US would be willing to accept if the people voted in favor of belonging to the US. In fact the first plebiscite does not allow for other internationally recognized options such as free association or full integration. An incorporated territory can be maintained as such, for as long the US Congress wants with no guarantees of full citizenship and political rights.

As was the case in the Martinique and Guadeloupe referendums, the scare campaign has already started. The pro-statehood government of Puerto Rico and his followers are “warning” the population that choosing sovereignty entails the loss of millions of dollars in US funds. This is misleading to say the least, since the bulk of US revenues in Puerto Rico are payments to Social Security, Veterans pensions and federal employees pensions which are rights obtained by reason of the dues you have paid or the services you have rendered, they are no welfare or public benefit funds.

Sirs and madams, colonialism remains in place without any real attempt on the part of the administering powers to put an end to it. The European and US imperial powers  occupied our countries as a result of treatises amongst them, as war booty in the case of Puerto Rico in 1898 after the signing of the Treaty of Paris that ended the Hispanic American-Cuban War, or through purchase and sale amongst them legalized through treatises like the Treaty of Paris or the Treaty of Versailles. That the recognition of these titles be recognized as of today is no different than recognizing the slave owner’s titles of 19^th. Century. After all, colonialism is based in a racist conception of the world, is based in the belief that there are some privileged races, peoples and countries that because they happen to be white are better suited to govern.

But what it is really unconscionable is that the UN, having the instruments at hand that have effectively been used in the past to put an end to colonialism, as is mandated by Res. 1514(XV), is still groping with this problem. There you have the precedent of Namibia, amongst other. The UN put a stop to South Africa’s pretensions to integrate Namibia, because, an administering power that has been given a territory in trust to help in its development towards self-government does not have the right to claim over the territory. What, may I ask, is the difference between what South Africa pretended to do and what UK, the Dutch Kingdom, France and the US have been getting away with? Are not sophisticated manners of domination as in violation of the right to self-determination of peoples as the ones practiced by South Africa?

This Committee in compliance with the mandates of Res. 1514(XV) regarding the total eradication of colonialism should have as main goals and objectives the following:

1.     1. To declare null, void, obsolete and illegal all colonial titles obtained through military occupation, cession amongst foreign powers, purchase and sell amongst foreign powers, because such titles were  obtained without consulting the indigenous and native inhabitants and peoples and in violation of existing precepts of international law.

t    

     2. Apply the legal precedent established in the case of Namibia to all non-sell-governing territories and call upon the administering powers to prepare those territories for immediate independence.

3.      

      3. Call upon all administering powers to comply with paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Res. 1514(XV) by transferring all powers to the territories, ceasing military intervention and respecting their territorial integrity.

4.     4. Establish accessible and viable mechanisms, not dependent on another member state willingness to help, for the peoples under colonialism in any form to enable them to request review by the UN GA of the agreements and commitments acquired with the international community.

4

          5. Forbid any referendum, plebiscite or consultation in the non-self-governing territories and in those who still have not obtained their independence, without proper UN supervision and approval.

6.     6. Organize and distribute immediately educational events and materials for all non-self-governing territories and in those who still have not obtained their independence, for the dissemination of information on technical and financial assistance programs and any other resources necessary to guarantee a swift and orderly transition to independence.

7.     7. Appoint a Negotiating Committee chaired by the President of this Committee to ensure that the administering power pay compensation to the peoples they have maintained under colonial rule and to that effect create a fund to guarantee and aid in a swift and orderly transition towards independence.

These I believe should be the true goals and aspirations of this Committee as mandated under Res. 1514(XV). Secretary General Ban Ki Moon asked from this Committee “vigor and creativity”. There is not much to be created, what is need are lots of vigor.