INDIGENOUS WORLD CRITIQUES FALTERING U.N. DECOLONISATION

United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

Fourteenth Session

New York, 20 April-1 May 2015

 Intervention of the Indigenous World Association

On The Failure of the United Nations  System 

to Decolonize the Non-Self Governing Territories

and Violations of the Right to Self-Determination 

Agenda Item 4

Submitted By:

Indigenous World Association

April 21st. 2015 

Supported By:

Na Koa Ikaika KaLahui Hawaii; Kai ‘Ula Poni’I Hawaiian Civic Club Texas; Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice; Mahonga Mataitai O Ngati Hine; We are Guahan, Guam; National Association of Social Workers, Guam Chapter; GALA, Inc.,Guam; Our Islands are Sacred, Guam; Akali Tange Association, Papua New Guinea; Porgera Alliance, Papua New Guinea; The Koani Foundation; The Maori Womans Welfare League- Aotearoa.

I. Another Decade to Eradicate Colonialism!

On December 10, 2010 the United Nations passed Resolution 65/119 adopting the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. In doing so, the United Nations General Assembly once again affirmed its inability to eradicate colonialism and its failure to implement numerous recommendations from United Nations bodies including this Forum, for a concrete plan to implement the Right of Self Determination and delist the UN Non-Self Governing Territories. 

In 2008, the indigenous peoples of the Pacific and Caribbean filed a global intervention on the UN Decolonization process. It began by noting that in international law the word “sacred” is used only once. This is in relation to the “sacred trust obligation” which Administering States have to the “inhabitants of the (non-self-governing) territories” under Article 73 of the United Nations Charter. This “sacred obligation” is owed to millions of indigenous peoples who reside in the Pacific and Caribbean and who, under international law, are unable to realize their right to self-determination and self-governance, and they remain on the United Nations on the list of “non-self governing territories (NSGT)” pursuant to G.A. Resolution 66-1 of 1946. 

The Special Committee on Decolonization, which has oversight of the Decolonization process has been unable to implement its decolonization resolutions for the past 21 years and the U.N. System has ignored the directives given to it by UN Member states. A prime example is the refusal to implement the mandated political, education programs for the Territories, and its failure to respond to requests from the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) for data relating to racism in the territories for 26 consecutive years. During this time, and continuing until the present, the UN General Assembly and its member states have declared not one, but three International Decades to eradicate colonialism with woefully insufficient response from the UN System according to independent analyses.

II. The Evolution of International Human Rights Standards for the Protection of Indigenous Peoples – The Special Situation of the Indigenous Peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories.

There is a common misconception that international law relating to the human rights of indigenous peoples evolved because of the Cobo Report and ILO Conventions, and later, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is false. Long before the UN Human Rights Conventions were conceived and came into force, the United Nations had begun to address and examine the right of indigenous peoples residing in colonies, to self-determination.

There is a distinct body of international human rights law that deals with peoples and territories that are not self-governing. These indigenous peoples and their traditional lands, territories and resources, were subjected to imperialism and domination by foreign powers during the colonial period. They were denied the most fundamental of all human rights, the right of Self- Determination. This was justified by the Doctrine of Discovery.

In the early 1950’s the United Nations passed several resolutions referencing rights of indigenous peoples in the Non-self-governing Territories. These resolutions include:

1). G.A. Reso. 644 (VII), 10th December 1952, Racial Discrimination in the Non-Self-Governing Territories called upon administering states to abolish discriminatory laws in the territories and to examine any laws which were based on race or religion. Preambular paragraph three states:

 “Recognizing that there is a fundamental distinction between discriminatory laws and practices, on the one hand, and protective measures designed to safeguard the rights of the indigenous inhabitants, on the other hand.” This language makes clear that ‘special measures’ for indigenous peoples were needed to address past discrimination, and that such measures were not considered discriminatory.[see http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/079/87/IMG/NR007987.]

2). G.A. Reso. 752 (VIII) 9 December 1953, Attainment by the Trust Territories of the objective of self-government or independence requested the Trusteeship Council to commence reporting to the General Assembly on progress made in specific areas by administering states to further the goal of ‘self-government’… “in particular measures taken in respect of …. (d) the training and appointment of indigenous persons from each Trust Territory for positions of responsibility in the administration”. [see http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/086/17/IMG/NR008617]

3) G.A. Reso. 744 (VIII) 27 November 1953, Association of representatives from Non-Self-Governing Territories in the work of the Committee on Information from the Non-Self-Governing Territories in which the General Assembly ‘invited’ administering states to include in their delegations to the UN … “indigenous representatives specially qualified to speak on (economic, social and educational policies) these matters as they relate to the Territories”. This resolution underscored the importance of real “participatory democracy” in the decolonization process as the General Assembly itself wanted to insure indigenous direct participation in the work of the UN itself. [see http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/086/09/IMG/NR008609]

These and other early UN resolutions provided a framework for administering States to work with Indigenous Peoples to facilitate their ability to achieve self-governance through the exercise of Self Determination. 

From 2002 – 2005 the UNGA passed 19 resolutions directing that specific action be taken to implement decolonization in the territories – these actions were to be taken by UN agencies (UNEP, UNDP, Electoral Affairs Division, Dept. of Political Affairs), the UN Secretary General, the UN Regional Economic Commission, the President of the ECO-SOC, the Chairman of the Special Committee on Decolonization, and an Independent Expert and State administering agents. Few of these directives have been implemented to date. 

III. THE 2006 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

In 2006 the General Assembly adopted the Plan of Implementation (POI) – [A/60/853-E/2006/75, 17 May 2006], to endorse an implementation strategy in 8 areas – Information, Participation, Analysis of Political and Constitutional Arrangements, Missions, Protections and Conservation as well as Ownership and Control of natural Resources, Educational Advancement, Development of Self-Government and support for NSGT’s from the UN – since 2006, no action has been taken to implement the POI, and it is not referenced in the Decolonization discourse despite its approval by the General Assembly, 

The POI was unique in that it paired the recommendations with those best suited to undertake the actions. These included specific U.N. departments and agencies, the U.N. Secretariat, and the administering powers. The POI also recommended the introduction of ‘special mechanisms’ through the use of an Independent Expert to undertake research and analysis that had been mandated in the first and second international decades, but not undertaken. The POI was not undertaken because it was not included in the Decolonization method of work and there was no money in the UN budget for “Special Mechanisms”.

The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has addressed this matter before.We direct the Forums attention to the third Forum report to the ECO-SOC contained in document E/C.19/2004/23, E/2004/43. Recommendation number 54 (pg. 17) states:

“The Forum requests the Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples undertake a study on the United Nations decolonization process and the Special Committee on Decolonization to assess its historical and current impact on the human rights of indigenous peoples of the non-self-governing territories. Furthermore, the Forum requests the Secretary General to undertake a mid-decade review or the Second Decade on the Eradication of Colonialism to determine whether substantial progress has been made in achieving the goals of the Second Decade and to identify proposals for addressing obstacles to achieving the goals of the Second Decade.”

Unfortunately, the recommendations of the UN Permanent Forum were ignored. No report was undertaken by the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples nor was any mid-decade review undertaken by the Secretary General. It is now time to undertake a mid-decade review of the third decade.

Human Rights Experts and Secretary General call for new approach

At the opening the 2013 substantive session of the Special Committee on Decolonization, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today called on that body to devise “fresh and creative” approaches in mobilizing the political will needed to eradicate colonialism, saying it had no place in the modern world.” 

Pursuant to a decision of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at its eleventh session (see E/2012/43 , para. 112), Edward John, a member of the Permanent Forum, undertook a study of the impacts of the Doctrine of Discovery on indigenous peoples, including mechanisms, processes and instruments of redress, with reference to the Declaration, and particularly to articles 26 to 28, 32 and 40. The outcome of the study was submitted to the Permanent Forum at its thirteenth session. (E/C.19/2014/3, 20 Feb 2014).

The report identified the ongoing human rights violations suffered by Indigenous Peoples as the result of the historical and continuing application of the Doctrine of Discovery. It called for redress through new process for ‘Decolonization’…

“34. Processes and mechanisms of redress, as well as independent oversight, are required at international, regional and domestic levels. Decolonization processes must be devised in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned and compatible with their perspectives and approaches. Such processes must be fair, impartial, open and transparent, and be consistent with the Declaration and other international human rights standards.”

The UN Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order relied in part on the PFII study to justify his latest report on the right of self-determination . See General Assembly, Promotion of a democratic and equitable international order: Note by the Secretary-General, interim report of the Independent Expert Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, UN Doc. A/69/272 (7 August 2014), para. 2, where de Zayas: acknowledges the study on the impacts of the Doctrine of Discovery on indigenous peoples, including mechanisms, processes and instruments of redress, submitted to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, in which special rapporteurs are encouraged to play a role in establishing relevant standards (E/C.19/2014/3, para. 36).

At para. 58, de Zayas emphasized: "It is time to face 'historical inequities' and abandon the culture of silence." He relies on the Permanent Forum study in referring to the "racist and factually inapplicable doctrine of discovery". de Zayas then states:

“As the Permanent Forum study observes: “The Doctrine of Discovery is significant globally not only for abuses in the past, but also for its ongoing far-reaching consequences. Such colonial doctrines must not prevail in practice over human rights, democracy and the rule of law……

Self-determination is an expression of the individual and collective right to democracy, as democracy is an expression of the individual and collective right of self-determination. Both have national and international dimensions. The hallmark of self-determination must be public participation in decision-making and control over resources. In most cases this can be achieved within existing State entities, inter alia through federalism and other models of autonomy. (ibid.para. 32).

“The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples constitutes a milestone in the struggle of indigenous peoples for self-determination and provides an important catalogue of rights and entitlements that should guide both Governments and the indigenous peoples themselves.”(ibid. para. 60).

“The right [of self-determination] is not extinguished with lapse of time because, just as the rights to life, freedom and identity, it is too important to be waived.”(para. 66)

A failed case example of the decolonization process is the United States unincorporated territory of Guam in the Pacific. Guam was listed on the United Nations List of Non-Self-Governing Territories since its inception in 1946. Chamorros, the indigenous people of Guahan (Guam), have testified before the United Nations to report the United Nations’ violation of our most sacred human right to Self-Determination for over three generations; only to have the petitions fall on deaf ears. Not only has the United States not provided the necessary resources for an educational campaign towards a plebiscite, they have absented themselves from the consultative process of the United Nations Decolonization Committee sessions and its regional seminars for nearly 20 years now. 

Conclusion

Since the last global intervention was filed with the Forum on this topic in 2008, many Experts in the UN system have addressed the critical need to move forward to address and remedy the legacy of colonization. It is evident that the Fourth Committee is unable or unwilling to address the critical human rights issues relating to the right of self-determination of peoples in the Non-Self-Governing Territories and that this matter must be addressed by the Third Committee, the Forum and other Experts within the UN Human Rights System.

The Pacific Signatories to this Intervention recommend the following to the Forum Experts:

1. That the Forum recommend the ECO-SOC implement the relevant provisions of the Plan of Implementation (POI) adopted by the General Assembly– [A/60/853-E/2006/75, 17 May 2006], and ensure the necessary resources are made available to carry out the Plan. 

2. That the Forum recommend the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of the Peoples of the Non Self- Governing Territories to oversee and report to the United Nations on the status of human rights in the Non- Self-Governing Territories and the implementation of the POI.

3. That the Forum undertake a Mid-Decade review of the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism with the aim of identifying impediments to the fulfillment of the mandate, and proposing solutions to the Decolonization crisis experienced by Indigenous Peoples in the Non Self-Governing Territories.

Daniel Ortega: La independencia de Puerto Rico, una batalla que seguiremos librando

Claridad

El Presidente-Comandante Daniel rememoró  un encuentro con Barack Obama en el ámbito  de la Cumbre de las Américas, en el que le reiteró  la esperanza de que el pueblo puertorriqueño sea  parte de la comunidad latinoamericana a la que  pertenece.

Visita la foto galería (1)

Escrito por La Voz del Sandinismo

El Presidente de la República, Comandante Daniel Ortega, reiteró el derecho de Puerto Rico a la autodeterminación y aseguró que la independencia de la hermana nación es una batalla que seguiremos librando.

“Lo primero que debería de hacer Estados Unidos es reconocer la Independencia de Puerto Rico”, apuntó el jefe de Estado durante un encuentro con los altos mandos del Ejército Nacional, en un acto presidido además por la Coordinadora del Consejo de Comunicación y Ciudadanía, Compañera Rosario Murillo.

Daniel recordó que la isla caribeña ha estado sometida a una potencia por más de 100 años, con derechos restringidos.

“El Derecho que le dan los Estados Unidos a los puertorriqueños es hacer sus Elecciones para tener, digamos, determinada Autonomía”, señaló Daniel a propósito del diálogo con el presidente Barack Obama, durante una reunión del Sistema de Integración Centroamericano (SICA) en el contexto de la reciente Cumbre de las Américas.

“Entonces le dije ahora: Ya está Cuba, pero falta Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico es nuestro, Latinoamericano, Caribeño, y sigue siendo una Colonia de los Estados Unidos”, rememoró el mandatario sobre la conversación

.

“Esperamos, pues, que Puerto Rico algún día pueda ser parte de la Comunidad a la que pertenece y a la Comunidad Latinoamericana, y como tal participar en esta Cumbre”, indicó el Presidente a su homólogo estadounidense.

Señaló que “Puerto Rico es una Comunidad, es un Estado, es un País que está sometido al control del Departamento de Estado, al control del Pentágono, al control de los Órganos de Inteligencia de Estados Unidos”.

Sobre los más recientes comicios en la isla caribeña, señaló que no tienen nada de justos, ni de democráticos, ni de limpios, “porque están sometidas a un régimen colonial”.

Daniel rememoró cómo fue el proceso de negociación para la independencia de Zimbabwe (en 1980), que era Colonia de Inglaterra, y subrayó que “entonces, ahí se ve con toda claridad cómo, cuando las condiciones lo indican, se da el paso para reconocer la Independencia y renunciar al dominio colonial, que es un dominio por la fuerza que provoca guerras como las que había sufrido por años Zimbabwe”.

En ese sentido instó a Estados Unidos a hacer lo mismo con Puerto Rico… “¡darle la Independencia a Puerto Rico!” y que ya los puertorriqueños queden libres de las ataduras.

Acentuó que la inmensa mayoría de los puertorriqueños no están de acuerdo con actual estatus de la isla.

“Tanto los que están a favor de que Puerto Rico pase a ser un Estado de los Estados Unidos, como los que están en contra de que pase a ser un Estado de los Estados Unidos y que sea una Nación Independiente… Sumando todos esos votos, el 100% de esos votos ¿qué nos dicen? Que ninguno está de acuerdo con el actual Estado que tiene Puerto Rico de Nación Colonial. Eso es lo que dice… ¡ninguno está de acuerdo!”

El Presidente-Comandante subrayó que también se está logrando que pueblos como el puertorriqueño tengan un espacio para defender su reivindicación histórica.

Informó Daniel que el Comité de Descolonización de la ONU, que pide la descolonización de Puerto Rico, va a reunirse en el mes de mayo en Managua.

.

AMERICAN SAMOA DISCUSSES ITS DEFICIENT COLONIAL STATUS IN RUN-UP TO UNITED NATIONS DECOLONISATION SEMINAR

Governor: status exposes territory to bullying tactics

The American Samoa Government will tell the United Nations next month that although proposed constitutional amendments relating to American Samoa’s political status failed to get majority support last year, the resulting public discourse suggests that American Samoa is ready to take the next step of entertaining serious discussion about what its future political status should be.

This is relayed in a draft statement by Governor Lolo and the American Samoa Government that was distributed to directors during today’s cabinet meeting. 

The statenent will be presented at  seminar by the UN Committee on Decolonization in Nicaragua next month.

The governor has sent copies of the statement to the Fono, Judiciary and to the Secretary of the Interior.

Lolo said he wants to get feedback from directors, from the other branches of government and from the head of the Department of Interior, which administers affairs of the territory.

In the six-page draft statement, the governor says American Samoa’s union with the United Staes has resulted in substantial benefits to the people and government of American Samoa.

But despite many benefits, it is his firm belief that American Samoa’s current political status as an unincorporated and unorganized territory of the United States is neither sustainable nor economically secure.

Moreover he says the relationship lacks appropriate vestiges of self-governance as required by the UN Charter.

Lolo said there are significant shortfalls in American Samoa’s form of government. 

For example, it continues to exist by virtue of delegation of authority from the President of the United States to the US Department of Interior and then to American Samoa.

The Legislature cannot override a veto of a bill by the governor without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior and the American Samoa Constitution cannot be amended without the approval of Congress, despite Congress never having approved the territory’s Constitution to begin with.

Additionally the Secretary of the Interior continues to appoint the senior members of American Samoa’s Judiciary.

The governor also states that American Samoa is exposed to acts of Congress in ways not comtemplated because of American Samoa’s unique size, location, geography and economic circumstances.

He said the territory is further exposed to actions arising out of litigation in the US federal court that may contrive to have a judge in a remote courtroom issue a judgment that could impact the legal status of the people of American Samoa under the US Constititution.

According to the statement, American Samoa’s political status further exposes it to “bullying tactics of federal agencies”.

Lolo cites for example that the Federal Aviation Administration has prohibited ASG from further use of airport land without getting FAA approval as a condition of releasing federal funds which he says are rightfully due to American Samoa.

He also points to the decision by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council to open parts of the now closed 50-mile zone around American Samoa to longline vessels.

The governor said, “Until we are able to cast our political status in a concrete fashion, giving us concrete protections, the fact we live under a delegation of authority from Washington, D.C., will haunt us with the possibilities of action being taken from far away that impacts upon up in ways we cannot anticipate nor for which we can adequately plan.”

*********

Attorney General, Cabinet discuss United Nations Decolonization Meeting

Some believe status quo is unsatisfactory

By Joyetter Feagaimaalii-Luamanu

joy@samoanews.com

Attorney General Talauega Eleasalo Ale says that many of our government and traditional leaders have come to a conclusion that American Samoa’s status quo is unsatisfactory and it’s not economically viable for the territory to remain unorganized and unincorporated because of the inability to have some control over our resources and over our land.

His comments were made at the Cabinet meeting yesterday in reference to a draft letter that was distributed to the cabinet members, which explains to the United Nations the relationship that American Samoa has with the United States.

Next month the AG accompanied by Secretary of Samoan Affairs Mauga Tasi Asuega will attend the United Nations Caribbean Regional Seminar on Implementation of the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism held in Managua, Nicaragua May 19 to 21, 2015.

Talauega explained that Chapter XI of the United Nations Charter calls on the colonial powers to help — what he characterized as former colonies — to become independent. He said the UN prepares a list of “former colonies” that are still today dependent on their “former colonial powers”.

“We are in that boat,” he said, “We are a territory of the U.S. and we rely on the U.S. for a lot of things, but we also do not have the independence that the U.N. deems each country to have.”

READ THE FULL REPORT IN SAMOA NEWS

*****

Public discussion of political status is a ‘must’ says Lolo 

Samoa News

By Joyetter Feagaimaalii-Luamanu

joy@samoanews.com

American Samoa’s listing as a colony by the United Nations is an issue that the people and the government have over the years tried unsuccessfully to resolve, as the territory does not see itself as a “colony”. This is the issue being tackled in a draft letter to the United Nations Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism to be held in Managua, Nicaragua May 19 to 21, 2015.

Attorney General Talauega Eleasalo Ale accompanied by Secretary of Samoan Affairs Mauga Tasi Asuega will attend the UN seminar and will present the final document or letter from the Territory's governor concerning the issue of American Samoa’s political status — the UN currently lists it as a colony of the U.S.

In his presentation of the draft at the governor’s cabinet meeting this past Wednesday, Attorney General Talauega said the question that this poses is, how close — or far away — do we have to be to the United States to no longer be considered a colony of the U.S.?

READ THE FULL REPORT IN SAMOA NEWS

Anguilla United Front wins overwhelming electoral victory

ElectionGudie

APRIL 22, 2015HELD

7,934

VOTED

 

Anguilla

ELECTION FOR HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

RESULTS

72%

VOTER
TURNOUT*

Type	Count
Valid Votes	7934
Not Participated	3066

Cast Votes:7,934

Valid Votes:7,934

Invalid Votes:None

Registered Voters:11,000

PARTIES:

PARTYSEATS WONSEATS CHANGEVOTES

Anguilla United Front6None

Anguilla United Movement0None

DOVE (Democracy, Opportunity, Vision & Empowerment)0None

Independents1None

GUAM COALITION CONCERNED FOR MILITARISATION IN THE PACIFIC

United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

Fourteenth session

New York, 20 April-1 May 2015

April 21, 2015

Pacific Intervention on Demilitarization

 of Indigenous Lands and Waters

Agenda Item 4

Submitted By:

Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice, Guam

Presenter: Dakota Alcantara-Camacho

Supported By: 

We are Guahan, Guam; National Association of Social Workers, Guam Chapter; GALA, Inc.; Our Islands are Sacred, Guam; Na Koa Ikaika Kalahui Hawai’i; Akali Tange Association Papua New Guinea; 

and the Pacific Caucus 

Thank you Madame Chair, 

According to Chamorro cosmology, in the beginning of the universe, Fo’na and Pontan, brother-sister spirits sacrificed their bodies to create the earth as we know it. We acknowledge that as we walk across the land, we walk over the bodies and bones of our ancestors. We honor our genealogies as our connection to the earth, and uphold our responsibility to our ancestors to maintain the sacred peace and balance gifted to us by the Creator. 

I speak today on behalf of Pacific Caucus to call for an immediate halt to the militarization of the planet recognizing that the research and development of military technologies has exponentially increased the destruction of the earth and all our relatives. Theft of ancestral lands, environmental violence, and policies of cultural genocide have all been key ingredients in a recipe designed to feed foreign and domestic military control of our homelands. Our ancestral teachings tell us that we are all related and that any harm we cause to other beings, we also cause to ourselves.

I. Militarization of the Pacific

Indigenous peoples (IPs) of the Pacific have long suffered the negative consequences of militarization stemming back to World War I, when settler governments established military bases in Australia, New Guinea, and Samoa. Countries like Guåhan, have been treated as trophies of war, traded between Foreign governments such as when Spain ceded the island to the United States in the Treaty of Paris in 1898. During World War II, foreign powers battled each other in indigenous lands and innocent people were tortured, raped, and held hostage in our own countries and forced to participate in wars we did not ask for. 

This story resonates like the aftermath of a nuclear bomb across the waves of the Pacific in Hawai’i, Guåhan (Guam), the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, the Republic of Belau, the Federated States of Micronesia, Wake Island, Midway Island, Australia, the Solomon Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Timor Leste. 

Due to domestic militarization, state governments have forced the indigenous to leave their homelands completely- as in the case of the peoples of Maluku who have been land dispossessed since 1951 and nearly four generations later are still displaced. IPs continue to struggle with the domestic and global repercussions of militarization and war and the threat of militarization is heightened in light of the United States announcement of its Pacific Pivot strategy in its efforts to maintain global dominance. 

vladivostok.usconsulate.gov

II. Impact of Militarization on Indigenous Peoples

Militarization impacts indigenous peoples in various ways leading to further infringements on our right to cultural and political self-determination. 

Many Pacific IPs have lost access to lands and natural resources of their homelands. Some have experienced land dispossession and displacement with the extreme violation of IP’s rights in the case of Maluku, wherein people were sent for a “temporary stay” to the Netherlands since 1951 and remain dispossessed despite numerous actions with the intention of facilitating a return home. This phenomenon has also been experienced by the peoples of Rongelap and Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, who were removed from their native islands for United States nuclear testing from 1946 to 1958. 

 Others have experienced land grabs and occupation by state military forces on IP lands in West Papua, Fiji, Hawai’i, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, for example. On my homeland of Guåhan (Guam), the U.S. Department of Defense currently occupies one-third of my island and is seeking to increase their landholdings by an additional 2,200 acres on an island that is only 212 square miles. 

 In Guåhan, the military hold behind their fence, our largest supply of fresh water that they now sell back to us, most recently issuing a proposal to increase prices by 800%. In the past month, the U.S. Department of Defense released its Draft Environmental Impact Statement revealing its plan to dramatically intensify its presence in the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands by increasing its footprint on the island of Tinian to two-thirds and using the inhabited island of Pagan for a large firing range training complex. 

The expansion of military training exercises would severely limit local peoples access to adequate health care, affordable foods, and restrict travel during training operations, not to mention bringing live-fire training and heavy artillery to the 3,000 residents that live there. These realities beg the question, “What impact will continued militarization of our lands have on our people?” 

Militarization’s greatest threat to indigenous peoples is the potential for death as a result of enlistment in military service and civilian casualties of war. In the Pacific jurisdiction of West Papua, nearly 500,000 people have been killed in the process of West Papuans’ quest for self-determination and liberation from Indonesian military forces. Political activists have been tortured and murdered for nearly 50 years now. 

West Papua is one the most militarized jurisdictions in the Pacific with nearly 45,000 Indonesian troops and of that number, almost 1,000 are stationed at the border with Papua New Guinea. Military police have reportedly burned many civilian homes and cars and engaged in bayoneting innocent civilians. Military troops continue to violate West Papuans’ human rights that include sexual violence against women and girls. Disappearances, detentions, and executions continue today, threatening the very survival of the country’s indigenous peoples. 

We are well aware that militarization ushers in land dispossession alongside environmental degradation and contamination. Military practices have zero regard for Mother Earth, as evidenced in the contamination of our lands, air, and water. The United States has multiple sites on it’s Superfund or CERCLA list that itemizes the country’s most toxic sites. Military bases comprise a significant proportion of these sites. In addition, the U.S. has identified Formerly Used Defense Sites that require clean-up. 

 On Guahan’s Andersen Air Force and naval bases alone, there were over 95 toxic sites that were identified through the FUDS program for clean-up. Toxic and contaminated homelands have impacted the physical health and well-being of indigenous peoples. 

IPs suffer from disproportionately higher rates of cancer and diabetes than non-indigenous peoples. My peoples’ rate of nasopharengeal cancer, for example, is nearly 80 times higher than the U.S. national average for that type of cancer. In a study released by the Guam Department of Public Health and Social Services, the villages of Santa Rita and Yigo were found to have the highest incidence rates for cancer; the two villages where U.S. military bases are located. In looking at our rates of diabetes, my island’s rate is five times the U.S. national rate. 

III. Pacific Pivot of Militarization

In 2011, the U.S. Obama Administration officially announced the ‘Pacific Pivot’ strategy, a massive expansion of aggressive military posturing in the Pacific region. As part of this strategy, the U.S. and its allies will increase their military presence on Guåhan, Hawai’i, Australia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Philippines. While the U.S. has decrease its overall defense budget in recent years, it has conversely increased its spending on Pacific defense activities. 

 According to Captain Robert Lee, “We are seeing a realignment of forces away from Cold War theatres to Pacific theatres, and Guam is ideal for us because it is a U.S. territory and therefore gives us maximum flexibility.” The reason given for the hyper-militarization of the Pacific region is the containment of China and North Korea. The Pivot involves bilateral agreements with Japan, which stipulates Guåhan as the site of joint training exercises, without obtaining free, prior, or informed consent from the island’s indigenous Chamorros. 

In fact, when the U.S. first announced it’s military build-up, the local community submitted over 10,000 comments largely denouncing the build-up- unprecedented in U.S. military history. Nonetheless, the U.S. government has already allocated money for construction projects and is proceeding with its current plans. 

IV. Conclusion and Recommendations

The issue of militarization has been presented to the United Nations Permanent Forum on many occasions in the past, however, there has been little progress in movement towards a demilitarized world. Hence, the critical need to move forward to address and remedy the legacy of militarization and its concomitant decolonization remains. The Pacific Caucus offers the following recommendations to realize a demilitarized world:

1. That the Forum calls on member states to acknowledge their responsibility to ensure the UN Resolution on the Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination is implemented by demilitarizing the lands and waters of indigenous peoples immediately. The referenced resolution declares “....firm opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, since these have resulted in the suppression of the right of peoples to self-determination and other human rights in certain parts of the world [and] Calls upon those States responsible to cease immediately their military intervention in and occupation of foreign countries and territories and all acts of repression, discrimination, exploitation and maltreatment…” and 

2. That the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues works with member states towards the creation of human security for indigenous peoples as opposed to the constrictions of “national” or “military” security. Former Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan defined human security stating:

“We must also broaden our view of what is meant by peace and security. Peace means much more than the absence of war. Human security can no longer be understood in purely military terms. Rather, it must encompass economic development, social justice, environmental protection, democratization, disarmament, and respect for human rights and the rule of law.”

Hence, states should ensure that IPs have access to the basic necessities for life, as well as all that is needed to thrive and maximize their human potential. We recommend shifting conceptualizations of security to that of genuine security, wherein the physical environment is able to sustain human and natural life; IP’s basic needs for food, clothing, shelter, health-care, and education are guaranteed; IP’s fundamental human dignity is honored and our cultural identities are respected; and the natural environment is protected from avoidable harm.

Guam Speaker: "We have the power to make things happen "

Marianas Variety

Making it happen: The ‘L’ words of women leadership

 By Judith T. Won Pat

The following is the text of a speech made by the Speaker of the Guam Legislature during the women’s conference held recently on Tinian.

OFTENTIMES people think that politics is a man’s world. But in our islands, and in our Chamorro culture, our women have always been at the center of power. According to several accounts, in ancient times no decision was made final without the approval of a woman. No battle was waged, no journey embarked on without a woman’s support. When our men would come back from fishing, the best of their catch was offered to the highest ranking woman. Thus, it is no surprise that so many of our women assume high political positions in our island governments. Today, I want to talk with you about what drives us as Chamorro women leaders, and I want to share what motivates the decisions I make as the Speaker of the Guam Legislature.

Chamorro women have always been credited for keeping our culture and language alive. We have a great sense of responsibility and we are entrusted with upholding the values of our people, ensuring that all members of our community are provided for, and protecting the most vulnerable members of society, especially the very old and the very young. Thus, when we make decisions, we do not make them in haste. We are careful, calculated, and thoughtful. We think like women.

In preparing for this presentation, I realized that all of the words describing my decision-making process begin with the letter L — I look, listen, lend, learn, and love. Let me explain. And I’d like to use an example of an issue I had to decide on that soon your community will be faced with — the military build-up.

I am aware that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the military’s plans for training in Tinian and Pagan will be released. On Guam, we have gone through two very major Environmental Impact Statements since 2010 concerning the military build-up, and I learned many lessons about leadership in the process.

Our community has been divided about the build-up. The popular perception has been that the build-up would result in economic growth and jobs, both of which our island needs. However, it would also result in unnatural population growth, which would strain our infrastructure and increase the demand for public services. There are also concerns about the build-up negatively impacting our environment and our culture. One of the most contentious issues has been the need for a place for the Marines’ Live Fire Training Range Complex. The areas that were selected as preferred alternatives — first Pagat and now Litekyan — are important cultural sites with latte villages and ancestral remains. As a leader, I had to decide my position on the build-up and it was not easy.

First I had to look at the situation from all angles and perspectives. I had to read all necessary documents, conduct additional research, compare the situation with similar situations in other places, and look to our history for answers. I wanted to understand as much as I could about what was being planned and how it would impact us. I knew that the plan to move the Marines to Guam was intended to lessen the presence of the Marines in Okinawa, so I went to Okinawa to see their situation for myself. I saw a community that was frustrated. Thousands of Okinawans have been protesting the Marines’ presence in their island, particularly since 1995, when three Marines kidnapped a 12-year-old girl and raped her. I had to ask myself, “is this what I want for my community?”

Then I had to listen. What were the people in my community saying? I had to listen to everyone. I started by listening to the women. I invited a group of women leaders to meet and discuss the buildup, and they had valid concerns about the impacts on children; the amount of money it would cost our government to host so many new people without any commitment from the federal government for funding outside the fence; the impacts on our culture and the possibility that as Chamorro people, we would become a minority in our island; among other concerns. We continued to meet regularly and became active in public meetings about the build-up. Eventually we formed a group called Fuetsan Famalao’an, meaning the Strength of Women.

I started to lend my own thoughts. Then more I got to know, the more I expressed concern. I became vocal about the need to put Guam first. I stressed the importance of protecting our cultural sites. I asked questions. I gave testimonies at the public hearings about the need to resolve our issues with the federal government, like self-determination, war reparations, compact-impact reimbursements, contamination of our lands and water, land-takings and so forth. I was heavily criticized and deemed anti-military, but as a woman, I would not back down. I was armed with knowledge and I had a duty to be a voice for my people and my culture.

I learned and I grew tremendously, and what was most surprising was that the people I learned the most from, were my own children. They were at the forefront of the movement to save the ancient village of Pagat from being used as firing range. My children and the youth of our island inspired and rejuvenated me in moments when I felt helpless. I also realized that although the business people were given a lot of space to express their support of the build-up in local media outlets, they were not actually reading the draft EIS documents. Those who were the most informed in our community were the youth. They took apart that 10,000-plus page document and disseminated the information to the community. They challenged us, as leaders, to do more. And some of us heeded their call, because we were so inspired by their energy. I offered them my office space to have meetings and I did what I could in the Legislature to also spread information. I hosted public briefings in which the government agencies were asked to review the EIS and report to us on how it would impact their operations and the island. As a result of the community efforts combined, more than 10,000 comments were made on the EIS, which the Navy said is unheard of in most EIS commenting periods.

I also learned from my mistakes. Every day I would ask myself, “What could I have done better?” And I used that as my motivation to make better choices the next day. On a deeper level, as islands who share the same culture, I invite you to look at Guam and the path we have taken and ask yourselves, is this what you want for Tinian or Pagan? We have to learn from each other, because no matter what political lines divide us, we are all one family of Chamorro people.

This leads to my final point, which is that I am always driven by a deep sense of love. Everything I do as a leader, I do from a place of love — love for my family, love for my island, love for my ancestors, and love for our future generations. When you are driven by love, no amount of criticism can stop you from your purpose. Nothing will stand in your way.

Here in the CNMI, you have more political power than we do on Guam because you are a commonwealth. If you do not want Pagan to be bombed, for example, you can say no.

Your conference is focused on “making it happen,” which is a very important message for women. We have the power to make things happen, but we have to believe and trust in that power. We have to remember our role as women in our culture and envision the role we want our daughters and their daughters to play in the future. Then we have to make it happen.