Dutch 'partial integration' of Bonaire, Saba, Statia a failed experiment?

New status islands mostly brought disappointment

Daily Herald 

THE HAGUE--The public entity status of Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba has brought much disappointment, and the balance after five years is not favourable, concluded the Caribbean Netherlands Evaluation Committee in its report that was presented in The Hague on Monday.

A widely felt disappointment predominates on the three islands. This disappointment has consistently increased since October 2010, when the islands became part of the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles ceased to exist as a country.

The high expectations which people and the governments on the islands had at the start of the transition have largely not been met. This is largely attributable to the level of prosperity: since 2010 the standard of living has fallen for many people, including those with a job. This disappointment has overshadowed the positive developments in for example health care and education where plans were more ambitious and agreements more concrete.

People on the islands feel that they have not been involved in the changes enough, and that insufficient account has often been taken of the islands’ special circumstances. The problem of poverty has increased, partly due to the declining purchasing power and the low level of social provisions.

“The concerns about the daily existence have contributed to people’s negative experience of the transition,” stated Committee Chairperson Liesbeth Spies during the presentation which was attended by representatives of the governments of the three islands and the Dutch Government.

The committee concluded that disappointing results were caused by a number of factors. The agreements that have been made were not always clear, not to the people and neither to the government.

The differences in language, scale and culture added to a complex collaboration between Bonaire, St. Eustatius, Saba and the Dutch Government. “People find it hard to understand each other. Interests are also highly divergent. For the islands, the relationship with the Netherlands is of vital importance while this is certainly not the case for the Netherlands. In Dutch politics, the relationship with the islands is only of minor importance.”

Agreements were also interpreted differently: the islands had different expectations than the Netherlands. The most striking example was the agreement at the time of the transition to reach a standard of services and provisions that was acceptable within the Netherlands.

The standard wasn’t introduced for many services, especially in the social area, while the standard of living kept deteriorating, the committee found. The “voorzieningenniveau” is still a source of discussion with the islands striving for the same level as in the Netherlands, and the Netherlands having a different opinion on what is acceptable.

The approach of the Dutch Government has been fragmented, and knowledge of the specific circumstances on Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba has been often limited. “There is no overall approach to speak of despite the fact that the nature of the problems and scale of islands call for such an approach.”

The fragmentation is difficult to handle for the islands because of their limited staffing capabilities. “It takes a lot of meeting and consulting which means that a disproportionate administration load falls to the islands.”

An integral approach is further hampered by the fact that the Minister of Home Affairs and Kingdom Relations, based on a deliberate choice made at the time, does not have the authority which would allow him to control the Dutch policy, let alone enforce policy changes based on an integral vision. As a result, the position of the National Government Representative is such that he is not in the position to make a difference when required.

Relations have become more strained, particularly the Netherlands and St. Eustatius, and to a lesser extent Bonaire.

“Government representatives have diametrically opposing views and the debate mainly centres on the division of tasks and authorities. Discussions focus on autonomy, independence and a neo-colonial attitude. The people of the islands do not benefit from this situation.”

In addition, the local administrations have not yet reached the required level of quality. They remain vulnerable. “Given the small scale of the islands and the limited capability available, it has been proven to be difficult to ensure the long-term quality of administration. The situation is too dependent on the efforts and quality of individuals which is why there are big differences between the islands in the level of administration.”

The global economic and financial crisis was an outside contributor which adversely affected the islands’ economic and social development. According to the committee there were “strong indications” that the transition and the implementation of certain laws didn’t have the intended positive influence on the economic development, and by extension the level of prosperity for the people. The Netherlands and the islands lack a shared approach which offers prospects for future economic development.

“Unfortunately we have to conclude that so far the balance has not been favourable,” stated Spies. “However, five years is a short period. And, as the implementation of the transition is still in full progress, it is too early for a final judgement.”

Spies said she hoped that the conclusions of the evaluation would serve as an impulse to bring the original objectives of the constitutional change closer over the coming years. “We hope that it will inspire to do things better,” she said.

The committee concluded that there was still a lot of room for improvement. “It is now up to the authorities that commissioned this evaluation, the public entities and the Dutch Government, to jointly take up this challenge, based on the results of this evaluation, and initiate the changes deemed necessary and ensure they are implemented.”

Making the most of the islands’ public entity status requires the governments involved to “jump over their own shadows” to create room for self-development, to take responsibility and to invest, also in mutual trust.

“Each of the islands will have to come up with an answer to the question what they can do themselves, where they should do better and where they need help and support. A higher level of facilities and economic development can be achieved together, in consultation with the people.”

The findings of the committee were largely based on the input of the islands, its residents, private sector, social organisations and government. Aside from the committee’s general conclusions, there were three individual reports that served in the evaluation.

The Social and Cultural Plan Bureau of the Netherlands SCP analysed the consequences of the new relations for the people. Pro Facto of the University of Groningen looked at the effects of the legislation, while the DSP Group of Dr. Oberon Nauta studied the workings of the new administrative structure.

Elaborate information, including the four reports, as well as a video for the general public, can be found on the committee’s website, www.evaluatiecn.nl. Much of the information, mainly the conclusions, is also available in English and Papiamentu.

The Evaluation Committee consists of Chairperson Spies, Fred Soons, Glenn Thodé, Luc Verhey and Frans Weekers. The committee was assisted by a secretariat and a supervisory committee of experts.

Pending U.S. Measure Labels 19 Caribbean Territories as Tax Havens

List includes dependencies of Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands; as well as the autonomous countries of Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao, St. Maarten.

SAN JUAN – The Caribbean Association of Banks is expressing concern over the inclusion of 19 Caribbean islands and territories on a list of tax havens in the District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Support Act of 2015, which is awaiting approval by the U.S. Congress.

The D.C. legislation seeks to expand the definition of tax haven to the detriment of Caribbean territories that are making good faith efforts against tax evasion, the CAB said Wednesday in a statement.

“While the CAB fully supports the District of Columbia’s efforts to combat tax evasion, the CAB feels that the designation of Caribbean territories as ‘tax havens’ is prejudicial,” the Castries-based organization said.

Because the District of Columbia is federal territory, D.C. legislation must be approved by Congress.

In this case, the review process is expected to continue for several more weeks and CAB has sent letters to members of Congress urging them to remove several territories from the tax haven blacklist.

CAB said that 10 of the 15 Caribbean Community member-states on the list “are fully or largely compliant and have committed to Automatic Exchange of Information.”

Those 10 CARICOM members are: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

Non-CARICOM members included on the D.C. tax haven list are: Anguilla 1/, Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao, St. Maarten, British Virgin Islands 1/, Cayman Islands 1/, Turks and Caicos Islands 1; and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
________________________________________________
1/ These British dependencies are associate members of CARICOM (OTR).

Bonaire activist informs Netherlands of violation of the constitutional wishes of the people of Bonaire and St Eustatius

(Translation  by OTR

original Dutch below)

To:

The Lieutenant Governor of Public Body Bonaire Executive Council of Public Body Bonaire Island Council of the Public Body Bonaire Mr Ronald Plasterk, Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations

Members of the Standing Committee members of Standing Committee of the 1st and 2nd Chambers

Kralendijk, October 12, 2015

Dear Directors:

In connection with the evaluation of the new state structure, five years later, on October 10, 2015 and the official report released today October 12, 2015, we invite your attention to the following:

October 10, 2010 the country Netherlands Antilles was dissolved and the autonomous countries Curacao and St. Maarten emerged joining Aruba which already had autonomous status. As a result, the islands of Saba, St Eustatius and Bonaire, (known as the BES islands) were (partially) integrated into the Dutch state under Article 134.

In Bonaire and St Eustatius, various groups have continuously protested against this illegal annexation of both islands. St Eustatius is going so far have brought this matter recently to the Decolonization Committee of the United Nations and the reasons:

Netherlands has not complied with resolutions 1514, 1541 and 2625, and the Charter of the United Nations, since 1954 and the dismantling of the former Netherlands Antilles with the consequences that these islands were wrongly removed from the U.N. list of Non-Self-Governing- Territories. 

The Netherlands has not adhered to the constitutional wishes of the people of Bonaire and St Eustatius, and have thus made them miserable.

The Netherlands continues its position as a (former ?) colonizing power perpetuating abuse, violating fundamental human rights and interfering unduly with the local political process.

This brings the legality of the (five-year) assessment into question, and we do not accept the official document which placed the islands on the illegal trajectory of the dismantling of the Netherlands Antilles, and the illegal incorporation of the BES islands into the Dutch state. This process has no legal basis for the future development of the peoples of the BES islands. This structure of (partial) integration  into the Dutch state under article 134 was never a free and conscious choice of our people.

Hoping to have sufficiently informed, I remain,

With kind regards,
James Finies 

Kaya Mamore 3, Bonaire

(Original Dutch) 

Aan:

De Gezaghebber van Openbaar Lichaam Bonaire Bestuurscollege van Openbaar Lichaam Bonaire Eilandsraad van het Openbaar Lichaam Bonaire Mr Ronald Plasterk, Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties
Leden van de Vaste Commissie Leden van Vaste Commissie van de 1ste en 2de Kamer

Kralendijk, 12 oktober 2015

Geachte Bestuurders,

In verband met de evaluatie van de nieuwe staatstructuur, vijf jaar later op 10 oktober 2015 en welk raport vandaag 12 oktober 2015 oficieel is overhandigd aan de opdrachtgevers verzoeken wij Uw aandacht voor het volgende:

10 oktober 2010 is het land Nederlandse Antillen opgeheven en de outonome landen Aruba, Curacao en St Maarten als gevolg en de eilanden Saba, St Eustatius en Bonaire, bekend als de BES eilanden geintegreerd in het Nederlands staatsbestel onder artikel 134. 

Op Bonaire en St Eustatius hebben diverse groeperingen continu geprotesteerd tegen deze illegale inlijving van beide eilanden. St Eustatius is zelfs zover dat ze kort geleden deze zaak hebben voorgelegd aan de Dekolonisatie Comite bij de Verenigde Naties en met redenen:

Nederland heeft niet voldaan aan de resoluties 1514, 1541 en 2625 van het Handvest van de Verenigde Naties sinds 1954 en bij de ontmanteling van de voormalige Nederlandse Antillen met de gevolgen dat deze eilanden ten onrechte verwijderd zijn van de lijst van Non-Self-Governing-Territories.

Nederland heeft geen juiste inhoud gegeven aan de constitutionele wensen van de bevolkingen van Bonaire en St Eustatius en hebben hun hierdoor diep ongelukkig gemaakt.

Nederland blijft haar positie als (voormalige) koloniserende macht misbruiken en schend fundamentele mensenrechten en bemoei op onrechtmatige wijze met de lokale politieke process.

Hierdoor is de legaliteit van de evaluatie te betwisten en accepteren wij niet als officiele document voor de ilegale traject van het ontmanteling van de Nederlandse Antillen en het ilegaal inlijven van de BES eilanden in het Nederlands staatsbestel en zal geen basis kunnen zijn voor het verder voortslepen op in of andere wijze van de ongelukkige volkeren van de BES eilanden en in ons geval specifiek Bonaire in deze struktuur, geintegreerd in het Nederlands staatsbestel onder artikel 134 dat nooit een vrij en bewuste keuze was van ons volk.

Hopende u voldoende te hebben geinformeerd, verblijf ik,

Met vriendelijk groet,

James Finies, Kaya Mamore 3, Bonaire

French Colonialism in Polynesia under United Nations scrutiny

 RNZI/PACNEWS

Tahiti at UN decolonisation talks

A French Polynesian delegate to the UN decolonisation discussions in New York says he hopes France won't boycott the upcoming meeting as it has done in the past.

Richard Tuheiava of the opposition pro-independence Tavini Huiraatira Party has noted that although France is a member of the UN Security Council, it routinely defies the UN decolonisation process by staying away from his delegation's presentation.

Two years ago, the UN General Assembly returned French Polynesia to the list of territories to be decolonised, which still includes 17 territories - 70 years after the UN set it up.

Tuheiava has told the local newspaper that he also wants to raise the issue of strategic resources - a reference to rare earths in the territory's seabed.

The meeting may also raise the aftermath of the nuclear weapons testing conducted by France.

The French Polynesian government is opposed to the decolonisation process.

Tahiti Political Leader tells United Nations of French exploitation of territory's natural resources and diversion of its revenue

Statement to the United Nations Special Political 

and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) 

Hon. Richard, Ariihau TUHEIAVA 

Elected Member of the House of Assembly of French Polynesia

9th October 2015 

Hon. Richard, Ariihau Tuheiava addresses United Nations (U.N.) Special Political and decolonisation Committee (Fourth Committee) at U.N. Headquarters in New York. The U.N. Committee was considering the 2015 recommendations for the decolonisation of French Polynesia/Ma'ohi Nui  - photo: OTR

Mr. Chairman, distinguished delegates, 

On behalf of the Group “Union Pour La Démocratie” (U.P.L.D.), I wish to express our appreciation to the Special Committee of Decolonization for the adoption last June of recommendations on French Polynesia presently before this Committee. 

Mr. Chairman, 

We maintain our consistent commitment to the role of the U.N. in the decolonization of our territory pursuant to international law. We once again urge the administering power, France, to comply with its obligations under Article 73(e) of the U.N. Charter to transmit information, and under Article 73 (b) to develop genuine self-government with political equality. In this regards, it is regrettable that the administering power - in particular, a member of the Council of Security - continues to ignore its U.N. Charter obligations.  

We solemnly recall the provision 3 of the UN resolution 1514 (XV): « (…) Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

Mr. Chairman, 

From our perspective, decolonization is fundamentally about justice. But justice delayed, is justice denied. The existent political status quo, which finds the administering power exercising control of the main governance functions, denies us the fundamental right to an equitable and genuine self-determination process, and is reflective of a false autonomy. 

Mr. Chairman, 

The General Assembly has adopted a host of resolutions confirming that the ownership, control and permanent sovereignty of natural resources, including marine resources, lies with the peoples of the non self-governing territories as part of their heritage. U.N. resolutions have also affirmed that the exploitation and plundering of these resources by foreign economic interests is in violation of relevant U.N. resolutions, and is a threat to the territories' integrity and prosperity.  

Mr. Chairman, Our administering power continues to unilaterally usurp the marine resources of the people of French Polynesia contained in the 5 millions square kilometers of Economic Exclusive Zone of deep ocean. These resources include the vast array of “strategic metals” such as rare earths, manganese, cobalt, and more. This deprives the people of French Polynesia of the means to build a sustainable economic and social future, and to move away from the profound economic dependency created by the false economy based on the legacy of the French nuclear testings. 

Further economic exploitation occurs by other means. Since 2009, revenue in the form of taxes paid by more than 10 airlines to land at our own Tahiti-Faa’a International Airport goes to the French treasury. Even taxes from our own airline Air Tahiti Nui are paid to France, along with fees paid to cross through our own airspace. For decades, the fees associated with at least 12 geostationary satellites that cross our spatial area, the telecommunications system - including fiber-optic cables crossing our seabed -, and many more revenue-generating competencies have been controlled by our administering power.  

Mr. Chairman, Natural resources and revenues from the territories appear to be the essence of contemporary colonialism. But the inalienable right to self-determination of the People of French Polynesia shall not be impeded by the orchestrated colonial pretext of “inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness”. We stand ready to work with the U.N. to implement the decolonization mandate for our people, as a matter of urgency. Justice delayed, is justice denied.

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Frank Martinus, Curacao Linguist, Activist, political thinker joins the ancestors

Writer Frank Martinus Arion Passed Away

WILLEMSTAD – The popular writer Arion (78) has passed away. A close friend just announced that to media in Curaçao.

Arion wrote in Dutch and Papiamento. His most famous book is “Dubbelspel”, the novel with which he made his debut in 1973.

The book was also made into a film and was the leading book in the 2006 campaign “The Netherlands Reads”. Dubbelspel was handed out for free through the libraries in the Dutch Kingdom.

Frank Martinus Arion, pseudonym of Frank Efraim Martinus, was born on December 17, 1936 in Curaçao in the Netherlands Antilles. He is a poet and a novelist, and a language advocate.

He moved to the Netherlands in 1955 and in 1981 returned to Curaçao, where he became head of the Curaçao Language Institute that promotes the use of the Papiamento language. His works include The Last Freedom (De laatste vrijheid)and Double Play (Dubbelspel). The latter novel is considered to be his magnum opus and was published in 1973.

Columbus - "He fool everybody, with a whole lot of fantasy"

Columbus Day 

12th October

(How we can celebrate dat ?)

notmytribe.com

"Columbus Lie"

"...The man with the Santa Maria

Was as great as a man can be

He sailed down to Venezuela

For another discovery

He said he discovered new lands

And he thought I wouldn’t know

He discovered a lot of Indians

Who discovered the lands before..." - Mighty Shadow

NKB

U.N. debate on decolonisation of Pacific territories continues with sessions on French Polynesia, Guam, and New Caledonia

Petitioners Raise Issues of Displacement, Marginalization, Ills of Nuclear Testing, as Fourth Committee Continues Decolonization Debates

Seventieth Session,
3rd Meeting (PM)

Excerpts

As the Committee turned to New Caledonia, Thierry Cornaille, a Minister and Spokesperson for the territorial government, listed the measures it had to ensure a smooth transition from the administering Power to the Territory’s people. The government had been granted economic sovereignty to control natural resources and, “guided by the principle of equality”, had instituted new budgetary, finance and social reforms, including the establishment of housing for all and the building of two new hospitals.

However, Mickaël Forrest of the Front de Libération Nationale Kanak et Socialiste (FLNKS), representing the native Kanaks, questioned the administering Power’s ability to guarantee independent electoral rules for the status referendum slated for 2018.

Roch Wamytan of the Union Calédonian-Front de Libération Nationale Kanak et Socialiste and Nationals Group, pointed out that an influx of French nationals migrating into New Caledonia was making the Kanak people a minority in their own land, adding that the French used New Caledonia as a “Trojan Horse” to achieve its goals in the Pacific.

Also referring to France’s involvement in Non-Self-Governing Territories, Richard Ariihau Tuheiava, a Member of the House of Assembly of French Polynesia, said that despite United Nations resolutions confirming ownership, control and permanent sovereignty over natural resources for the people of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, the administering Power continued unilaterally to usurp the Polynesian people’s marine resources, including “strategic metals” such as rare earths, manganese and cobalt. In so doing, it deprived them of the means to build a sustainable economic and social future.

Moetao Brotherson, the Third Deputy Mayor of Faa’a, French Polynesia, called on France to acknowledge the colonial nature of its nuclear testing on the atolls and to constitute a committee to assess the financial damage caused by the occupation.

COLLIN BECK (Solomon Islands), speaking on behalf of the Melanesian Spearhead Group, said it was regrettable that the vestiges of colonialism continued to hound the United Nations and humanity despite the adoption of the decolonization Declaration 55 years ago. Today, 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories across the globe were still to be decolonized. Among them was New Caledonia, which was entering a seminal phase as it prepared to carry out an act of self-determination in 2018, consistent with the letter and spirit of the Noumea Accord. While positive developments had taken place in the Territory, progress had been slow in addressing the “primordial” issues relating to the finalization of credible, fair and transparent provincial and special electoral lists, as well as an electoral process.

He called on the Committee to consider an enhanced role for the Special Committee on Decolonization, including on the question of New Caledonia, in particular. Recalling the principles enshrined in resolutions 1514 (XV) and 1541 (XV), as well as the 1998 Noumea Accord, he reiterated calls for effective implementation of the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report of the inaugural Special Committee’s visiting mission in 2014. He also called on the administering Power to ensure the free expression and exercise by the Territory’s indigenous inhabitants of their right to self-determination. Furthermore, it must create a proper political climate for a referendum to be conducted on a free and democratic basis, respect the decisions taken by New Caledonia’s elected representatives regarding the electoral process, and resolve the dispute on the special list for provincial elections before the establishment of the electoral list for the referendum upon the Territory’s attainment of full sovereignty. The administering Power should also arrange to have a United Nations presence before and supervision during the holding of the referendum, he said.

Question of New Caledonia

THIERRY CORNAILLE, Minister of Budget, Housing, Energy, Digital Development and Audiovisual Media, New Caledonia, said he would respond to a number of issues brought forth by the Special Committee, the first concerning the smooth transition from the administering Power to the Territory’s people. The local government had been granted economic sovereignty to control natural resources, and had instituted new budgetary, finance and social reforms, including by establishing housing for all and building two new hospitals.

He went on to say that equality was the principle by which the new government was guided. Caledonian men and women enjoyed the same opportunities, and the government had undertaken efforts to better educate them about the cultures making up the Territory. Furthermore, New Caledonia had pursued integration into the Pacific region, seeking membership in the Pacific Islands Forum and joining regional strategic organizations within the United Nations.

Turning to electoral rules, he said the government had consulted with a national expert on the right to vote and run for office, adding that an international expert would be given a role in revising the final agreement. The administering Power had worked in cooperation with New Caledonians, giving them possession of their natural resources, to use and exploit as they wished. However, the government required companies to submit better frameworks for the export of natural resources and to rethink their stock structures in order to construct a fund for the sovereignty of future generations of New Caledonians.

MICKAËL FORREST, Front de Libération Nationale Kanak et Socialiste (FLNKS), said the Committee remained the appropriate venue for those struggling for independence to be heard. Recalling the fragile consensus reached in Paris recently, as well as the upcoming status referendum planned for 2018, he said that all parties recognized the possibility of electoral fraud. He therefore requested the assistance of the United Nations Electoral Assistance Office, since the occupying Power was currently unable to guarantee independent electoral rolls. He went on to point out that the Kanak people were marginalized in their own land, their percentage of the population having dropped while the overall population had grown. Complete political sovereignty was the goal of FLNKS, he emphasized.

ROCH WAMYTAN, Union Calédonian-Front de Libération Nationale Kanak et Socialiste and Nationals Group, said that after 162 years of French colonization, New Caledonia was now facing a referendum for self-determination in 2018. Seventy years ago, France had withdrawn New Caledonia from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories to be decolonized, without consulting the Kanak people, he recalled, noting that France still maintained a “red line” banning independence. It was the French Government policy that he had condemned before the Committee year after year. An influx of French nationals were migrating to the Territory, making the Kanak people a minority in their own land, he said, adding that the French used New Caledonia as a “Trojan Horse” to achieve its goals in the Pacific. While all member groups of the Congress of New Caledonia had officially given their agreement to United Nations observers in the referendum process, France was “dragging its feet” over United Nations involvement, he noted.

The representative of the Solomon Islands asked Mr. Wamytam what kind of role he expected the United Nations to play in the referendum process. Mr. WAMYTAN said he expected the Organization to be the guarantor of a free and fair election in the Territory, which had encountered problems with voting in the past. The United Nations could give all New Caledonians confidence in the 2018 vote.

JULIEN BOANEMO, Federation of the GDPL, said the Kanak people had begun a process of recovering their lands in the wake of the Second World War. Official figures indicated that more than 100 clans had not had their lands returned. A study on land reform was necessary, he said, calling for United Nations support in that regard. Claims to land must lead to economic development, he added, stressing that, after 30 years, the GDPL instrument should be more effective in its function. Customary lands were the generator of great social tensions in New Caledonia. In the short term, the problem to address was the status of the GDPL.

Question of New Caledonia

DARYL MORINI, Centre for Common Destiny, said that because the New Caledonians had suffered from the wounds of violent unrest in 1988, the lack of a pardon was a source of hate and poison passed on from one generation to the next. That hate fed the psychosis of the referendum. The true question was not France or independence, but rift or reconciliation, he said. Those elected must make a strong gesture to break the cycle of hatred — a national reconciliation custom that was part of the Kanak tradition, possibly. Additionally, the dispatch by the United Nations of electoral observers for the self-determination referendum would result not only in a peaceful unfolding of the situation, but also an assurance of protection from political violence, thus gaining the goodwill of New Caledonians.

Question of Guam

TONY ADA, Senator, Guam Legislature, said that while Guamanians taught their children that democracy was a gift that all United States citizens enjoyed, those same citizens living on Guam could not vote for their President, nor could the Guam representative to Congress cast a vote of behalf of the Territory’s people. Yet, the decisions of lawmakers and judges in Washington, D.C., had a significant impact on the people of Guam and its economy. The Special Committee on Decolonization and the leaders of Guam had undertaken an effort to bring to the people choices on the Territory’s future: remain an unincorporated territory; relax the relationship with the United States; or become a member state of the administering Power. Parallel to the local government’s efforts to determine Guam’s political status was a concern over the United States military’s refocusing of forces in the Pacific, he said. While many on Guam supported the build-up, the local government had been working to grow its economy outside the shift of United States so that the Territory would not be left with a bust when the build-up ended. Regardless, he reiterated that Guam could not allow its people and its island to remain in limbo; Guam was determined to be removed from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.

JUDITH T. WON PAT, Guam, said the most acute threat to a legitimate exercise of decolonization of Guam was the incessant militarization of the island by its administering Power, the United States, of which its people were now facing a new wave. In an official Record of Decision issued in August, the United States military had laid out a detailed plan for a military build-up, allowing for the construction of military bases, the relocation of 5,000 United States Marines to Guam, and other steps, she said. On the basis of that and other initiatives, the General Assembly should pass a Guam-specific resolution to the effect that escalating United States military activities and/or installations on Guam were an unlawful impediment to self-determination. She noted that an active lawsuit in the federal district court of Guam, Davis v. Guam, represented a “dangerous development in the legal realm”, affecting the colonized people, or “native inhabitants of Guam”. Finally, on access and resource alienation, she called for a resolution reiterating the right of a non-self-governing people to the permanent sovereignty over their natural resources, and clarifying Guam’s right to information about the United States-Federated States of Micronesia treaty on the delimitation of a maritime boundary.

Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

PETER HAMILTON, an inhabitant of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), cited yesterday’s meeting during which the United Kingdom’s representative had stated that there was no doubt as to the Territory’s sovereignty, and that there could be no dialogue until its inhabitants wanted it. Describing himself as a British citizen, he said he did not speak for the British position, nor the Argentine position nor that of the islanders. “I speak as one of the many who would like to see a resolution of the dispute which divides Britain from Argentina and Latin America,” he said. The Fourth Committee and the Special Committee had overseen the matter patiently for 50 years, he noted, adding that he was present today to break the deadlock. Both committees had “lost their sharpness and focus and force in their application”, he said, asking them to play a more active role on the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).

Question of French Polynesia

RICHARD ARIIHAU TUHEIAVA, Member, House of Assembly of French Polynesia, (UPLD), expressed appreciation for the Special Committee’s adoption in June 2015 of recommendations on the Territory. Noting that decolonization was fundamentally about justice, he said that justice delayed was justice denied. Despite United Nations resolutions confirming that the ownership, control and permanent sovereignty over natural resources lay with the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, the administering Power continued unilaterally to usurp the Polynesian people’s marine resources, including “strategic metals” such as rare earths, manganese and cobalt. In so doing, it deprived them of the means to build a sustainable economic and social future, and to move away from economic dependency. Other forms of France’s economic exploitation included taxes paid to the French treasury by airlines landing at the Polynesian people’s own international airport, as well as its control over other revenue-generating sectors, he said. 

The representative of the Solomon Islands asked whether the people of French Polynesia would benefit from a regional fact-finding mission.

Mr. TUHEIVA responded by saying that such a fact-finding mission would provide valuable information necessary to the Special Committee, the Fourth Committee and the General Assembly.

MOETAI BROTHERSON, Third Deputy Mayor of Faa’a, French Polynesia, Ma’ohi Nui, said that the Secretary-General’s report on the impact of the 30-year-long period of nuclear testing in French Polynesia had been released in July 2014, yet had been “oddly” circulated one month after the Special Committee had completed its work, preventing that body from discussing the study. Furthermore, the report was not comprehensive, but rather a mere compilation of replies from just two United Nations agencies out of some 22 requests for information. 

 He asked Member States to consider other reports on the effects of atomic radiation or nuclear testing, as well as to add French Polynesia to the work programme of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. In November 2014, he recalled, the Assembly of French Polynesia had adopted a resolution calling on France to acknowledge the colonial nature of its nuclear testing and to create a committee to assess the financial damage caused by the occupation. However, no reference to that resolution had been made in the Secretariat working paper or the draft resolution, he pointed out.

 Underscoring that their dependent status had denied survivors justice and reparation, he called for the full implementation of the approved mandates.

The representative of the Solomon Islands asked whether the Special Committee had been advised about the General Assembly’s resolution on restitution for the 30 years of nuclear testing.

Mr. BROTHERSON replied that the resolution had been sent to the Special Committee in early 2014 and was publicly available.

CARLYLE CORBIN, Senior Fellow, Dependency Studies Project, said that in establishing the substantive basis for re-inscription, a self-governance assessment of French Polynesia had been undertaken to ascertain the level of self-governance according to recognized international standards. The diagnostic tool of self-governance indicators (SGIs) had been used to determine the nature of the political status and the relationship between the Territory and administering Power. The assessment had concluded that French Polynesia was a dependency governance arrangement which had been modernized over time — in form and nomenclature — but not in substance, he noted. There remained a significant political imbalance and a high degree of unilateral authority exercised by the administering Power in the political, socio-economic, strategic dimensions and other areas, he said. The assessment had ultimately determined that French Polynesia “did not meet the recognized international standards for full measure of self-government through autonomous governance”. That had provided the substantive basis for the adoption by the General Assembly of resolution 67/265, re-inscribing the Territory on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, he stated.

The representative of the Solomon Islands, speaking on a point of order, questioned whether the working papers prepared by the Secretariat contained political analyses of Territories under colonialization.

Mr. CORBIN, Dependency Studies Project, responded by saying that the Secretariat did not have the political analysis, but the Territories had taken it upon themselves to do their own political analysis to ensure that they were up to the standards of international law.

_____________________________________________

[1] A dispute exists between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).