U.N. General Assemby reaffirms the inalienable right of the people of French Polynesia to self-determination and independence

United Nations General Assembly Resolution

Question of French Polynesia

The General Assembly,

Having considered the question of French Polynesia,

Having examined the chapter of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples for 2014 relating to French Polynesia, /1

Reaffirming the right of peoples to self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with all relevant resolutions, including General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 and 1541 (XV) of 15 December 1960,

Recalling its resolution 67/265 of 17 May 2013, entitled “Self -determination of French Polynesia”, in which it affirmed the inalienable right of the people of French Polynesia to self-determination and independence in accordance with Chapter XI of the Charter and its resolution 1514 (XV), recognized that French Polynesia remains a Non-Self-Governing Territory within the meaning of the Charter, and declared that an obligation exists under Article 73 e of the Charter on the part of the Government of France, as the administering Power of the Territory, to transmit information on French Polynesia,

Taking note of the section related to French Polynesia of the Final Document of the Seventeenth Ministerial Conference of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries held in Algiers from 26 to 29 May 2014,

Expressing concern that 54 years after the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, 2/ there still remain a number of Non-Self-Governing Territories,

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

Recognizing also that the specific characteristics and the aspirations of the peoples of the Territories require flexible, practical and innovative approaches to the options for self-determination, on a case-by-case basis,

Conscious of the responsibility of the administering Power to ensure the full and speedy implementation of the Declaration in respect of French Polynesia,

Mindful that, in order for the Special Committee to enhance its understanding of the political status of the peoples of the Territories and to fulfil its mandate effectively, on a case-by-case basis, it is important for it to be apprised by the administering Powers and to receive information from other appropriate sources, including the representatives of the Territories, concerning the wishes and aspirations of the people of the Territories,

Recognizing the significant health and environmental impacts of nuclear testing conducted by the administering Power in the Territory over a 30-year period, and recognizing also the concerns in the Territory related to the consequences of those activities for the lives and health of the people, especially children and vulnerable groups, as well as the environment of the region, and bearing in mind General Assembly resolution 68/73 of 11 December 2013, entitled “Effects of atomic radiation”,

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

1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the people of French Polynesia to self - determination, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples;

2. Also reaffirms that it is ultimately for the people of French Polynesia to determine freely their future political status in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter, the Declaration and the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, and in that connection calls upon the administering Power, in cooperation with the territorial Government and appropriate bodies of the United Nations system, to develop political education programmes for the Territory in order to foster an awareness among the people of French Polynesia of their right to self - determination in conformity with the legitimate political status options, based on the principles clearly defined in Assembly resolution 1541 (XV) and other relevant resolutions and decisions;

3. Calls upon the administering Power to participate in and cooperate fully with the work of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in order to implement the provisions of Article 73 e of the Charter and the Declaration and in order to advise the Special Committee on the implementation of the provisions under Article 73 b of the Charter on efforts to promote self-government in French Polynesia, and encourages the administering Power to facilitate visiting and special missions to the Territory;

4. Regrets that the administering Power has not responded to the request to submit information on French Polynesia under article 73 e of the Charter;

5. Reaffirms that an obligation exists on the part of the administering Power to transmit information under Chapter XI of the Charter, and requests the administering Power to transmit to the Secretary-General such information on French Polynesia as called for under the Charter;

6. Calls upon the administering Power to intensify its dialogue with French Polynesia in order to facilitate rapid progress towards a fair and effective self - determination process, under which the terms and timelines for an act of self -determination would be agreed;

OAS Secretary-General Praises Latin American Parliament

PARLATINO has adopted resolutions in support of the self-determination aspirations of several of the numerous non-independent countries of the Western Hemisphere. Will the OAS place the item of  "Non-Autonomous Areas of the Western Hemisphere" back on its substantive agenda from which it was removed in the early 1990s? Or is it only the  Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) which has the courage to address the contemporary colonialism in the region?  (OTR) 

Reference: E-535/14 December 6, 2014 OAS Secretary General Said the Fiftieth Anniversary of Parlatino Is "A Sign of the Strength of Democracy in Latin America"  The Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), José Miguel Insulza, today participated in Panama City in a commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Latin American Parliament (Parlatino), an event which, he said, is a good sign of how democracy is working in the region. "The half-century of existence of the Latin American Parliament is a sign of the strength of Latin American democracy and, therefore, a cause for celebration we should all join," said Secretary General Insulza. He added that, "as a democrat and Latin American" he has seen democracies built and destroyed throughout his life, "so I've learned to appreciate the importance of political and ideological pluralism, dialogue, tolerance and civic friendship." In his speech, the leader of the OAS noted the coincidence of the ideals of Parlatino and those of the hemispheric institution. "In my capacity as Secretary General of the OAS, I cannot help but appreciate and share the values of Latin American integration, non-intervention, self-determination of peoples, the legal equality of states, the condemnation of the threat and use of force against the political independence and territorial integrity of States; the peaceful, just and negotiated settlement of international disputes and the prevalence of international law. They are all also rules that the Latin American Parliament defined as its permanent and unalterable principles," he added. Secretary General Insulza said that these principles promoted during the past five decades are those being celebrated today, and he congratulated the Parlatino "and, through it, all national parliaments of our Latin American states." "Parliament is the place where people speak, argue and reach agreements representing social consensus at every moment in the history of our nations," he added. At another point in his speech, Secretary General Insulza recalled that it had been more than a quarter century since the fall of the last dictatorships in South America, and more than 20 years since peace was achieved in Central America. "All governments participating in the OAS have been elected by the vote of their fellow citizens. Democracy is founded above all on this fact, the cornerstone of the system, because the legitimacy of the political process originates from democratic, clean, competitive and inclusive elections," he said. He also said that "democracy also includes compliance with certain conditions, values and rights such as human rights and freedom of expression, respect for the rule of law, political pluralism and balance of powers, respect for fundamental freedoms, non-discrimination and the promotion of human development and social inclusion, defined as the end of the democratic process and as a means to consolidate stability." The OAS leader said that unlike in the past, democracy in Latin America is no longer defined as an aspiration of the peoples of the Americas, but is now recognized as "a right, and promoting and defending it is an obligation of their governments,” according to the first article of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Referring to the major challenges of democracy in the region today, Insulza considered poverty and extreme poverty as "excessive in our region." He said that "inequality and discrimination frustrate many millions who, having already escaped poverty, remain in an alarming situation of vulnerability and lack of opportunity. These conditions of social exclusion are also forms of discrimination against women or minorities, which are particularly affected," and he also indicated that indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants suffer greater deprivation than the average population, as do an excessive number of female-headed single parent households, the disabled and the elderly. Violence and crime were also identified by Secretary General Insulza as elements that threaten democratic life. He warned that "these problems are not solved by the market, as much as the maintenance of adequate levels of economic growth is needed to address them. They require decisive action by governments, and state policies suited to their seriousness." Therefore, he added, "strengthening the rule of law is not only necessary to maintain governability, but to adopt public policies and create public services that improve the condition of the people of Latin America who believe in democracy, but expect their governments to make progress in addressing these weaknesses and threats." The OAS Secretary General said that the lack of accountability on the part of rulers is another of the challenges facing democratic governments in the region. "What is behind this concept is the idea that the exercise of power in democracy has limits; It can never be exercised absolutely, because, if so, personal leadership, even if it has the affirmative vote of a majority, finally replaces the popular will," he said. "The history of our region is, unfortunately, full of examples of rulers who, having come to power through elections, end up perpetuating their rule," added Secretary General Insulza.

U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS DECOLONIZATION RESOLUTIONS

United Nations Press Release

5 DECEMBER 2014

GA/11597

GEneral Assembly Adopts 28 Texts across Sweeping Political, Decolonization Agenda, with Several Requiring Recorded Votes

Sixty-ninth session,

64th Meeting (AM)

• GENERAL ASSEMBLY

MEETINGS COVERAGE

The General Assembly, acting on the recommendation of the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization), today adopted 25 resolutions — 14 requiring recorded votes — and four decisions on an array of subjects spanning information, decolonization, the Middle East, special political missions, atomic radiation, and outer space.

By the terms of a wide-ranging text on information, adopted without a vote, the Assembly underlined the responsibility of the Secretariat in mainstreaming multilingualism into all its communication and information activities, within existing resources and on an equitable basis. It also emphasized the importance of making use of all the official languages of the United Nations, ensuring their full and equitable treatment in all the activities of all divisions and offices of the Department of Public Information with the aim of eliminating disparity between the use of English and the use of the five other official languages.

The Assembly also approved a resolution on information in the service of humanity, and a related draft decision on increasing membership of the Committee on Information, both without a vote.

Nine resolutions on the Middle East required recorded votes. Among them was a text on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. By a vote of 158 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 11 abstentions, the Assembly condemned all acts of violence, including the excessive use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians, particularly in the Gaza Strip, which had caused extensive loss of life and vast numbers of injuries, including among thousands of children and women, massive damage and destruction to homes, economic, industrial and agricultural properties, and vital infrastructure — including water, sanitation and electricity.

According to a related text, adopted by a recorded vote of 159 in favour to 7 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 12 abstentions, the Assembly reaffirmed that the Israeli settlements were illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development, and reiterated its demand for the immediate and complete cessation of all such activities there, stressing that that was essential for salvaging the two-State solution on the basis of the pre-1967 borders.

Also requiring recorded votes were texts on the work of the Special Committee; the applicability of the Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories; Israeli settlements; and the occupied Syrian Golan.

Four resolutions on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) also required recorded votes, including the text on the Agency’s operations. By that resolution, adopted by a recorded vote of 166 in favour to 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States), with 6 abstentions (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Madagascar, Paraguay, South Sudan, Vanuatu.), the Assembly called for a full and transparent investigation into all of the incidents affecting the Agency’s facilities during the conflict in the Gaza Strip in July and August, with a view to ensuring accountability for all international law violations. It urged the Government of Israel to expeditiously reimburse the Agency for all transit charges incurred and other financial losses sustained as a result of delays and restrictions on movement and access.

Related resolutions also requiring recorded votes were on assistance to Palestine refugees; persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities; and Palestine refugees’ properties and revenues.

Of the 12 draft texts on decolonization, five took recorded votes, including one on information from Non-Self-Governing Territories, adopted by 174 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States). By its terms, the Assembly requested the administering Powers concerned to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General information on economic, social and educational conditions, as well as political and constitutional developments in the Territories.

By a recorded vote of 175 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions (France, United Kingdom), the Assembly adopted a resolution on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, by which it urged the administering Powers concerned to take effective measures to safeguard and guarantee the inalienable right of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to their natural resources and to establish and maintain control over the future development of those resources.

A text on dissemination of information on decolonization was adopted by a recorded vote of 173 in favour to 3 against (Israel, United Kingdom, United States), with 1 abstention (France).

The resolution on economic and other activities affecting the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories was adopted by a recorded vote of 175 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions (France, United Kingdom).

The draft resolution on the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations was adopted by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to none against, with 53 abstentions. 

A related text on the (Implementation of the Decolonization Declarartion) was adopted by a recorded vote of 173 in favour to 3 against (Israel, United Kingdom, United States), with 1 abstention (France).

The Assembly continued its tradition of consensus on the omnibus resolution on questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands. 

It also acted without a vote on the passage of draft resolutions on French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Tokelau, Western Sahara and a decision on Gibraltar. 

 A text on study and training facilities for inhabitants of Non-Self-Governing Territories was also adopted without a vote.

*****

Consideration of Fourth Committee Reports

GABRIEL ORELLANA ZABALZA (Guatemala), Rapporteur of the Fourth Committee, introduced the reports and the draft texts contained therein in one intervention.

The General Assembly first took up the draft resolution on Effects of atomic radiation (document A/C.4/69/L.6) contained in the report by the same name (A/69/451), adopting it without a vote.

By the text, the Assembly took note of the report of United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) on its sixty-first session, and requested it to continue its work and report thereon during the seventieth session. It endorsed the Committee’s plans for a review, including its next Global Survey of Medical Radiation Usage and Exposure, and asked it to submit those plans at its seventieth session. States were encouraged to make voluntary contributions to the general trust fund, as well as in-kind contributions to support the Scientific Committee.

Also without a vote, the Assembly adopted a resolution on international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space (A/C.4/69/L.2/Rev.1), contained in document A/69/452. In doing so, the Assembly endorsed the report of the Outer Space Committee on the work of its fifty-seventh session and requested it to continue to consider, as a matter of priority, ways and means of maintaining use of outer space for peaceful purposes. The Assembly urged States that had not yet become parties to the international treaties governing the uses of outer space to consider ratifying or acceding to them, as well as incorporating them into their national legislation.

In a related provision, the Assembly urged all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the goal of preventing an arms race in outer space, as an essential condition for the promotion of international cooperation in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes.

The Assembly next considered document A/69/453, which contained four resolutions. Draft I, on Assistance to Palestine refugees (L.9) was adopted by a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 1 against (Israel), with 10 abstentions (Cameroon, Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Palau, Paraguay, South Sudan, United States, Vanuatu). By its provisions, the Assembly affirmed the need for the continuation of the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the importance of its unimpeded provision of services for the well-being, protection and human development of the refugees, and for the stability of the region, pending the just resolution of the question of the Palestine refugees. It also called on donors to strengthen their efforts to meet the Agency’s anticipated needs.

Thereafter, the Assembly adopted Draft II, on Persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities (L.10) by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to 7 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 6 abstentions (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Madagascar, Paraguay, South Sudan, Vanuatu). By its terms, the Assembly endorsed the efforts of the UNRWA Commissioner General to provide humanitarian assistance to persons displaced and in serious need of continued help as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities. It strongly appealed for generous contributions to the Agency and to other intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations concerned.

Next, by a recorded vote of 166 in favour to 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States), with 6 abstentions (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Madagascar, Paraguay, South Sudan, Vanuatu), the Assembly adopted Draft III on the operations of UNRWA (L.14), which called on Israel, the occupying Power, to comply fully with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949; and to abide by Articles 100, 104 and 105 of the United Nations Charter as well as the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations in order to ensure, at all times, the safety of Agency personnel, the protection of its institutions and facilities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.

The Assembly also called for a full and transparent investigation into all of the incidents affecting the Agency’s facilities during the conflict in the Gaza Strip in July and August 2014, with a view to ensuring accountability for all international law violations. It urged the Government of Israel to expeditiously reimburse the Agency for all transit charges incurred and other financial losses sustained as a result of delays and restrictions on movement and access. It also called on Israel to, among others, cease obstructing the movement and access of Agency staff, vehicles and supplies and to cease the levying of taxes, extra fees and charges, which impeded the Agency’s operations.

Draft IV on Palestine refugees’ properties and their revenues (A/C.4/69/L.12) was adopted by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to 7 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 6 abstentions (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Madagascar, Paraguay, South Sudan, Vanuatu). By that text, the Assembly urged the Palestinian and Israeli sides, as agreed between them, to deal with the important issue of Palestine refugees’ properties and their revenues within the framework of the final status peace negotiations.

The Assembly then turned to the five resolutions contained in its report, A/69/454. It first considered Draft I (L.13) on the Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, which it adopted by a recorded vote of 88 in favour to 9 against (Australia, Federated States of Micronesia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States), with 79 abstentions. By that resolution, the Assembly deplored Israeli policies and practices that violated the human rights of the Palestinian people and other Arabs of the occupied territories. It requested the Special Committee to continue to investigate those violations, especially those of the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, and to consult, as appropriate, with the International Committee of the Red Cross in order to ensure that the welfare and human rights of the peoples of the occupied territories were safeguarded, as well as to report to the Secretary-General as soon as possible and whenever the need arose.

Next, the Assembly took up Draft II on the Applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories (L.14), adopting it by a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 7 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 9 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Côte D’Ivoire, Madagascar, Paraguay, Rwanda, South Sudan, Togo, Vanuatu).

Through that text, the Assembly demanded that Israel accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, and that it comply scrupulously with the Convention’s provisions. It called on all High Contracting Parties to the Convention, in accordance with article 1, common to the four Geneva Conventions and as mentioned in the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004, to exert all efforts to ensure respect for its provisions by Israel.

Moving forward, the Assembly took up Draft III on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan (L.15), adopting it by a recorded vote of 159 in favour to 7 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 12 abstentions. Through that resolution, the Assembly, reaffirming that the Israeli settlements were illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development, reiterated its demand for the immediate and complete cessation of all such activities there, stressing that a complete cessation of settlement activities was essential for salvaging the two-State solution on the basis of the pre-1967 borders.

The Assembly then adopted Draft IV regarding Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (L.16) by a recorded vote of 158 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 11 abstentions. By that text, the Assembly condemned all acts of violence, including the excessive use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians, particularly in the Gaza Strip, which had caused extensive loss of life and vast numbers of injuries, including among thousands of children and women, massive damage and destruction to homes, economic, industrial and agricultural properties, vital infrastructure — including water, sanitation and electricity. It demanded that Israel cease all activities and measures aimed at altering the character, status and demographic composition of the occupied territories, including in and around East Jerusalem, which gravely and detrimentally affected the Palestinian people’s human rights.

Draft V on the Occupied Syrian Golan (L.17), adopted by a recorded vote of 162 in favour to 1 against (Israel), with 15 abstentions, had the Assembly call on Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions on the occupied Syrian Golan, in particular, Security Council resolution 497 (1981), in which the Council decided that Israel’s imposition of its laws, jurisdiction and administration were null and void and without international legal effect. It also called on Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan.

Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of Iran said he had voted in favour of all draft resolutions under agenda 51, to show its solidarity with the Palestinian people. His country continued to emphasise the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people who had suffered from the occupation for over six decades. He believed that resolving the question of Palestine and establishing lasting peace would only be possible by putting an end to the occupation, allowing Palestinian refugees to come back to their homeland.

The representative of Spain, on a point of order regarding his vote on the Assistance to Palestinians, said the delegation had voted in favour of the resolution and asked the Secretariat to record that correction.

The Assembly then decided to take note of the Committee’s report on the comprehensive review of the whole question of peacekeeping operations in all their aspects (A/69/455).

Next, it adopted, without a vote, a resolution on a comprehensive review of special political missions (L.19) contained in document A/69/456. By that text, the Assembly asked the Secretary-General to submit a report on the overall policy matters pertaining to special political missions, including efforts towards improving transparency, accountability, geographical representation, gender participation, and expertise and effectiveness. It also requested the Secretary-General to hold regular, inclusive and interactive dialogues on policy pertaining to the missions and encouraged the Secretariat to reach out to Member States to ensure wider and meaningful participation in the discussions.

The Assembly then turned to report A/69/457, which contained two draft resolutions. Draft A, on information in the service of humanity, was adopted without a vote. By its terms, the Assembly, recognizing the call for “a new world information and communication order”, urged all countries and organizations of the United Nations system to enhance regional efforts and cooperation among developing countries, as well as cooperation between developed and developing countries, to strengthen communications capacities and to improve the media infrastructure and communications technology in developing countries.

The Assembly then adopted Draft B, on United Nations public information policies and activities, also without a vote. By its terms, the Assembly underlined the responsibility of the Secretariat in mainstreaming multilingualism into all its communication and information activities, within existing resources and on an equitable basis. It also emphasized the importance of making use of all official languages of the United Nations, ensuring their full and equitable treatment in all the activities of all divisions and offices of the Department of Public Information, with the aim of eliminating the disparity between the use of English and the use of the five other official languages.

Also according to the text, the Assembly requested the Department to contribute to raising the awareness of the international community on the importance of the implementation of the World Summit on the Information Society outcome documents; also, of the possibilities that Internet use and other information and communications technologies could bring to societies and economies, as well as of ways to bridge the digital divide, including by commemorating World Telecommunication and Information Society Day on 17 May.

The Assembly recognized that the network of United Nations Information Centres, especially in developing countries, should continue to enhance its impact and activities, including through strategic communications support. The Assembly also called upon the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of that approach to the Committee on Information at its successive sessions.

Further to the text, the Assembly asked the Department of Public Information to raise awareness of and disseminate information on the seventieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations and the end of the Second World War, and to ensure that multilingualism was mainstreamed into those activities, in a cost-neutral manner. The Assembly also requested the Department and those of Peacekeeping Operations and Field Support to continue their cooperation in raising awareness of the new realities, far-reaching successes and challenges faced by peacekeeping operations, especially multidimensional and complex ones, and the recent surge in United Nations peacekeeping activities.

Additionally, the Assembly asked the Department to continue to provide the support necessary for the dissemination of information pertaining to dialogue among civilizations and the culture of peace, as well as the initiative on the Alliance of Civilizations, while ensuring the pertinence and relevance of subjects for promotional campaigns on that issue. The Assembly asked it as well to take due steps in fostering the culture of dialogue among civilizations, promoting a world against violence and violent extremism.

In a related provision, the Assembly stressed that the central objective of the news services implemented by the Department was the timely delivery of accurate, objective and balanced news and information emanating from the United Nations system in all four media — print, radio, television and the Internet — to the media and other audiences worldwide, with overall emphasis on multilingualism from the planning stage, and reiterated its request to the Department to ensure that all breaking news stories and news alerts be accurate, impartial and free of bias.

The Assembly also adopted without a vote draft decision A/69/21 on increase in the membership of the Committee on Information, by which it appointed Iraq as a member, thereby increasing the membership from 114 to 115.

It next considered a draft resolution on information from Non-Self-Governing Territories, transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations contained in a report of the same name (document A/69/458), adopting it by a recorded vote of 174 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States). Among the terms of that draft, the Assembly requested the administering Powers concerned to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General information on economic, social and educational conditions, as well as political and constitutional developments in the Territories.

The Assembly then took up a draft resolution on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories contained in document A/69/459, adopting it by a recorded vote of 175 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions (France, United Kingdom). By that text, the Assembly urged the administering Powers concerned to take effective measures to safeguard and guarantee the inalienable right of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to their natural resources and to establish and maintain control over the future development of those resources.

By a recorded vote of 125 in favour to none against, with 53 abstentions, the Assembly adopted a draft resolution on the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nationscontained in report A/69/460. Under that text, the Assembly urged those and other organizations of the United Nations system that have not yet provided assistance to Non-Self-Governing Territories to do so as soon as possible.

Acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted resolution (L.3) on offers by Member States of study and training facilities for inhabitants of Non-Self-Governing Territories (A/C.4/68/L.4) contained in report A/69/461. By that text, the Assembly urged the administering Powers to take effective measures to ensure widespread and continuous dissemination in the Territories of information relating to offers of study and training facilities made by States, and to provide all necessary facilities to enable students to avail themselves of such offers.

The Assembly next turned to the seven resolutions contained in document A/69/462, the first five of which did not require recorded votes. By Draft Resolution I on the question of Western Sahara (L.4), the Assembly welcomed the commitment of the parties to continue to show political will and work in an atmosphere propitious for dialogue, in order to enter into a more intensive phase of negotiations. It called on the parties to cooperate with the International Committee of the Red Cross and to abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law.

Draft Resolution II on the question of New Caledonia (A/69/23, chapter XIII) had the Assembly urge all parties involved, in the interest of all the people of New Caledonia and within the framework of the Noumea Accord, to maintain their dialogue in the spirit of harmony.

Through Draft Resolution III on the question of French Polynesia (A/69/23, chapter XIII), the Assembly called upon the Government of France to intensify its dialogue with that Territory in order to facilitate rapid progress towards a fair and effective self-determination process, under which the terms and timelines would be agreed. The Assembly requested the Secretary-General, in cooperation with relevant specialized agencies of the United Nations, to compile a report on the environmental, ecological, health and other impacts as a consequence of the 30-year period of nuclear testing in the Territory.

Draft Resolution IV on the question of Tokelau (A/69/23, chapter XIII) had the Assembly welcome the commitment of both the Territory and New Zealand to work together in the interests of Tokelau and its people and call on the administering Power and United Nations agencies to provide assistance to Tokelau as it further developed.

By the terms of omnibus Draft Resolution V on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands (A/69/23, chap. XIII), the Assembly reaffirmed that it was ultimately for the peoples of the Territories themselves to determine freely their future political status. The Assembly also urged Member States to contribute to the efforts of the United Nations to usher in a world free of colonialism.

Draft Resolution VI, on the dissemination of information on decolonization (A/69/23, chapter XIII), was adopted by a recorded vote of 173 in favour to 3 against (Israel, United Kingdom, United States), with 1 abstention (France). By its terms, the Assembly considered it important to expand its efforts to ensure the widest possible dissemination of information on decolonization, with particular emphasis on the options for self-determination available for the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories. To that end, it asked the Department of Public Information, through the United Nations Information Centres, to actively seek new and innovative ways to disseminate material to the Territories.

Draft Resolution VII on the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (A/69/23, chapter XIII) was adopted by recorded vote of 173 in favour to 3 against (Israel, United Kingdom, United States), with 1 abstention (France). By that resolution, the Assembly affirmed its support for the aspirations of the peoples under colonial rule to exercise their right to self-determination, including independence. The Assembly requested the Special Committee to, among other things, formulate specific proposals to bring about an end to colonialism and to report thereon to it at its next session.

Acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft decision L.5 on the question of Gibraltar, by which it urged the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom — while listening to the interests and aspirations of Gibraltar that are legitimate under international law — to reach, in the spirit of the Brussels Declaration of 27 November 1984, a definitive solution to the question of Gibraltar, in the light of the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and applicable principles, and in the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations. The Assembly took note of the desire of the United Kingdom to continue with the trilateral Forum of Dialogue on Gibraltar. It also took note of the position of Spain that the Forum did not exist any longer, and should be replaced with a new mechanism for local cooperation, in the interest of the social well-being and regional economic development, in which the people of the Campo de Gibraltar and Gibraltar were represented.

The Assembly then adopted, also without a vote, draft decision L.7, on the rotation of the post of Rapporteur of the Fourth Committee for the seventieth to seventy-third sessions of the General Assembly, and draft decision L.8, on the proposed programme of work and timetable of the Committee for the seventieth session, both contained in report A/69/463.

The Assembly also took note of the report on programme planning (A/69/464).

The Decolonisation Papers: Constitutional Democratic Governance in 21st Century Anguilla: Illusion or Realizable Aspiration

(2011)

Occasional papers on the self-determination/decolonisation process Dame Bernice Lake  DGGN, Q.C. BA Hons, LLB (Lond) Hon.LLD UWI  Eminent jurist Dame Bernice Lake, QC passed away in 2011.  Before making her mark in constitutional law and human rights, Dame Bernice had a budding career in the diplomatic service for the West Indies Federation. After its collapse she pursued studies in law and began a distinguished career spanning more than 40 years. Dame Bernice was the first woman in the Eastern Caribbean and the first University of the West Indies graduate to be bestowed the distinguished title of Queens Counsel. In 1975, she was the chief architect of the Anguilla constitution. Dame Bernice was also part of the team that framed Antigua and Barbuda’s constitution in 1981.The Antigua and Barbuda government bestowed a knighthood on Dame Bernice in 2004 for her contribution to the legal field, her stance on women’s issues, civil and political rights, and personal integrity. Three years later she was awarded an Honourary Doctorate of Law Degree from her alma mater, The University of the West Indies. ***** 8th Annual Walter G. Hodge Memorial Lecture Throughout the region, which we know as the Eastern Caribbean States, there is a shared evolution from the classification of colonial territory to that of emergent democratic nation states. That process has been evolutionary rather than revolutionary, and, for that reason, our sense of nationalism is not as frenzied and fanatical as those nation states who have come through the cauldron and crucible of armed conflict with their colonial masters.  Starting with the “Closer Union Conferences” of the 1950’s, the United Kingdom played mid-wife to the birth of the new nation known as The Federation of the West Indies. In the context of the racial riots in Nottinghill, England, and the rising tide of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, it was the hope and expectation that this new nation would give to the world an example of a harmonious, racially mixed society in which peaceful co-existence of the races was to serve as an exemplary model.  As Professor Harlowe of Oxford, a devotee of the new Caribbean nationalism, expressed it, the West Indies was uniquely poised to bring racial leadership to the world, as the Caribbean in its culture and way of life was neither African nor European but uniquely Caribbean.  But when in 1960 Jamaica, by referendum opted out of the Federation, and Eric Williams of Trinidad made his famous pronouncement that “One from Ten leaves Nought,” the Federation quickly unravelled, as Guyana left, as did Barbados. Those laudable aspirations for the Caribbean role as a front-runner on the international scene came crashing down, as the Big Units went their merry way to Independence, and Britain and the “Little Eight” were left casting about for a peg upon which to hang the political and constitutional destiny of Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, St. Christopher Nevis, Anguilla, Montserrat, and the British Virgin Islands.  Each unit of the “Little Eight” was regarded as too small to be viable as an independent nation; they could not be cast together as an independent nation, as the “Federal Fatigue Syndrome” had set in, and there was a dearth of trust and confidence on all sides. And so Britain took down from the constitutional shelves the concept of Associated Statehood, which had originally been designed for Malta. It would afford an opportunity to practice the art of self-rule without being thrown to the wolves on the international scene in matters of defence and external affairs. The British Virgin Islands, with their historical association with Britain but strong economic ties with the USA and its currency, would carve out its own destiny, as did Montserrat.   by transanguilla.com And so it was that by 1966 the constitutional framework of States in Association with Britain became a lesser but acceptable alternative to the grand design of Caribbean Manhood and was structured show-casing the Associated States of Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Saint Christopher Nevis and Anguilla, with provision for Montserrat and the British Virgin Islands.  The vehicle for this new status was to be The West Indies Act 1967 together with The West Indies Associated States Supreme Court Order [of] 1967, which made provision for the common services of the judiciary for the “Little Eight”. Together, with the springboard of common judicial services, they were supposed to effect the ultimate realization of a federation of the “Little Eight” on a voluntary basis and not mid-wifed by Britain, as was the Federation of the West Indies. So was it sold!  The nearest we have come to the realization of that ideal is the Treaty of Basseterre, which, if ratified and domesticated by the unit legislatures would have set up for the OECS a Super Parliament and Government not unmatched by that of the European Union, which subjugated the sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament of the United Kingdom. Witness the ease with which the Treaty of Basseterre allowed us to “borrow the boots of the Reagan Administration” to quell the insurgency in Grenada after the murder of Maurice Bishop and his colleagues.  The Mouse Steps into the Lime-light and Roars  In the context of the Federation of the West Indies, Anguilla had emerged from the Colony of The Leeward Islands, which also comprised the Presidency of Saint Christopher Nevis as part of the unit now known as Saint Christopher-Nevis and Anguilla, which unit would constitute the Associated State of Saint Christopher Nevis and Anguilla on the eventful day.  It was proposed that Anguilla would have a measure of local government, but the details of the arrangement were not finessed to Anguilla’s ultimate satisfaction. The traditional constitutional talks were held at Lancaster House in 1965; but regrettably the details of the provisions for Anguilla were not fine-combed, as the talks were short-circuited to a day, as the cricketing delegates rushed off to be entertained by the England v West Indies Test match, which was being played at Headingly, Leeds. The delegates, including the one from Anguilla, returned home, and doubts about the acceptability of the constitutional arrangements soon surfaced.  There were rumblings in Nevis, trouble with English hotel proprietors, and in particular one Mrs. Pomeroy. The Anguilla delegate accompanied by Dr. Herbert, and led by an Englishman, one Gaskill, who operated a hotel out of Nevis, who found extreme disfavour from R. L. Bradshaw, and whose claim to fame was that he was a distant relative of the Queen, rushed back to London in the latter part of 1966 to seek redress from the impending constitutional arrangements but found that the door was closed; the stage was set to usher in the new constitutional status.  And so the 27th February 1967, the date upon which the new constitutional arrangements would take effect, was turning over upon the calendar, and as a prelude to their unfurling, celebrations were planned by the Central Government in St. Kitts for the month of February, to show-case the event.  Anguillians saw in those plans for the celebration not just the declaration of the new constitutional status, but they saw them as the calling of the banns of marriage in a unitary state in which Anguilla was to be unequally yoked with the Central Government in St. Kitts. If anyone objected to the marriage or knew of any just cause or impediment why the union should not take place, then they were to declare it, or forever hold their peace.  Anguillians did not hold their peace; they had objections to the marriage, and they raised their objections loudly and clearly. And so it was that on the 4th February 1967, three weeks before the marriage was scheduled to take place, and at the Queen Show Event at which the leading thespian from St. Kitts, Cromwell Bowry, was in attendance, the celebratory air was rent with shots. The dignitaries in attendance crawled for cover under desks, and people from the audience stumbled out into the night, their eyes streaming with tears from the tear gas, as they groped their way to a familiar route home. By the 27th February 1967, it was clear that Anguilla was not going to the marriage alter, and that the union would not be blessed.  The exploits and the will by which Anguilla was kept from being dragged to the alter in the ensuing days have been recounted many a time and often – 30th May eviction of the Central Government’s police officers, a date which Anguilla shares with Biafra and its attempted secession in Nigeria:* Bradshaw’s inability to storm the airport or Anguilla’s shores; the quiet alliance of Sint Maarten; the invasion of St. Kitts, and the 10th of June 1967.  Most of the former colonies in the region have cast aside doubts about the viability of small nation states, and incrementally, have moved through the processes and status of full internal self-government as States in Association with Britain, and on to the status of sovereign nation states functioning within well-defined territorial limits.  Anguilla, on the other hand, has moved from the status of Associated Statehood back to that of a colony under the provisions of the Anguilla Act [of] 1980.  For upwards of forty-one years, the issue of our constitutional arrangements has engaged us. So far as the current initiative is concerned, we have been agitated by the debate on constitutional reform since 2001, and the fact that we have not brought the initiative to a conclusion is indicative more of our earnest resolve to get the process right for our people, rather than an indifference to the process itself.  Throughout the British Overseas Dependent Territories, there is an ongoing initiative for constitutional ‘modernisation’ and ‘advancement’ which finds its recent and adventitious roots in the White Paper Partnership for Progress and Prosperity of 1998. But the tap-root of that initiative extends more deeply into the international recognition of the centrality of the individual in a wholesome society and the inalienable right to self-determination with which all peoples are naturally endowed.  In Anguilla, we welcome the focus on the concept of partnership as a constructive basis for the relationship between Anguilla and the United Kingdom.  The values of trust, mutual respect, recognition of our cultural mores, and commitment to the democratic ideals must inform the workings of the partnership if we are to move forward with a sense of harmony and attain the political, economic, social and educational advancement within the community of nations to which we aspire.  If ever there was a time for Anguilla to embark upon an essential process of clarification of her aspiration for constitutional self-fulfillment, that time is now. As Anguillians, we are in need of clarification of ourselves as human beings. We are in need of clarification of the form of governance most appropriate to us as a people at this stage of our development. We are in need of clarification of the form of governance under which we are presently administered. We are in need of clarification of the form of governance to which we, as human beings in a society culturally defined as Anguillian, are entitled to aspire.  We are in need of this clarification, because we are at the cross-roads of our constitutional journey, and we need to find our direction and set our compass accordingly.  Governance The World Bank defines “Governance” as:  The exercise of political authority and the use of institutional resources to manage society’s problems and affairs.  The Worldwide Governance Indicators Project of the World Bank further defines “Governance” as:  The traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. This considers the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced; the capacity of the government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies and the respect of citizens and the state of the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them. “Governance” is in essence the structure of institutions set in place in an arrangement agreed by the community for the regulation of society’s social stability, for the advancement of the individual human self-fulfillment, and for the realization of the people’s social and economic aspirations. It is the agreement of the people, which gives the structure of governance its validity.  From the time of our settlement in 1650 until the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights, we lived, worked and survived under the rigours and oppression of colonialism. Save for the brief flirtation with the Associated State of St. Kitts-Nevis and Anguilla in 1967, Anguilla has evolved into the status of a non-self-governing territory administered by the United Kingdom as a colonial power, albeit that Anguilla functions under the guise of a constitutional structure of governance, which is essentially colonial in nature and design.  And yet we are told that we live in a democratic structure of governance. As recently as the 30th May 2008, at the celebrations of the forty-first anniversary of the Revolution, the Governor spoke of Anguilla as a democratic society.  We need to test that claim by an examination of the principles of the ideal of democracy, and a critical appraisal of the elements and exercise of democratic governance.  The Democratic Way of Life  There was a time when democracy was defined as the societal institution of government under which a homogeneous people were governed by an electoral process which was open and fair. It was wrapped in the catch phrase, “Government of the people, by the people and for the people.”  Democracy is no longer seen in such simplistic terms, because experience has shown that, having gone through the process of the election of representatives to the seat of government, governments have gone on to administer the affairs of state as if democracy had given way to autocracy. It seeks to assure to an informed population on-going and meaningful participation in the affairs of the nation and in the decision–making process well beyond the casting of a vote on election day.  This is the age of universal declarations, and in keeping with the spirit of our times, the Universal Declaration on Democracy was declared and adopted in Cairo on the 16th September 1997. The principles emerging from that Declaration are:  • First, democracy is a universally recognized ideal as well as a goal, which is based on common values shared by peoples throughout the world community irrespective of cultural, political, social and economic differences. It is thus a basic right of citizenship to be exercised under conditions of freedom, equality, transparency and responsibility with due regard for the plurality of views, and in the interest of the polity.  • Second, as an ideal democracy aims essentially to preserve and promote the dignity and fundamental rights of the individual, to achieve social justice, foster the economic and social development of the community, strengthen the cohesion of society and enhance national tranquility, as well as to create a climate that is favourable for international peace. As a form of government, democracy is the best way of achieving these objectives; it is also the only political system that has the capacity for self-correction.  • Third, democracy is inseparable from the rights set forth in the international instruments. These rights must therefore be applied effectively and their proper exercise must be matched with individual and collective responsibilities.  • Fourth, democracy is founded on the primacy of the law and the exercise of human rights. In a democratic State, no one is above the law, and all are equal before the law.  Essential to the exercise of democratic governance are the elements of well-structured and functioning institutions, the development of a body of standards and rules which apply to all and by which all are bound. Democracy is based on the will of the society as a whole determined by the principle of majority rule. One of its corner stones is that the people must be fully conversant with rights and responsibilities.  From the standpoint of the individual as well as the collective social group, democracy is founded on the right of everyone to take part in the management of public affairs; it therefore requires the existence of representative institutions, whether at the grass-roots or state-wide level, and in particular, it requires a Parliament in which all components of society are represented and which has the requisite powers and means to express the will of the people by legislating and overseeing government action.  The existence of a state or political community is justified by the function of the state in ensuring the enjoyment of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights to its citizens. Democracy thus goes hand in hand with an effective, honest and transparent government, freely chosen and accountable for its management of public affairs.  Public accountability therefore looms large in the democratic form of governance. That public accountability applies to and is owed by all those who hold public authority, whether elected or non-elected and to all bodies of public authority without exception.  Accountability entails a public right of access to information about the activities of government, the right to petition government and to seek redress through impartial administrative and judicial mechanisms.  Democracy is a Basic Right of Citizenship  It is against those principles of democratic governance that the structure of the institutions of governance in non-self-governing or colonial territories such as Anguilla must be stacked in order to determine whether colonial governance can rise to the claim of being democratic in any shape or form.  Is there a full recognition and respect for the entitlement of the people of Overseas Territories to exercise democratic institutions in order to secure their full development and to foster the promotion of their fundamental human rights?  It is convenient to postpone that evaluation until we have considered the significance of constitutionalism in democratic governance.  The Purpose of a Constitution in a Democratic Society  Reference has already been made to the fact that democratic governance is based on the existence of well-structured and well-functioning institutions, as well as on a body of standards and rules. Its survival depends on the will of the people as a whole, fully conversant with rights and obligations.  The laws and legal frame-work must be established; they must be exercised; people must know by what legal provisions they are regulated and bound; they must know their rights and responsibilities.  Given this essential requirement, it can be readily appreciated that democratic governance functions naturally and best in a setting of constitutionalism.  Constitutionalism  How is Democracy secured to a people whose national life no longer revolves around the will of an individual sovereign?  It is secured by the establishment, veneration and adherence to a Supreme Constitutional instrument, which lays out the structure of Government, guarantees respect for human dignity, the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, and respect for the rule of law.  The doctrine of the separation of powers underpins the veneration of constitutional rule of law and ensures that only the Executive can frame policy, that only the Legislature can make and enact laws under which those policy decisions are approved for implementation; the Legislature controls our purse strings and determines the moral justification under which administrations can dip their hands into the change in our pockets in the exercise of the taxing power constitutionally reserved to our Parliaments. And the oversight powers and mechanisms which keep those two branches of government in line are vested in the Judiciary, the courts. The Purpose of a Constitution in a Democratic Society • A constitution is the expression of the core values of a homogenous people. In that regard, a constitution mirrors and reflects the aspirations of a people living together in a well-ordered society.~ A. V. Dicey  • A constitution is also the keeper of the social and cultural texture of a people, because in it is found the definition of the peoples’ ideals, and from that definition of ideals, the validity of laws is determined. ~ BVL  • A constitution is society’s anchor; it gives certainty to the laws of a country and therefore determines what lawful governance in society is. By that means adherence to the constitution keeps a society stable. ~ BVL  • The purpose of a constitution of a democratic society is to define with certainty the legal rules by which the democratic ideal of the fulfillment of the dignity and enjoyment of rights of the individual in a climate of social justice and economic well-being will be regulated.  A typical Constitution in the Western world assures to its citizens the right to good, responsible and accountable government and the free exercise of their fundamental rights, which can only be limited and trenched upon by state agencies to the extent that the reasonable overall well-being of our people may require.  George Kateb frames it in terms that:  “Constitutional democracy is a way of life, its distinctive features constituting its claim to moral superiority over other forms of Government; and the fundamental values on which it is grounded, and which it embodies, have in common a devotion to the idea that the individual is the moral centre of the society”.  We speak about accountability of our Governments, but Kateb aptly frames it in terms that “restriction or limitation on the power of Government is the soul of Constitutional Democracy”.  If there are no limitations or restrictions upon the exercise of government executive or legislative power, we could hardly claim to be living in a democracy.  So the whole purpose of constitutional democracy is to define with certainty the governance of a cohesive community in which the fulfillment of the individual is the centre-piece of community life.  A Constitution and its Essence  A Constitution is the supreme or fundamental law of a people. As such it is the embodiment of a people’s social, economic and humanistic aspirations. Its essence is a condensation of how a people expect to live, how a people will regulate their social behaviour, how individuals in the society will be able to develop to their fullest potential both in the individual’s self-interest, as well as in the interest of a whole, cohesive and wholesome society. In short, it is a regulation of how a people expect their society to be governed and how those entrusted with government will be allowed to execute that responsibility.  Illusion or Reality? In Anguilla we profess to live under a constitutional democracy in the context of dependency upon the administering power of the United Kingdom. The question which arises is: “How faithful are the provisions of this form of constitutional governance to the principles and ideals of constitutional democracy?”  It is true that provision is made in the Anguilla Constitution for a form of elected representation. But, does the colonial constitution really assure to us the continuing right to elected representative governance?  • Does it assure to us the security of our fundamental rights? • Does it secure to us the right to participate in and fashion the policies which affect us and the laws by which we are governed?  • Does it secure to us the unimpeachable right to constitutional governance?  • Does it assure to us rule by the will of the majority of the people? Are we in social control of our own destinies?  • Does the constitutional arrangement glow with all the ideals of democratic governance or is it merely an illusion?  We answer those questions best by analysing the nature of our representative system of governance, the executive and law-making power reserved to Her Majesty’s government, and the powers of the Governor, as detailed in our constitutional arrangements with the United Kingdom.  Limiting Powers Reserved Dehors the Constitution The Legislature  The Constitution provides for a limited form of representative government out of which the Legislature is constituted, and the Executive Council vicariously derived.  The law-making authority is really vested in the Governor with the House of Assembly functioning as an “advice and consent” institution. The over-arching limitation on the principle of legislation by the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives is under-scored by the constitutional provisions reserving to the Minister or Secretary of State in the United Kingdom, who has no elective connection with Anguilla, the pre-eminence of Royal Instructions. Section 48:  “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Governor and the Assembly shall in the transaction of business and the making of laws conform as nearly as may be to the directions contained in any Instructions under Her Majesty’s Sign Manual and Signet that may from time be addressed to the Governor in that behalf.”  Section 49 also preserves the pre-eminence of Royal Instructions in so far as the House of Assembly is permitted to amend and revoke rules of procedure for the regulation of its own proceedings.  Those Royal Instructions are really the instructions of the Secretary of State or Minister responsible for the territories without any adherence to over-sight by the United Kingdom parliament. As such, they reflect neither the will of the people of the United Kingdom nor the people of Anguilla. Consequently, they are a deviation and aberration from the democratic ideal.  Those limitations upon the will of the people as expressed in the Assembly are further compounded by the use of Orders-in-Council derived from the Royal Prerogative to frame and effect policy for the territories as a matter of primary legislation.  In our association or ‘partnership’ with Britain, we have had our wills over-borne, our cultural identity trampled upon, and we have been subjected to legislation by Orders-in-Council in such culturally sensitive areas as the death penalty and homosexuality.  Our elected representatives have accepted and the people have suffered this humiliation all under the mistaken belief that the only alternatives in constitutional arrangements available to us were independence or rule by Order-in-Council. The British rightly call it the “Nuclear Option”.  We have witnessed the experience of Orders-in-Council in the case of the Chargos Islands.  The crippling tentacles of Royal Instructions are best illustrated by the recent incident in the Cayman Islands, which has occasioned the formulation of the principle that the Governor is empowered to institute a commission of inquiry without the knowledge and consent of the Cabinet. In the course of discussion of the extension of this principle to the Turks and Caicos Islands between Mr. Leigh Turner, Director of Overseas Territories at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), and Paul Keetch, M.P, the disposition of the FCO was most enlightening.  Turner explained that “The Governor proposed to hold a commission of inquiry, but the Cabinet did not want it to go ahead, thinking that it was unnecessary in Cayman, and declined to fund it. Of course, the Cabinet has control of the purse strings. At that point, the Governor consulted the Foreign Office and said, “We think that it is very important to hold a commission of inquiry. Please will you give me instructions to overrule the Cabinet,” which is the way that it happens. “We consulted Ministers and agreed that it was important, so the Governor was issued with instructions to overrule the Cayman Islands Cabinet in order to allow a commission of inquiry to be set up.” Keetch then asked whether, if the Governor of the Turks and Caicos Islands wanted to commission an inquiry, and the local Cabinet refused to fund it, the British government would pay for it.  Turner responded, “We would not need to, because we could issue an instruction to overrule it.”  Is this a reflection of the democratic ideal at work?  **********