Reparations Reloaded - Danish West Indies / U.S. Virgin Islands

By Shelley Moorhead

dcstamps.com

In the words of Vaughn Benjamin of the St. Croix based Midnite Band, “Well, I and I now get I time fi come in. Reparation is a realistic ting. Weap not, rejoice for Conqueror and conquering.” I want to very publicly thank US Virgin Islands Lieutenant Governor Gregory Francis for providing the impetus and platform for what has become, to date, the most significant Virgin Islands political statement ever made in Denmark. That “LT” at the very last minute tip-toed and backpedaled his way out of a delegation to Copenhagen he in fact initiated and offered to fund is of no consequence to Virgin Islanders.

Was it a campaign ploy gone wrong? Did LT bite off more than he thought he could chew? Or, did Mr. Francis simply lack the political strength requisite to accomplish such an internationally and historically important feat? Be that which it may, in the face of a two month long Danish national debate on an official government apology by Denmark to the people of the US Virgin Islands we have succeeded in moving the reparations football further downfield to where the end zone is now in sight; 1st down, 10 yards to goal, clock running, and our ball.

In the short span of a month, generated by the Virgin Islands Reparations Movement in Denmark have been: a number of important apologies for slavery – 2 from elected members of the Danish parliament, 1 from a significant political party, and 1 from a family member of the Danish Royal House who has direct ties to the Virgin Islands; invitations to meetings at the Danish parliament to strategize on apology and future cooperation; invitations to Roskilde University and the University of Copenhagen for scholarly debates and forums on apology; over one hundred (100) mainstream news articles, editorials, and debate entries regarding US Virgin Islands reparations, apology, and slavery; 2 pre-recorded and 1 live national television news interview broadcast to DR studios in Copenhagen from the Legislature building in Frederiksted; and 3 national radio interviews.

When all was said and done, despite the fact that Lt. Governor Francis removed himself from his own delegation causing it to be cancelled, many millions of Danes, more than ever before, had from November 6th to December 5th 2013, been directly engaged by the African-Caribbean Reparations and Resettlement Alliance (ACRRA) on the matter of reparations and an apology to US Virgin Islanders for slavery. So, brushing off ACRRA’s shoulders, I again thank Mr. Francis for both his initiative and his lack thereof.

Sparked no doubted by the publicized ACRRA hunger action planned to take place at the St. Thomas Legislature building on October 23rd, and fueled by the averting of the same when subsequently planned was a legislative hearing on reparations scheduled for October 30th 2013, news that an official Virgin Islands delegation was being planned to arrive in Denmark right smack in the middle of their national apology debate was a happening watched closely by world governments and welcomed both by Danes in public and private sectors.

Let’s face it. Reparations represent conflict. It is a contest of political wills. Although reparations present confrontation, the associated initiatives do not represent armed conflict with the consequences being the decimation of populations and national economies and infrastructures. The battle rather is one of ideas, concepts, policies, and principles and whether the theatre be the International Court of Justice at the Hague or the international court of public opinion, reparations is an idea whose time has come and it is a contest that the US Virgin Islands can win should we muster the wherewithal to espouse our political maturity. Reparations do, however, require that attendant to its pursuit are men and women who possess no less measure of diplomacy, political fortitude, intelligence, and organization than would be requisite if the conflict was actual.

For example, when Mr. Søren Espersen who is an elected member of the Danish parliament and who represents a far right political party in the country, on November 17th 2013, in a session of the parliament asked the Acting Danish Foreign Minister Mr. Nick Hækkerup to place on the record the Government of Denmark’s position regarding slavery and apology and in doing so recorded was that Denmark will not apologize to the US Virgin Islands; only the weak among Virgin Islands politicians, those who are deficient of courage and steel in their spinal columns are accepting of this affront to our human dignity and have retreated, packed up the reparations shop and run home. However, His Excellency, Dr. Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, who now heads CARICOM, is cut from no such cloth and understands the political, economic and humanitarian stakes at hand for the entire Caribbean. In the US Virgin Islands ACRRA alone maintains the Territory’s international voice and presence with respect to reparations.

When Mr. Hækkerup on November 17th placed Denmark’s outdated 2008 policy regarding slavery and US Virgin Islands relations on the parliamentary record, Prime Minister Gonsalves responded on December 12th 2013, by directing CARICOM to publicly announce that it was expanding its Caribbean reparations initiative to now include Denmark and Norway and in one bold political move directly implicated both the Kingdom of Denmark and the US Virgin Islands. To date, no statement has been issued by any Virgin Islands official, whether in gratitude for, or in condemnation of CARICOM’s December 12th action. Was it coincidence that this CARICOM announcement came on the exact same day that the intended US Virgin Islands delegation was to be hosted at the Danish parliament for apology talks and future cooperation? I think not. These are the type of bold political actions which are required to achieve and realize our reparations. Denmark must know that the US Virgin Islands means business.

It is as a result of such daring initiatives that the Virgin Islands today have a reparations movement it can boast of. When in the year 2005 it was against the policy of the Danish Government to even mention the word slavery in the context of the US Virgin Islands, ACRRA organized and led a delegation of Virgin Islands leaders and officials to Copenhagen to open talks on slavery reparations. In April of the same year ACRRA negotiated, signed, and entered into an historic agreement with the Danish Institute for Human Rights which became the first accord of its kind whereby Danes established a reparations task force and acknowledged their cruelty and brutality and their role and responsibility for the dehumanization of Virgin Islanders. In July of 2008, ACRRA’s efforts resulted in a “statement of regret” being issued by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the occasion of the 160th anniversary of Emancipation from chattel slavery in the Danish West Indies. Late last year ACRRA dared to demand that Denmark apologize to Virgin Islanders for slavery and as a result we are today where we are with respect to Danish relations. While there will remain some closed doors in Denmark (and Norway), the record will show that we have met many more doors that were open and even succeeded in opening some that were before closed. Those who champion this cause expect that we will see further political concessions in the years that follow.

You see, while the current Virgin Islands Government has left much to be desired with respect to reparations, there are those of us at the helm of this international initiative who understand that at the core of the law governing reparative justice is the principle that the perpetrators of Crimes Against Humanity are not afforded the right to dictate the outcome of the judgment. In other words, Mr. Espersen, the Danish People’s Party, and Denmark’s Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs can cry “we won’t apologize” all they want, but, truth is they don’t get to determine or control the terms of repair. This power rests even beyond the Kingdom of Denmark. Don’t believe me? You don’t have to take my word for it. Ask “Bodil” who on December 5th 2013 had the final word in the Danish national debate on apology for slavery. This particular fat lady, the blonde, Danish, warrior princess Ms. Bodil has yet to sing, so, far are things from being over.

Mr. Shelley Moorhead is the founder of the ACRRA initiative, president of the Caribbean Institute for a New Humanity, Inc. based in the US Virgin Islands and Chairman of Carida – the Danish Movement for Virgin Islands Reconciliation which is based in Copenhagen, Denmark.

US should stand up for Western Sahara's self-determination

 

Stephen Zunes

Viewpoint

U.S. President Barack Obama met with Morocco's King Mohammed VI in Washington Nov. 22 for their first face-to-face meeting. The result was a bitter disappointment for supporters of human rights and international law.

Two days before the summit, Human Rights Watch issued a statement calling on the U.S. president to tell the king that "U.S. support for the reform process in Morocco depends on moving beyond rhetoric and making tangible change." Specifically, the human rights group called for "stronger legal protections for rights and an end to impunity for police who use violence and commit other abuses."

Instead, according to a White House statement, Obama applauded the Moroccan monarch for "deepening democracy, promoting economic progress and human development."

The most critical issue facing the northwestern Africa region involves Western Sahara, a sparsely populated country on the Atlantic coast that has been under Moroccan occupation since the kingdom invaded the former Spanish colony in 1975, just prior to its scheduled independence. Defying a series of U.N. Security Council resolutions, a landmark World Court decision, and international mediation efforts, the Moroccans have continued to deny the people of the territory their right of self-determination through a U.N.-sponsored referendum. 

No country recognizes Moroccan sovereignty over the territory and more than 80 nations, as well as the African Union, have formally recognized Western Sahara as an independent state.

When the nationalist Polisario Front, which had been fighting for the occupied nation's independence, agreed to end the armed struggle in 1991 in return for a referendum, the United Nations brought in a peacekeeping force known as MINURSO (the U.N. Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara) to enforce the cease-fire and oversee the scheduled plebiscite that never came. The United States and France, both of which hold veto power in the U.N. Security Council, blocked the United Nations from enforcing a series of resolutions demanding that Morocco provide the Western Saharan people an opportunity to exercise their right of self-determination.

MINURSO is the only U.N. peacekeeping operation in the world without a human rights mandate. In sponsoring the Security Council resolution renewing MINURSO operations earlier this year, the United States removed a provision in the original draft that would have added such a provision.

While the human rights situation within Morocco itself has improved somewhat since Mohammed VI came to power in 1999, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other reputable human right groups have highlighted ongoing severe repression in the occupied Western Sahara. Even the State Department's annual report on human rights acknowledges that "limitations on the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association, the use of arbitrary and prolonged detention to quell dissent" and that open support for the right of self-determination is ruthlessly suppressed. The report goes on to note how security forces have "engaged in torture, beatings, and other mistreatment of detainees" with impunity.

Despite this, the White House statement following the conclusion of the summit pledged that the United States and Morocco would "work together to continue to protect and promote human rights in the territory."

As an alternative to allowing the Western Saharan people to go forward with a referendum on the fate of their country, the Moroccans have proposed what they refer to as an "autonomy" plan. Unfortunately, not only are important matters such as control of Western Sahara's natural resources and security ambiguous under the Moroccan proposal, all powers not specifically vested in the proposed autonomous region would remain with the king. Furthermore, based upon Morocco's long record of breaking its promises to the international community regarding the U.N.-mandated referendum and related obligations based on the cease-fire agreement 22 years ago, there is little to inspire confidence that Morocco would live up to its promises to provide genuine autonomy for Western Sahara.

More problematically, the proposal is based on the presumption that Western Sahara is part of Morocco, a contention that has long been rejected by the United Nations, the World Court, the African Union and a broad consensus of international legal opinion. To accept Morocco's autonomy plan would mean that, for the first time since the founding of the United Nations and the ratification of the U.N. Charter more than 68 years ago, the international community would be endorsing the expansion of a country's territory by military force, thereby establishing a dangerous and destabilizing precedent.

If Western Saharans accepted an autonomy agreement over independence as a result of a free and fair referendum, it would constitute a legitimate act of self-determination. However, Morocco has explicitly stated that its autonomy proposal "rules out, by definition, the possibility for the independence option to be submitted" to the people of Western Sahara, the vast majority of whom -- according to knowledgeable international observers -- favor outright independence.

Despite this, White House spokesman Jay Carney announced that Obama believes "Morocco's autonomy plan is serious, realistic and credible. It represents a potential approach that can satisfy the aspirations of the people in the Western Sahara to run their own affairs in peace and dignity."

It appears, then, that the administration's policy on Western Sahara constitutes a rejection of fundamental principles of international law that prohibit territorial expansion by force, thereby constituting a de facto acceptance of the right of conquest.

In the comparable case of East Timor, it was only after human rights organizations, church groups and other international activists successfully pressured their governments to end their support for Indonesia's occupation that the Indonesian regime was finally willing to offer a referendum that gave the East Timorese their right to self-determination. It may take a similar grassroots campaign to ensure that the United States pressures Morocco to allow the people of Western Sahara their right to determine their own destiny.

[Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and coordinator of Middle Eastern studies at the University of San Francisco. He is co-author with Jacob Mundy of Western Sahara: War, Nationalism, and Conflict Irresolution.]

Western Sahara Resource Deals Stoke Territorial Tensions

This is Africa

by Adam Green

Interest in Western Sahara's oil, phosphate and fishing resources prompts growing anger from local populations.

This week, the European Union parliament approved a four-year accord with Morocco allowing its boats to fish in disputed territorial waters off the Western Sahara. Angry demonstrators quickly gathered in towns across the annexed region, claiming Morocco has no right to enter into such treaties on their behalf.

Western Sahara, known by its inhabitants as the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), is Africa's last remaining colony. After the withdrawal of Spain in 1975, it was illegally occupied by Morocco.

Officially, it is regarded as a 'non self-governing territory' and the UN has stipulated that Morocco has no territorial claim to the territory, yet today Morocco effectively controls approximately 80 percent of the territory and almost all of its coastline.

This week's clashes are the latest flare up in a long-running dispute that has received little media coverage. Around 20,000 Saharawis demonstrated against Morocco outside the capital of Western Sahara in 2010. Noam Chomsky, the American linguist and philosopher, has stated that the gathering marked the real start of the Arab Spring.

Tempers looks set to rise as more deals are signed. Geological surveys suggest the waters off the Western Sahara are rich in hydrocarbons, and Kosmos, which holds the Boujdour license, calls the Aaiun Basin, which is in disputed territory, "one of the remaining frontier exploration provinces in Africa". Cairn Energy is awaiting approval for a farm-in as a Kosmos partner.

In mining, a deal between the Moroccan state phosphate company, OCP, and Canadian firm Agrium for more than $10m of phosphate rock attracted international attention, while in infrastructure, Siemens has come under fire for a wind farm deal signed in April, part of which will be constructed in Foum El Oued, in the disputed region.

Companies deny they are breaking any laws, and the legalities are ambiguous at present. Current international rules stipulate that it is illegal to trade with or use resources from non self-governing states without the indigenous population "benefiting from and agreeing to the deal" - interpreted to mean deals can be made as long as the Saharawi people are meaningful stakeholders

In a press release about its investment, Siemens said: "The participation of Siemens in this project is permissible under the applicable laws and regulations and does not infringe the right of self-determination or any other human right in public international law".

William Hayes, senior vice president of Kosmos Energy, tells This is Africa his that exploration offshore Western Sahara is "fully consistent with international law and the 2002 UN Legal Advisor's Opinion", adding that the company has taken the territorial issue seriously. "From the very beginning of our involvement in the territory, we have spent both time and resources to develop a deep knowledge of the complex and nuanced situation in Western Sahara."

Mr Hayes says the Moroccan government will keep to its side of the bargain by ensuring revenues, if exploration is successful, benefit the people of the region.

"In our discussions with ONHYM [the Moroccan national oil company] regarding our exploration activities, it is evident to us that Morocco is paying increasing attention to consultation, transparency and resource governance models," he claims.

But Kamal Fadel, spokesperson for the SADR Petroleum and Mines Authority, says no companies have contacted them about their investments at all - and he is sceptical that revenue resources will be allocated to the Saharawi people as the international law demands.

"Payments for resources from occupied Western Sahara are not returned to the territory. They are paid to the central Moroccan state treasury in Rabat.

Any deals made with Morocco involving Western Sahara would only be a source of employment for Moroccan nationals settled into the territory. Any deals with Morocco involving Western Sahara will only serve to legitimise and entrench Morocco's illegal occupation and serve as pretext for seemingly normal commercial activity," he tells This is Africa.

Either way, any commercial deals will likely not benefit the roughly 165,000 Saharawis who have fled to refugee camps in southwest of Algeria.

The EU accord seems to lend strength to the legitimacy of Morocco's claim, but the country has no jurisdiction in Western Sahara, Mr Fadel says. "No country in the world recognises Morocco's sovereignty over Western Sahara and the UN does not even consider Morocco as the administering power, while the Saharawi republic is a member of the African Union and is recognised by more than 80 states worldwide," he says.

The SADR is considering legal action against the companies investing in the territory, including long-term future compensation claims.Mr Fadel says all deals signed with Morocco "will be considered null and void" when the Saharawi republic achieves its full sovereignty. The EU and international firms seem to be betting that day won't come.

Additional reporting by Tom Stevenson

CARICOM Reparations Commission Identifies areas for reparatory diplomacy and action

CARICOM REPARATIONS COMMISSION PRESS STATEMENT

 Delivered by Professor Sir Hilary Beckles (Chairman) 

on behalf of the CARICOM Reparations Commission

The Thirty-fourth Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government which was held in July 2013 in Trinidad and Tobago, agreed to set up National Committees on Reparations, to establish the moral, ethical and legal case for the payment of reparations by the former colonial European countries, to the nations and people of the Caribbean Community, for native genocide, the transatlantic slave trade and a racialized system of chattel slavery.

Heads of Government further agreed to establish a CARICOM Reparations Commission comprising the Chairs of the National Committees and a representative of the University of the West Indies (UWI), which would report directly to a Prime Ministerial Sub-committee on Reparations, chaired by the Prime Minister of Barbados, the Hon. Freundel Stuart.

To date, National Reparations Committees have been established in 8 Member States, namely Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Suriname.

The Executive of the CARICOM Reparations Commission met on December 9, 2013 in Jamaica at the Regional Headquarters of the University of the West Indies in order to define and set in train its plan of action.

It did so within the context of the global celebration of the life of Nelson Mandela, who, by his sacrifice and teachings, provided the world with a moral and ethical framework within which the diplomatic and political search for truth, justice, and reconciliation can be attained. The Commission affirmed its commitment to the principles inherent in the living legacy of Mr. Mandela.

The Commission affirmed the argument that Caribbean societies have been built upon transatlantic slave trading and chattel slavery, which have been declared by the United Nations as crimes against humanity. These societies are uniquely placed to advance the global cause of truth, justice, and reconciliation, within the context of reparatory justice for the victims and their descendants who continue to suffer harm as a consequence of these crimes.

The Commission called upon the former slave-owning nations of Europe - principally Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Denmark - to engage Caribbean governments in reparatory dialogue to address the living legacies of these crimes.

The Commission noted that Caribbean societies also experienced the genocide of the native population, which was also declared a crime against humanity by the United Nations. The victims of these crimes and their descendants were left in a state of social, psychological, economic and cultural deprivation and disenfranchisement that has ensured their suffering and debilitation today, and from which only reparatory action can alleviate their suffering.

The Commission stated its intention to call upon CARICOM Heads of Government to seek reparatory dialogue with the former slave-owning states of Europe, which were enriched by these crimes, with a view to seeking their support for the eradication of the legacy that serves to subvert the development efforts of national societies.

The Commission endorsed the view expressed by the CARICOM Heads of Government that this dialogue be conducted in a diplomatic, conciliatory, and morally uplifting fashion, consistent with the reparatory search for social justice and human decency.

The Commission recognized that Caribbean youth are among those most disenfranchised and denigrated by the colonial legacy that racially profiles and oppresses them as descendants of the enslaved, and who have a human right to live in an environment that is supportive of their willingness to contribute positively to humanity.

The Commission calls upon Caribbean youth to participate in reparatory consultations aimed at uprooting these legacies that define, oppress, and limit their ability to be positive global citizens.

The Commission affirms the principles of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action that call for an acknowledgement by former slave-owning nations that slavery and slave trading were crimes against humanity; and calls upon these nations to issue statements of formal apologies and commit to a reparatory process that includes, among other actions, the facilitation of the repatriation programme.

The Commission identified and discussed six broad aspects of the Caribbean condition that are the direct result of these crimes that should be the focus of reparatory diplomacy and action.

These are:

1) Public Health: The African descended population in the Caribbean today has the highest incidence in the world of chronic diseases in the form of hypertension and type two diabetes that are the direct result of their nutritional exposure, endemic inhumane physical and emotional brutalization and other aspects of the stress experience of slavery and post slavery apartheid. Scientific research and costs associated with stemming this historically derived pandemic must be addressed.

2) Education: At the end of the colonial period the British left the African descended population, and survivors of the native genocide, in a state of general illiteracy. Some 70 percent of these persons were functionally illiterate at the onset of the Independence era. Widespread illiteracy continues to plague Caribbean societies and accounts for significant parts of their development challenges.

3) Cultural Institutions: Europeans have invested in the development of institutions such as museums and research centres in order to prepare their citizens for an understanding of their imperial history that defined them as rulers and beneficiaries of slavery. There are no such facilities in the Caribbean where the crimes were committed and the victims left disenfranchised in respect of their institutional and cultural experiences and memory. This crisis must be remedied.

4) Cultural Deprivation: The primary cultural effect of slavery was to break and eradicate African commitment to their culture. African culture was criminalized and the cultural basis of identity shattered. Africans were deculturalized and today remain impoverished in respect or cultural legitimacy and supportive appropriate institutional arrangements. These matters represent the colonial legacy of slavery and must be addressed. Contemporary manifestations of these include low ethnic self-esteem; the devaluation of black identity; broken structures and diminished family values; delegitimization of African derived religion and cultural practices, and disconnection from ancestral roots and culture.

5) Psychological trauma: For over 400 years Africans were classified in law as non-human, chattel, property and real estate. They were denied recognition as members of the human family by laws and practices derived from the parliaments and policies of Europe. This history has inflicted massive psychological damage upon African descendants and is evident daily in social life. Only a reparatory dialogue can begin the process of healing and repair.

6) Scientific and technological backwardness: For 400 years the policy of Britain and Europe had been that the Caribbean should not participate in any manufacturing or industrial process, and should be confined to the production of raw materials. This policy has rendered the Caribbean a technologically and scientifically ill-equipped civilization for which it continues to experience debilitating backwardness in a science and technology globalized world. The subjection of the Caribbean to this state has denied Caribbean youth membership and access to an enhancing science and technology culture that has become the world youth patrimony. This matter must be addressed in reparatory dialogue.

The Commission engaged in two hours of consultation with British attorneys from Leigh Day, an internationally respected law firm that specializes in cases of this nature in respect of the legal framework within which such dialogue should and can take place, and was satisfied with the soundness of their brief and recommendations.

The Commission agreed that the services of Leigh Day were valuable and when articulated with those of Caribbean legal luminaries, should constitute the advisory legal team necessary to frame recommendations to the Heads of Governments.

The Commission reaffirmed the argument that CARICOM should request reparatory dialogue with beneficiary slave-owning European states with a view to formulating a new development agenda for the Caribbean, taking these reparatory objectives into consideration, in order to promote the 21st century as a period of mutual respect, recognition, and conciliation.

The Executive agreed that there shall be a meeting of the full Commission towards the end of January 2014, in order to further develop these positions and to provide the Caribbean and the wider world with an opportunity to discuss and deliberate upon the evidence that speaks to reparatory justice within the Caribbean context.

The Commission agreed that its first interim report should be ready for submission to the CARICOM Heads of Government meeting in mid-February, 2014.

El Caribe: dependencia, integración y soberanía - Book by Dr. Norman Girvan

 by Lilien Trujillo Vitón 

Translation Keith Ellis

El Caribe: dependencia, integración y soberanía

by Norman Girvan 

Santiago de Cuba: Instituto Cubano del Libro 

Editorial Oriente; y Casa Del Caribe; 2012

 ISBN 978-959-11-0808-1. 246 pp. 

Email edoriente@cultsgo.cult.cu 

Internet www.editorialoriente.cul.cu 

Y caribe@cultsgo.cult.cu Tlf (53-226) 643-609 

The book El caribe, dependencia, integración y soberanía, [The Caribbean, Dependence, Integration and Sovereignty], by the Jamaican professor Norman Girvan was presented this morning in the José Antonio Portuondo Hall at the San Carlos de la Cabaña fortress by Dr. Tania García and Professor Silvio Baró, both of them specialists in problems of underdevelopment. 

Emancipation from mental slavery in this geographical area is brandished as the central theme of the text, in which the author merges his status as an academic with that of a political person, in order to tackle in a masterful way aspects that are inherent to this very old although not exhausted problem. 

In keeping with all of his work, this book makes an important contribution to the formation and renovation of anti-hegemonic Latin American and Caribbean thinking, as Tania García pointed out. She also attributed this result to a transdisciplinary analysis, which is the only way to achieve a holistic view of reality. 

For his part, the researcher Silvio Baró observed that El Caribe… is a text that gathers together, in several essays, all the phases traversed by the peoples of the region in pursuit of their integration. It also examines the relations between these peoples and their former metropolitan centres. 

Apart from the praiseworthy perceptions the work offers, the author himself insisted on being self-critical, pointing to the absence from the text of two themes that are of indispensable relevance for this specific analysis. Those are: a Pan-Caribbean perspective and a class analysis, specifically of class conformation within the Caribbean. 

Nevertheless, the book explores and systematizes other elemental aspects, such as the relationship between constitutional independence and substantial sovereignty, as well as the connection between them and the imperative of achieving regionalism in the Caribbean. 

Professor Graciela Chailloux, the panel’s moderator and author of the Foreword, stated that this book, the result of coordination between the University of Oriente and the Casa del Caribe, constitutes a further step in the unparalleled effort made by Cuban scientific and literary institutions to make the intellectual legacy of the region widely known. 

The morning session, more than being the mere presentation of a book that is of exceptional value for the future of the peoples of the Caribbean, became an opportunity for the reflexion on and the exchange of ideas among renowned figures in that field of study. 

The West Papuan independence movement - a history

Indigenous Papuans still fight for self-determination, more than 40 years after Indonesia acquired the territory in a sham ballot

• Marni Cordell
• theguardian.com 

West Papuan students in Yogyakarta protesting in support of independence for the territory, which has been part of Indonesia since 1969. Photograph: Ulet Ifansasti/Getty

Indonesia officially acquired West Papua in 1969, after a sham ballot on independence in which only a handful of the local population were allowed to vote.

The region, which makes up the western part of the island of New Guinea to Australia's north, was once a Dutch colony, but the Netherlands began to prepare for withdrawal in the 1950s.

In 1961, West Papuans held a congress to discuss independence and raised the West Papuan "morning star" flag.

But a newly independent Republic of Indonesia began to assert its claim over the province and a conflict broke out between Indonesia, the Netherlands and the indigenous population.

In 1962, a United Nations-sponsored treaty known as the New York agreement was drawn up to put an end to this territorial battle, and Indonesia was appointed temporary administrator of West Papua from May 1963 – without West Papuan consultation or consent.

A key requirement of the treaty was that all West Papuans be allowed to vote in a referendum on independence, which was to be overseen by the UN.

But when the ballot was held in 1969, it was far from free and fair: the Indonesian military handpicked 1,026 leaders to vote on behalf of the entire population, and threatened to kill them and their families if they voted the wrong way.

In this environment, the outcome of the so-called "Act of Free Choice" was unanimous – and Indonesia's takeover of West Papua was rubber-stamped by the UN.

Almost all indigenous Papuans reject the referendum, dubbing it the "act of no choice", and many continue to demand a real vote on self-determination to this day.

This history forms the basis for West Papuans' call for independence – but it is not just historical injustice that fuels the movement today.

Indigenous West Papuans face daily surveillance and intimidation by the Indonesian military and police, and many report living in constant fear. Thousands have been killed, detained and tortured since 1963.

Those who agitate for independence openly do so at a high personal cost. It is illegal to raise the morning star flag and many of the province's leaders are sitting out long jail terms for peaceful acts of defiance.

The region has an armed movement for independence that has been responsible for the deaths of Indonesian security personnel and actively engages in armed skirmishes, but there is a much larger civil movement that is also heavily suppressed.

In October 2011, the Third Papuan People's Congress, a civilian gathering that addressed issues of self-governance, was violently quashed by Indonesian forces. Six people were killed and dozens more injured.

Indonesia guards its "territorial integrity" jealously. And it's no surprise – the massive Freeport McMoran gold and copper mine in West Papua is one of the country's largest taxpayers.

For its part, Indonesia argues that since West Papua was once a part of the Dutch East Indies, it should also be part of today's independent Indonesian Republic.

Both major Australian political parties support them in this stance.

Indonesia is seen as an important political ally for Australia, and politicians from both sides are loth to antagonise their Indonesian counterparts. Australia maintains close ties with the Indonesian military. It also provides training and funding for its counter-terror police unit, Detachment 88, which has been involved in recent crackdowns on the independence movement.

But Australia is home to a significant West Papuan community and a large network of supporters of West Papuan independence. The West Papuan Freedom Flotilla is the latest in a long history of co-operation between activists from the two countries.

*****

SPERANSA DI UN PUEBLO…RESOLUSHON ANJA 2014… REVOLUSHON BONERIANO - MI TA DISPUESTO? /HOPE OF THE PEOPLE ... NEWYEARS RESOLUTION 2014...BONERIAN REVOLUTION

SPECIAL TO OVERSEAS TERRITORIES REVIEW

infobonaire.com

AMI KOMO LIDER, POLITIKO, SPIRITUAL, SOSIAL, DEPORTIVO, FAMILIAR, DI NEGOSHI, DEN MEDIA, DI SEKTOR PRIVA, KONSEHERO , PROFESHONAL, INTELECTUAL I MAS , KU TA STIMA BONEIRU I E PUEBLO BONERIANO TA DISPUESTO DI DISTANSIA MI MES TEMPORALMENTE FOR DI MI METANAN PERSONAL I DI ESNAN DI MI ORGANISASHON, GRUPO, GREMIO O SEKTOR, I NO LAGA PASADO STROBAMI DI HASI MI MAXIMO ESFUERSO PA JUDA KUMINSA I REALISA REKONSILIASHON I I UNION DI E PUEBLO BONERIANO. UN META KOMUN I FUNDAMENTAL KU LO UNI I SIRBI NOS TUR KOMO BONERIANO, HABITANTE, GRUPO O ORGANISASHON PA SIGUI ENKAMINA NOS PROSESO DI EMANSIPA SHON I JUDA EMPODERA I DEMOKRATISA NOS PUEBLO BONERIANO I PONE E SIGUIENTE BLOKI DI PROGRESO RIBA ESUN KU NOS TA PARA RIBA DJE AWOR AKI KU NOS ANTEPASADONAN A LOGRA PONE LUCHANDO I A DRAMA SODO, SANGER I LAGRIMA PA NOS KU TA AKI AWOR. I AWOR DRENTANDO UN ANJA NOBO, UN KOMIENSO NOBO, BAN UNI I HUNTU JUDA SIGUI KONSTRUI NOS BONEIRU, I ASPIRA I LOGRA BIENESTAR I FELISIDAT PA NOS MES, NOS YUNAN, NOS PUEBLO. ESAKI TA MI PROPOSITO DI TA LIDER I TA AKI I AWOR, E MOMENTO I E KRUSADA KU LO TA DETERMINANTE, I TA MI ESKOHO I UN TRABAO BENDISHONA

AMI BONERIANO, HABITANTE DI BONEIRU, KU TA STIMA BONEIRU, I TA KONSIENTE KU TA MI DESTINO PA TA AKI I KU MI GRANDINAN, ANTEPASADONAN A LUCHA I DRAMA NAN SODO, SANGER I LAGRIMA PA AMI, I TA KOMPRENDE KU BONEIRU TA DI MI YUNAN I AMI MESTER KUIDE I PROTEHE PA NAN I NAN FUTURO GENERASHONAN I MESKOS KU NOS GRANDINAN A LUCHA PA AMI, TA WORDU VERWACHT DI AMI I TA MI DEBER HASI MESKOS PA NOS YUNAN. AMI TA KONSIENTE I TA KOMPRENDE KU NOS DESTINO TA DEN NOS MES MAN I NOS MES TIN KU TUMA E INISIATIVA I MESKOS KU KADA DIA DI NOBO AMI MES MESTER LANTA I LUCHA PA AMI I MI FAMIA SU BIENESTAR MESKOS LO MI VERWACHT ESAKI DI MI LIDERNAN I GOBERNANTENAN. AMI TA KOMPRENDE KU AWOR NOS NO TIN OTRO MANERA PA KAMBIA E SITUASHON AKI KU TA PA NOS UNI KOMO PUEBLO PA ENFRENTA E RETO GRANDI KU NOS TIN NOS DILANTI. PA LOGRA ESAKI MI TA DISPUESTO PA PONE TUR DIFERENSIA POLITIKO, CREENCIA, SOSIAL O OTRO UN BANDA PA UN META KOMUN KOMO PUEBLO BONERIANO. I KOMO BONEIRU, TRESE O PARA PA UN KAMBIO FUNDAMENTAL KU POR REKONSILIA I UNI NOS TUR ATROBE KOMO UN PUEBLO KU TA DEN DESAROYO I MESTER SIGUI KU NOS EMANSIPASHON I DEMOKRATISASHON PA ASINA HUNTU UNI I KONSIENTE POR SIGUI KONSTRUI E BONEIRU JENA KU PROSEPRIDAT I FELISIDAT KU NOS TUR TA DESEA PA NOS MES, NOS YUNAN I NAN GENERASHONAN. ESAKI TA MI DEBER KOMO MAMA, TATA, RUMAN, AMIGO, LIDER, SUIDADANO I BONERIANO PA DESIDI I FIHA NOS DESTINO I NO LO LAGA NADA O NINGUN OTRO STROBA MI DESISHON I AKSHON PA NOS KOMO PUEBLO LOGRA ESAKI

MI TA DIPUESTO PA HASI ESAKI?

 *****

HOPE OF THE PEOPLE ... NEW YEARS RESOLUTION 2014...BONERIAN REVOLUTION

AM I WILLING? 

I , AS LEADER , POLITICAL , SPIRITUAL , SOCIAL , SPORTS , FAMILY , BUSINESS , MEDIA , PRIVATE SECTOR , CONSULTANT , PROFESIONAL , INTELLECTUAL , AND MORE , WHO LOVE BONAIRE AND THE PEOPLE OF BONAIRE , TO DISTANT MYSELF TEMPORARILY OF EVERYTHING PERSONALLY AND THAT OF MY ORGANIZATION , GROUP , SECTOR AND FROM THE PAST THAT PREVENTS OR STOPS ME , AND WILL DO MY OUTMOST TO HELP WITH THE RECONICILIATION AND UNIFICATION OF THE BONERIAN PEOPLE. WITH A COMMON FUNDAMENTAL GOAL THAT CAN SERVE US ALL AS BONERIANS, INHABITANT, GROUP, ORGANIZATION TO CONTINUE THE PROCESS OF OUR EMANCIPATION AND HELP THE EMPOWERMENT AND DEMOCRATIZATION OF BONERIAN PEOPLE AND HELP PUT THE NEXT BRICK OF PROGRESS ON THE ONE WHICH WE ARE STANDING NOW AND WAS PUT BY OUR FOREFATHERS WITH THEIR SWEAT, BLOOD AND TEARS THEY FOUGHT FOR US THAT WE CAN BE HERE NOW. AND AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS NEW YEAR, A NEW BEGINNING, TOGETHER TO HELP BUILD OUR BONAIRE AND ENDEAVOUR AND ACHIEVE WELFARE AND HAPPINESS FOR OURSELVES AND OUR CHILDREN AND FUTURE GENERATIONS. THIS IS MY GOAL AS A LEADER AND REASON I AM HERE NOW, AT THIS CRUCIAL MOMENT AND CROSSROAD, MY OWN CHOICE AND A BLESSED JOB

I BONERIAN, INHABITANT OF BONAIRE, THAT LOVE BONAIRE AND THE PEOPLE OF BONAIRE, AND IS AWARE THAT I AM HERE NOW BY FATE AND THAT MY ANCESTORS HAVE FOUGHT WITH THEIR SWEAT, BLOOD AND TEARS SO I NOW CAN BE HERE NOW AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT BONAIRE BELONG TO MY CHILDREN AND THEIR GENERATIONS AND THAT I SHOULD CARE AND PROTECT IT JUST LIKE MY ANCESTORS HAVE DONE THAT FOR ME AND EXPECT THAT I DO THE SAME FOR MY CHILDREN. I AM AWARE AND UNDERSTAND THAT OUR DESTINY AND FUTURE IS IN OUR OWN HANDS AND THAT WE OURSELVES MUST TAKE THE INITIATIVE, THE SAME AS I EVERY DAY GET UP AND FIGHT FOR MYSELF AND WELFARE OF MY FAMILY I EXPECT SAME FROM MY LEADERS AND GOVERNMENT. I UNDERSTAND THAT WE NOW HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE FOR A CHANGE THEN TO RECONCILE AND UNITE AS PEOPLE OF BONAIRE AND TOGETHER CONFRONT THIS MAJOR TASK. I'M WILLING TO SET ASIDE ALL DIFFERENCES, POLITICAL, RILIGIOUS, SOCIAL AND OTHER TO REALIZE A COMMON GOAL AND I TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO STAND FOR A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE THAT CAN RECONCILE AND UNITE US AS BONERIAN PEOPLE'S THAT IS IN A DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND MUST BE EMANCIPATED AND DEMOCRATIZED SO TOGETHER WE CAN CONTINUE TO BUILD OUR BONAIRE, WITH PROSPERITY AND HAPPINESS, WHICH WE WISH FOR OURSELVES AND OUR CHILDREN AND THEIR GENERATIONS. THIS IS MY DUTY AS A MOTHER, FATHER, BROTHER, FRIEND, LEADER, CITIZEN AND BONERIAN TO DECIDE OUR OWN FATE AND NOTHING AND NOBODY WILL DISTRACT OR PREVENT ME IN MY DECISION AND ACTIONS TO UNIFY AND ACHIEVE THIS.

AM I WILLING TO DO THIS?

Japanese Market Research Firm Forecasts Growth of Offshore Wind and Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Power Generation

Japan for Sustainability

Image by Kim Hansen. Some Rights Reserved.

Fuji Keizai Co., a Japanese market research firm, released the results of its investigation into the prospects of the renewable energy market on June 20, 2013. It predicts that the domestic market for offshore wind power generation will show a rapid growth from 50 million yen ( about U.S.$0.51 million) in 2012 to 76.7 billion yen (about U.S.$0.78 billion), in 2020. Offshore wind power generation is capable of generating more electricity than on land due to stronger winds. Fuji Keizai expects further expansion of offshore wind power generation systems, taking into account the tests for floating offshore wind power generation underway since fiscal 2012 at Kabashima, off the coast of Goto City, Nagasaki Prefecture, southern Japan.

Fuji Keizai also forecasts the rapid growth of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) from 0 yen in 2012 to 180 billion yen (about U.S.$1.84 billion) in 2020. OTEC drives a turbine to generate power utilizing differences in temperature between warmer surface water and cooler deep seawater to generate electricity. 

Fuji Keizai's prediction is based on following factors: 1) the launch of tests for OTEC at Kume Island in Okinawa Prefecture, southern Japan, conducted by the Okinawa Prefectural Deep Sea Water Research Center; and 2) plans to start operation of a commercial plant with a generation capacity of 10 megawatts by 2020 by the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO), an agency under Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

Related articles:

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Plant to be Demonstrated in Okinawa

NEDO Promoting Japan's First Offshore Wind Power Demonstration Project

Commonwealth system as replacement for Kingdom 'autonomy' supported by Sint Maarten Justice Minister

Richardson is not against commonwealth structure

Daily Herald

Sint Maaarten

AMSTERDAM--St. Maarten Justice Minister Dennis Richardson surprised everyone at the debate on the future of the Dutch Kingdom of de Volkskrant newspaper in Amsterdam on Sunday by stating that he had no objections to looser ties with the Netherlands, possibly in a commonwealth structure.

"A commonwealth construction is not a strange thought," said Richardson in a debate with Dutch Minister of Home Affairs and Kingdom Relations Ronald Plasterk and Caribbean history Professor Gert Oostindie.

However, Richardson added, his commonwealth idea should not be compared to the proposal that Members of Parliament of the Second Chamber André Bosman of the liberal democratic VVD party and Ronald van Raak of the Socialist Party (SP) presented just before the summer.

Richardson spoke of a "conditioned commonwealth construction" whereby St. Maarten for example would be free to close a deal with the United States of America to jointly combat crime if the Dutch Government refused to help.

The Justice Minister said it could not be that The Hague walked away from its responsibilities to assist in keeping St. Maarten and its surrounding waters safe from drug smuggling and human trafficking, leaving a small country like St. Maarten to fight this battle on its own.

Minister Plasterk was highly surprised by Richardson's commonwealth statement. "I am hearing this for the first time." He warned that the commonwealth process was not without risks as the Netherlands could at one point in the future say that it would let go of St. Maarten. Richardson replied that taking risks was part of life.

Prof. Oostindie reasoned that the entire issue on independence or a commonwealth status should be "off the table," because that is not what the people on the islands of the former Netherlands Antilles want. "There is no doubt about the people wanting to get out of the Kingdom," he said.

The new constitutional relations that went into effect on October 10, 2010 whereby Curaçao and St. Maarten attained the status of Country within the Kingdom and Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba became public entities of the Netherlands have been somewhat disappointing for many. But that does not mean, however, that the islands want to exit the Kingdom. He said there were many advantages to be had as a former colony.

During the debate Minister Richardson several times ventilated his discontent about the recent decision of the Kingdom Council of Ministers to order an independent integrity audit of St. Maarten's Government. According to the St. Maarten Government, the Council wrongly used article 51 of the Regulation of the Governor to give Governor Eugene Holiday an instruction to facilitate this audit.

Richardson repeatedly said that St. Maarten did not have a problem with an integrity audit. He said government also found it important to take a good look at the level of integrity. "We need an investigation to clear our name or to tackle wrongdoings if there are any. We need clarity: is corruption rampant or is it just an occasional incident?" he said.

St. Maarten had proposed to carry out an integrity audit together with the Netherlands. However, the Kingdom Council refused. Plasterk said, as he has done on earlier occasions, that it was imperative to have an independent audit, meaning an investigation without an active role for the St. Maarten Government. He said he supported cooperating with Philipsburg on this matter. But, he added, "The Governor has to be in charge. That is our prerequisite."

en.wikipedia.org

Richardson was highly critical of the attitude of the Second Chamber where it came to St. Maarten. He said St. Maarten refused to be the sacrificial lamb for local Dutch political consumption and the interest of certain Members of Parliament. "What does the Netherlands want? Does it want us to go or stay?"

According to Richardson, St. Maarten's image in The Hague was influenced by "perception and one-liners." He said cooperation should be the key in the relations with the Netherlands, and not "suppression" by The Hague.

The recent advice of St. Maarten's Social Economic Council to get out of the monetary union with Curaçao and to dollarize also came up during Sunday's debate. Richardson said this was not a matter of taking revenge on Curaçao for the years of neglect when St. Maarten was still part of the Netherlands Antilles. "It is simply surviving. Curaçao is causing the deficit on the balance of payments," he said.

Plasterk said that having a joint Central Bank for Curaçao and St. Maarten had its advantages. He remarked that being a small country with an own Central Bank posed a threat whereby the Central Bank could become the "pet" of the local government. Having an independent financial supervisory organ was important, he said.

Richardson replied that with a dollarized economy St. Maarten wouldn't need to have a Central Bank, just a supervising entity.

Sunday's debate was led by Volkskrant reporters Remco Meijer and Laura de Jong. Curaçao singer Kris Berry, who spent part of her youth in St. Maarten, gave the event a musical touch. The well-attended event started with a column by former NOS news reader and journalist Noraly Beyer.

PIP: Estados Unidos reconoce necesidad de cambio en relaciones políticas con Puerto Rico

Por Cándida Cotto Claridad A juicio del liderato del Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño (PIP) la depresión económica y social de Puerto Rico se ha hecho tan evidente para el mundo entero que el mismo Estados Unidos está reconociendo que hay que transformar las relaciones políticas entre ambos países. En conferencia de prensa. los presidente y vicepresidente del PIP, licenciados Rubén Berríos Martínez y Fernando Martín García, expusieron las motivaciones y significado de la carta que el portavoz de la mayoría Ron Wyden y la portavoz del partido de minoría Lisa Murkowski, ambos miembros del Comité de Energía y Recursos Naturales del Senado de EE UU, enviaron a los presidentes de los tres partidos políticos en la isla. El Presidente del PIP destacó que es la primera vez en mucho tiempo que los dos líderes de ambos partidos en el comité que tiene jurisdicción sobre los territorios le dirigen una comunicación por iniciativa propia a los tres presidentes de los partidos políticos en Puerto Rico.

Cuál es la diferencia entre Nelson Mandela y Oscar López Rivera? / What is the difference between Nelson Mandela and Oscar López Rivera?

Compañeros Unidos para la Descolonización de Puerto Rico

Publicado por José M. López Sierra

 

El día después de que muere Nelson Mandela, estos 3 presidentes estadounidenses dicen esto.

Presidente Obama: “Yo fui uno de los muchos que me nutrí de la vida de Mandela y su dignidad feroz.  Mandela logró más que lo que a ningún hombre se le puede exigir.  Mandela transformó a África del Sur, y nos movió a todos”

Presidente George W. Bush: “Mandela fue una de las grandes fuerzas de libertad e igualdad de nuestros tiempos, que toleró sus penas con dignidad y elegancia y el mundo es mejor por eso.”

Presidente Carter: La pasión de Mandela por la libertad y la justicia creó nuevas esperanzas para la gente oprimidas en todo el mundo.”

No hay duda sobre la grandeza de Nelson Mandela, pero muchos han decidido no reconocerle los mismos méritos que tiene nuestro prisionero político puertorriqueño Oscar López Rivera que pelea por lo mismo que peleó Mandela.   

Oscar ha estado en la cárcel estadounidense por 32 años por pelear por la descolonización de Puerto Rico.  Oscar ya tiene 5 años más tiempo en la cárcel que los 27 años que estuvo Mandela.  Bajo la ley internacional, es el gobierno de Estados Unidos (EEUU) que comete el crimen por mantener a Puerto Rico como  su colonia por 115 años, y es Oscar que tiene el derecho de usar todos los medios necesarios para descolonizar a su país.  La Organización de Naciones Unidas (ONU) le ha pedido a Estados Unidos que descolonice inmediatamente a Puerto Rico en 32 resoluciones.  ¡Estados Unidos las ha ignorado todas! Sin embargo, Estados Unidos le gusta criticar rápidamente a los otros países, como África de Sur, por su falta de igualdad y abusos de los derechos humanos.  La representante al Congreso de EEUU por Nueva York Nydia Velázquez dijo recientemente que “Estados Unidos no puede exigir al mundo la paz cuando ella misma no lo practica.”  

Todo el que cree en lo que dijo el Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. “La injusticia dónde sea es una amenaza a la justicia dónde quiera”  debe unirse con nosotros para protestar pacíficamente 2 veces al año hasta descolonizar a Puerto Rico.  La primera será en el Día de la Abolición de la Esclavitud al frente del Tribunal de Estado Unidos en Puerto Rico el 22 de marzo de 2014.  La segunda protesta será el 16 de junio de 2014 en las Naciones Unidas en Nueva York en el mismo día de su vista anual sobre la descolonización de Puerto Rico. Estas protestas son absolutamente necesarias porque, como ha vista por lo que estos 3 presidente han dicho, ellos rehúsan reconocer que su país no practica lo que predica.  ¡Por lo tanto, debemos todos estar totalmente convencidos que, aquellos que practican o aceptan el coloniaje no creen en la justicia para todos!

The day after Nelson Mandala’s death, 3 United States (US) presidents said this.

President Obama:  “I was one of the millions of countless people who drew from Mandela’s life and his fierce dignity.  Mandela achieved more than could be expected of any man.  Mandela transformed South Africa and moved all of us.”

President George W. Bush:  “Mandela was one of the great forces for freedom and equality of our times, who bore his burdens with dignity and grace, and our world is better off because of it.”

President Carter:  “Mandela’s passion for freedom and justice created new hope for generations of oppressed people worldwide.”

There is no question about the greatness of Nelson Mandela, but many choose to ignore those very same merits of Oscar López Rivera who fights for the same ideals of equality and human rights that Mandela fought for.

Oscar López Rivera has been imprisoned for 32 years by the government of the United States for fighting for the decolonization of Puerto Rico.  This is already 5 years more than the time Nelson Mandela spent in prison.  Under international law, it is the government of the United States that commits the crime for having Puerto Rico as its colony for 115 years, and it is Oscar who has the right to decolonize his country using whatever means necessary!  The United Nations has asked the United States to immediately decolonize Puerto Rico in 32 resolutions.  The US has ignored them all!  But, the US is quick to criticize other nations, like South Africa, for their lack of equality and human rights abuses.  US Representative to Congress of New York NydiaVelázquez  said recently, “The United States has no right to demand peace in the world, when she herself does not practice it.” 

Everyone who believes what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” should join us in 2 peaceful protests a year until Puerto Rico is decolonized.  The first protest will be on the Abolition of Slavery Day in front of the United States Court in Puerto Rico on March 22, 2014.  The second protest will be on June 16, 2014 outside the United Nations (UN) in New York City on the same day that the UN holds its annual hearing about Puerto Rico decolonization.  These peaceful protests are absolutely necessary because, as you can see from the expressions made by these three US presidents, they don’t want to accept that the United States government does not practice what it preaches.  It should be abundantly clear to everyone that those who practice or accept colonialism don’t believe in justice for all!

France ordered to reopen Moruroa nuclear compensation case

A 1971 photo of a nuclear bomb detonated by the French government
at the Mururoa atoll, French Polynesia. (AP Photo)

RADIO AUSTRALIA

A court in French Polynesia has directed France to re-open a compensation case involving for a woman with cancer, which she claims is linked to French nuclear tests.

The French Compensation Commission rejected the claim, arguing the risk posed by tests on Moruroa Atoll was negligible.

But the Polynesian court says the Commission failed to research the woman's circumstances, and now it's set a six month deadline for it to complete a re-examination.

Ronald Oldham, president of the Nuclear Test Veterans Association, Moruroa e tatou says it is not unusual for compensation cases rejected by Ministry of Defence to be re-opened and the delays mean many victims pass away during the court process and never see compensation.

Presenter: Richard Ewart

Speaker: Ronald Oldham, president, Nuclear Test Veterans Association, Moruroa e tatou

OLDHAM: There's a lot of cases like that, not only the court in Polynesia, but also even around France. A lot of the compensation case has been rejected by the Ministry of Defence, a lot victims went to court and the judgement of the court say that the decision of the Ministry of Defence is not a good one. They should not reject this compensation. But the problem is which mean we have to go back to zero, start again, and Committee to examine and compensation will get hold of the file again and it's going to take another years, another two years, because this particular case already been three years and have been rejected and went to court, so the decision of the court give us we want this court case, which mean we have to go back to zero, start all over again, which is not a good thing for the victim.

It seems to us it's very clear that this system that's been put in place by the French government is to delay and delay and delay as much as possible and we go round and round for the past ten years, we go from court to court and the compensation is still not a reality for the victim, which is very critical for us, because a lot of the victims are dead by now and a lot of them are sick and the more they're dying, the less cases left for the victim or for the family to go for compensation and also there's a lot of discouragement for the victim themself, so it's very hard for us.

EWART: Can I ask Ronald, I mean does precedence play a part at all in any of these compensation cases or is each compensation case treated as if there'd never been any others?

OLDHAM: There has been a couple where we have won the cases we find finally, only four for the Polynesian people and which is very low, because we had 30 years of nuclear testing and thousand and thousand of people had been working on the site,and the workers as I said before, a lot of them are dying and the fall out have been over 300 fallout, all over Polynesia and all the island had been touched by the fallout, even Tahiti. There has been over 30 on Tahiti himself. And so which is for us the result this low compensation is just not good at all. It just the French government just dragging on, dragging on, make it longer and I must say a lot of the victim have abandoned, because they don't believe in this court, in this justice.

EWART: But Ronald, can I ask, from a legal stand point, you say that there have been some cases which have been successful. Surely the evidence presented in those successful cases must play a part in the cases that come after that, which is the reason why I was I asking about precedence. I mean if a court has ruled that some people were affected by nuclear fallout, logically you would think that as other cases came on, that go in their favour, but seemingly not?

OLDHAM: No, it's not like that, because they examine every case, case by case, individually, and it takes years for one cases. No, it's not normally as you say, logically if one or two or three person have had a cancer and be recognised by the court, by the Committee of compensation as good. It should be good for everybody, for a lot of people that those are in a similar situation, but it's not like that. They make it that every case, you have to fill up your file, every cases have to be examined and then one Committee at the end decided yes or no. I must tell you that on almost 800 files, that went through this Committee for decision, only eleven have had positive decision. I'm talking about the whole of France, all the French military, and the workers. Only eleven on 800 and that's four years it's been going on for this Committee and that's very slow, just too slow as I was saying before.

EWART: So, are we reaching the point now where those that are still left to go through the courts, may just decide to give up and it's just not worth the effort anymore?

OLDHAM: A lot of them, no, of our people thinking like that and we're still battling on the political level, which mean in the Senate in France, to have this law changed, but it seems to me that when it comes to nuclear compensation and the Socialist Party or the Right Party have the same attitude. There's an attitude of to me for denying, denying our right, the right of the victims, and the whole thing is very hypocritical. I mean the all the head of government all rush to South Africa to honour the death of Mandela, and all this sort of thing, while in they're own country, they don't recognise the right, the minimum right to their own victim. We've been battling for years and years and we still at the stage where it is very negative as far as the result are concerned.

We really asking ourself what do we have to do to get proper justice.

.