PERPETUAL FINANCIAL CONTROL INTEGRAL TO NETHERLANDS COLONIAL PLAN TO GOVERN ITS CARIBBEAN DEPENDENCIES

"Under this thinking, the European Dutch must be allowed to tell the people of  the Dutch Caribbean dependencies how to spend their own money. Such arrogance! So, according to them we don't have the mental capacity to handle our own financial management, and will need them - forever.  The wisdom of former President of Tanzania Julius Nyerere has never been more appropriate: 'It is better to govern, or mis-govern yourself, than to be governed by anybody else.' At what point will the wider region come to the realization that such Dutch colonial maneuvering is not at all in the Caribbean's interest?" -  a Caribbean economist

__________________________________

Permanent Supervision Of Finances Of The Former Antilles Islands

THE HAGUE - The former Netherlands Antilles must continue to be under financial supervision in the future. This is according to Age Bakker, who departs after six years as chairman of the temporary Committee for Financial Supervision (CFT).

According to the economist, the supervision increases the attractiveness of investing and reduces the risk that the Netherlands has to step in for financial mismanagement.

“The carrot and stick approach applies here,” says Bakker. “The carrot is that the islands can borrow cheap money abroad via the Netherlands.” For example, the island states of Curaçao, Sint Maarten, Aruba and the three overseas municipalities of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba, can take advantage of the good reputation of the Netherlands on the International capital markets. “The stick is that independent financial supervision also has control by giving directions.”

Carrot and stick? Apparently he is serious... 

_____________________________________________

The Daily Herald

Bosman Seeks Clarity On Permanent Supervision

THE HAGUE - Member of the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament André Bosman of the liberal democratic VVD party wants to know if the Dutch Government agrees with the statement that financial supervision in the Dutch Caribbean should become permanent.

Bosman sent a series of questions to caretaker Minister of Home Affairs and Kingdom Relations Ronald Plasterk on Wednesday following a media statement of departing Committee for Financial Supervision CFT Chairman Age Bakker who said he was in favour of maintaining the current financial supervision in a more permanent format.

The Member of Parliament (MP) asked the Minister whether he agreed with the permanent instituting of financial supervision on the six Dutch Caribbean islands. When the current supervision was instituted in 2010, it was agreed that the supervision, in principle, would be of a temporary nature and that the measure aimed at securing sound Government finances would be regularly evaluated.

Bosman also wanted to know to what extent a permanent version of financial supervision in the Dutch Caribbean would limit the financial risk for the Netherlands and to what degree the Netherlands would have to take the rap for “financial mismanagement” of the Caribbean countries of the Kingdom.

“Do you agree with the statement of Mr. Bakker that permanent financial supervision for the islands would reduce the risk that the Netherlands would have to cover for financial mismanagement?” Bosman asked the Minister.

The MP inquired whether the Minister would incorporate the advice of the departing CFT Chairman in next year’s evaluation of the current agreement between the Netherlands and the Dutch Caribbean islands. He asked whether the Second Chamber would be involved in this evaluation and when the results of this evaluation would be sent to Parliament.

In a separate series of questions, Bosman sought clarity on the most recent advice of the Aruba Committee for Financial Supervision CAFT to implement a general commitment and vacancy stop for the Aruba Government.

Having analysed the first progress report of 2017 of the Country Aruba, CAFT concluded that the deficit in the collective sector in the first quarter amounted to 1.1 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which was higher than the 0.5 per cent GDP deficit standard for the full year.

The financial results over the first quarter were at such level that the CAFT advised to implement a vacancy stop and a commitment stop. At the beginning of this year more people have entered public service, which is not in line with Government’s intention to save five per cent on Government staff annually.

Bosman asked Minister Plasterk whether he agreed with the CAFT advice to implement a general commitment and vacancy stop, and whether he found it desirable that the Aruba Government didn’t agree with this advice.

“Why has the civil servants corps increased with 18 full-time employees? What should be the consequences of Aruba’s refusal to cooperate with the CAFT advices,” the MP wanted to know.

Tuesday’s arrest of two employees of Curaçao’s Admittance Organisation, formerly the Immigration Department, on corruption charges was reason for Bosman to inquire about that case. He asked Minister Plasterk for clarification on this specific case that involved the department head.

The MP wanted to know in what way the suspects committed fraud with applications for residency permits and the issuing of these permits. He asked about the consequences of this fraud on the issuing of Dutch passports to “persons who didn’t have a right” to acquiring a passport, and whether the Netherlands would be involved in the handling of this case.

Fourth of July Like You’ve Never Seen It Before!

www.portside.org

by Mike Ferner

"Slaves weren’t included in 'We the People,' they were only the property of their owners."

A historically critical article about the American Revolution would typically discuss how the democratic promises of the Declaration were left hanging at war’s end, followed by a decidedly undemocratic constitution six years later.Examples of that would include abandoning ideals stated in the Declaration like: “all men (sic) are created equal” and have unassailable rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It could cite that: 

Slaves weren’t included in “We the People,” they were only the property of their owners. Because this human property, unlike a bale of cotton, could plan to run away, particular attention was paid to securing it. “A person (the indelicate word “slave” never appeared) held to service or labor in one state…escaping to another…shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.” (Art. IV, sec. 2 [1])

To appease Southerners interested in gaining the maximum number of seats in the new House of Representatives, the Fathers of Our Country declared, in writing, that these “other persons” would each count as three-fifths of a human. (Art. I, sec. 2 [1])

Women did not have the right to vote, nor did Catholics and Jews in some states. White, Protestant, men had to own qualifying amounts of property. Thus, only about 6% [2] of the new nation’s population was eligible to vote in the first presidential election and only 1.3%, or 38,818 [3] people actually did. 

Even those so privileged didn’t actually vote for a presidential candidate. They voted for “electors” pledged to vote for certain candidates and even then, four of the state legislatures picked [3] those electors, not voting citizens.

State legislatures, not citizens, chose U.S. Senators until the Constitution was amended in 1913 [4].

Clearly, there are reasons to ask what the Founders of Our Country were up to and what our fireworks every Fourth of July about.

But this year, let’s investigate further: was war the only or even the best way to achieve what we now see was more limited than what we were taught?

Who better to proffer that question than the people’s historian, Howard Zinn?

READ THE FULL REPORT HERE

*****************

ALSO READ: 

Frederick Douglass on the Fourth of July

Anti-nuclear marches planned in Tahiti

RNZ

A French Polynesian anti-nuclear group says it will hold two peaceful marches on the Tahiti peninsula on Friday and Saturday in the lead-up to the weekend commemorations of France's first nuclear weapons test in the Pacific.

Photo: Facebook Association 193

The Association 193 said the marches would be from Tautira to Taravao and from Taravao to Teahupoo to try to hold to account those responsible for the damage caused by the 193 atomic tests.

The group's vice president Auguste Uebe-Carlson said efforts to submit files for compensation were being frustrated by red tape, cost and above all fear to encounter repercussions on a personal level.

Father Auguste said there was no progress in getting the authorities to organise a local referendum on the impact of the tests despite tens of thousands of people having signed a petition to that effect.

He said the Association had also failed to get a response to its grievances from the new head of the local body looking at the aftermath of France's nuclear weapons tests.

Father Auguste said there appeared to be a denial that the fall-out affected all of French Polynesia.

In the lead-up to the French presidential election, Emmanuel Macron promised that Paris would pay in full the medical costs incurred by those suffering from radiation-induced illnesses.

GUAM WAR REPARATIONS SUBJECT OF PANEL DISCUSSION JUNE 30

"FRENCH POLYNESIA REMAINS A NON SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORY ACCORDING TO THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER" - U.N. COMMITTEE

"...General Assembly resolution 67/265 of 17 May 2013, which provided for the reinscription of French Polynesia on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, was reaffirmed by the conclusion of a Self-Governance Assessment of the Territory, presented to the Fourth Committee on 4 October 2016, that the Territory did not meet the full measure of self-government;" - U.N. Decolonization Committee Resolution adopted on 22nd June 2017.

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 2017 relating to French Polynesia,[1]

          Taking note of the working paper prepared by the Secretariat on French Polynesia[2] and other relevant information,

          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,[3]

          Expressing concern that 57 years after the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,[4] there still remain 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories, including French Polynesia,

          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 people of French Polynesia require flexible, practical and innovative approaches to the options for self-determination, without any prejudice to territorial size, geographical location, size of population or natural resources,

          Reaffirming the inalienable rights of the people of French Polynesia to the ownership, control and disposal of their natural resources, including marine resources and undersea minerals,

          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 71/89 of 6 December 2016, entitled “Effects of atomic radiation”,

          Recalling the report of the Secretary-General on the environmental, ecological, health and other impacts of the 30-year period of nuclear testing in French Polynesia,[5] prepared pursuant to paragraph 5 of General Assembly resolution 68/93 of 11 December 2013,

          Noting that, in February 2017, the administering Power amended the Act concerning the recognition and compensating of victims of nuclear tests[6] in order to allow for the compensation of a larger number of victims,

          Recognizing 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,

          Recalling the admission of French Polynesia as a full member of the Pacific Islands Forum at the forty-seventh Pacific Islands Forum, convened in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, from 8 to 10 September 2016,

          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.       Takes note of the statement made by the President of French Polynesia, speaking for the first time in the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee), at the seventy-first session of the General Assembly in October 2016;

          4.       Also takes note of the first participation of a representative of the Government of the Territory in the regional seminar, which in 2017 was held in Kingstown, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, from 16 to 18 May;

          5.       Notes the request by a representative of the Government of the Territory at the 2017 Caribbean regional seminar to remove French Polynesia from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, and takes note of resolution No. 2013-3, adopted by the Assembly of French Polynesia on 30 May 2013, which repealed the resolution of the Assembly adopted in 2011, requesting the reinscription of French Polynesia on that list;

          6.       Stresses, in this regard, that General Assembly resolution 67/265 of 17 May 2013, which provided for the reinscription of French Polynesia on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, was reaffirmed by the conclusion of a Self-Governance Assessment of the Territory, presented to the Fourth Committee on 4 October 2016, that the Territory did not meet the full measure of self-government;

          7.       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;

          8.       Regrets that the administering Power has not responded to the request to submit information on French Polynesia under Article 73 e of the Charter since the reinscription of the Territory by the General Assembly in 2013;

          9.       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;

          10.     Urges the administering Power to ensure the permanent sovereignty of the people of French Polynesia over their natural resources, including marine resources and undersea minerals, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly;

          11.     Takes note of the report of the Secretary-General on the environmental, ecological, health and other impacts of the 30-year period of nuclear testing in French Polynesia,[7] prepared pursuant to paragraph 7 of General Assembly resolution 71/120 of 6 December 2016, and reiterates its request to the Secretary-General to provide continuous updates in this regard;

          12.     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;

          13.     Requests the Special Committee to continue to examine the question of the Non Self-Governing Territory of French Polynesia and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its seventy-third session.

---

         [1] Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-second Session, Supplement No. 23 (A/72/23), chap. ___.

         [2] A/AC.109/2017/7.

         [3] See A/68/966-S/2014/573, annex I.

         [4] Resolution 1514 (XV).

         [5] A/69/189.

         [6] Act No. 2010-2 of 5 January 2010 concerning the recognition and compensating of victims of nuclear tests.

         [7] A/72/74.

________________________________________

Résolution

Question de la Polynésie française

L’Assemblée générale,

Ayant examiné la question de la Polynésie française,

Ayant également examiné le chapitre du rapport du Comité spécial chargé d’étudier la situation en ce qui concerne l’application de la Déclaration sur l’octroi de l’indépendance aux pays et aux peuples coloniaux sur ses travaux de 2017, qui porte sur la Polynésie française[1],

Prenant note du document de travail établi par le Secrétariat sur la Polynésie française[2] et des autres informations pertinentes,

Réaffirmant le droit des peuples à disposer d’eux-mêmes, tel qu’il est consacré par la Charte des Nations Unies et conformément à toutes ses résolutions pertinentes, notamment ses résolutions 1514 (XV) du 14 décembre 1960 et 1541 (XV) du 15 décembre 1960,

Rappelant sa résolution 67/265 du 17 mai 2013, intitulée « L’autodétermination de la Polynésie française », dans laquelle elle a affirmé le droit inaliénable du peuple de la Polynésie française à l’autodétermination et à l’indépendance, tel qu’il est consacré au Chapitre XI de la Charte et par sa résolution 1514 (XV), considéré que la Polynésie française restait un territoire non autonome au sens de la Charte, et déclaré que l’alinéa e de l’Article 73 de la Charte faisait obligation au Gouvernement français, en sa qualité de Puissance administrante, de communiquer des renseignements sur la Polynésie française,

Prenant note de la section relative à la Polynésie française figurant dans le Document final de la dix-septième Conférence ministérielle du Mouvement des pays non alignés, tenue à Alger du 26 au 29 mai 2014[3],

Constatant avec préoccupation que, 57 ans après l’adoption de la Déclaration sur l’octroi de l’indépendance aux pays et aux peuples coloniaux[4], 17 territoires, dont la Polynésie française, ne sont toujours pas autonomes,

Considérant que toutes les formules possibles d’autodétermination des territoires sont valables dès lors qu’elles correspondent aux vœux librement exprimés des peuples concernés, qu’elles sont déterminées au cas par cas et qu’elles sont conformes aux principes clairement définis dans ses résolutions 1514 (XV) et 1541 (XV) et ses autres résolutions pertinentes,

Considérant également qu’une démarche souple, pragmatique et novatrice des formules d’autodétermination s’impose, au vu des spécificités et des aspirations du peuple de la Polynésie française, indépendamment de la superficie du territoire, de sa situation géographique, de la taille de sa population ou de ses ressources naturelles,

Réaffirmant les droits inaliénables du peuple de la Polynésie française à la propriété, au contrôle et à l’utilisation de ses ressources naturelles, y compris les ressources marines et les minéraux sous-marins,

Consciente qu’il incombe à la Puissance administrante d’assurer l’application intégrale et rapide de la Déclaration en ce qui concerne la Polynésie française,

Sachant qu’il importe, pour que le Comité spécial comprenne mieux la situation politique des peuples des territoires et puisse s’acquitter efficacement de son mandat, au cas par cas, que cet organe soit tenu informé par les puissances administrantes et reçoive des renseignements d’autres sources appropriées, y compris des représentants des territoires, en ce qui concerne les vœux et aspirations des peuples des territoires,

Consciente des importantes retombées sanitaires et environnementales des essais nucléaires pratiqués dans le territoire par la Puissance administrante pendant 30 ans et des inquiétudes que suscitent dans le territoire les conséquences de ces activités sur la vie et la santé des populations, en particulier des enfants et des groupes vulnérables, et sur l’environnement de la région, et gardant à l’esprit sa résolution 71/89 du 6 décembre 2016 intitulée « Effets des rayonnements ionisants »,

Rappelant le rapport du Secrétaire général sur les retombées environnementales, écologiques, sanitaires et autres des essais nucléaires pratiqués pendant 30 ans en Polynésie française[5], établi conformément au paragraphe 5 de sa résolution 68/93 du 11 décembre 2013,

Notant qu’en février 2017, la Puissance administrante a modifié la loi relative à la reconnaissance et à l’indemnisation des victimes des essais nucléaires[6] pour qu’un plus grand nombre de victimes puissent être indemnisées,

Considérant qu’il importe que le Comité spécial veille à ce que les organes compétents de l’Organisation des Nations Unies mènent activement une campagne de sensibilisation afin d’aider les peuples des territoires à mieux comprendre les différentes options en matière d’autodétermination,

Rappelant l’admission de la Polynésie française comme membre à part entière du Forum des îles du Pacifique à sa quarante-septième session, qui s’est tenue à Pohnpei (États fédérés de Micronésie) du 8 au 10 septembre 2016,

1. Réaffirme le droit inaliénable du peuple de la Polynésie française à l’autodétermination, conformément à la Charte des Nations Unies et à sa résolution 1514 (XV) contenant la Déclaration sur l’octroi de l’indépendance aux pays et aux peuples coloniaux;

2. Réaffirme également qu’en fin de compte c’est au peuple de la Polynésie française lui-même qu’il appartient de déterminer librement son futur statut politique, conformément aux dispositions applicables de la Charte, de la Déclaration et de ses résolutions pertinentes, et, à cet égard, demande à la Puissance administrante d’agir en coopération avec le gouvernement du territoire et les organes compétents du système des Nations Unies pour mettre au point des programmes d’éducation politique dans le territoire afin de faire prendre conscience au peuple de la Polynésie française de son droit à l’autodétermination, compte tenu des différents statuts politiques légitimes envisageables sur la base des principes clairement définis dans sa résolution 1541 (XV) et les autres résolutions et décisions pertinentes;

3. Prend note de la déclaration faite par le Président de la Polynésie française, qui s’exprimait pour la première fois devant la Commission des questions politiques spéciales et de la décolonisation (Quatrième Commission) à la soixante et onzième session de l’Assemblée générale, en octobre 2016;

4. Prend note également de la participation d’un représentant du gouvernement du territoire, pour la première fois, au séminaire régional tenu en 2017 à Kingstown (Saint-Vincent-et-les Grenadines), du 16 au 18 mai;

5. Note qu’un représentant du gouvernement du territoire a demandé, au séminaire régional des Caraïbes de 2017, que la Polynésie française soit retirée de la liste des territoires non autonomes, et prend note de la résolution no 2013-3 adoptée par l’Assemblée de la Polynésie française le 30 mai 2013, par laquelle cette dernière a retiré sa résolution de 2011 appelant à la réinscription de la Polynésie française sur la liste;

6. Souligne à cet égard que l’adoption de sa résolution 67/265 du 17 mai 2013 portant réinscription de la Polynésie française sur la liste des territoires non autonomes a été réaffirmée dans les conclusions d’une évaluation du niveau d’autonomie du territoire présentées à la Quatrième Commission le 4 octobre 2016, selon lesquelles le territoire ne remplit pas l’ensemble des critères d’autonomie;

7. Demande à la Puissance administrante de prendre pleinement part et de coopérer sans réserve aux travaux du Comité spécial chargé d’étudier la situation en ce qui concerne l’application de la Déclaration sur l’octroi de l’indépendance aux pays et aux peuples coloniaux afin d’assurer l’application des dispositions de l’alinéa e de l’Article 73 de la Charte ainsi que de la Déclaration et afin de donner au Comité spécial des avis au sujet de l’application des dispositions de l’alinéa b de l’Article 73 de la Charte relatives au développement de la capacité de la Polynésie française à s’administrer elle-même, et encourage la Puissance administrante à faciliter l’envoi de missions de visite et de missions spéciales dans le territoire;

8. Déplore que la Puissance administrante n’ait pas donné suite à la demande qui lui avait été faite de soumettre au sujet de la Polynésie française les renseignements visés à l’alinéa e de l’Article 73 de la Charte depuis que le territoire a été réinscrit sur la liste des territoires non autonomes par l’Assemblée générale en 2013;

9. Réaffirme que le Chapitre XI de la Charte fait obligation à la Puissance administrante de communiquer des renseignements sur la Polynésie française et la prie de les communiquer au Secrétaire général, comme le prescrit la Charte;

10. Exhorte la Puissance administrante à garantir la souveraineté permanente du peuple de la Polynésie française sur ses ressources naturelles, y compris les ressources marines et les minéraux sous-marins, conformément à ses résolutions sur la question;

11. Prend note du rapport du Secrétaire général sur les retombées environnementales, écologiques, sanitaires et autres des essais nucléaires pratiqués pendant 30 ans en Polynésie française[7], établi en application du paragraphe 7 de sa résolution 71/120 du 6 décembre 2016, et le prie à nouveau de continuer de lui faire part de tout fait nouveau survenu sur la question;

12. Prie la Puissance administrante d’intensifier son dialogue avec la Polynésie française afin de favoriser la mise en place rapide d’un processus d’autodétermination équitable et effectif, dans le cadre duquel seront arrêtés le calendrier et les modalités de l’adoption d’un acte d’autodétermination;

13. Prie le Comité spécial de poursuivre l’examen de la question du territoire non autonome de la Polynésie française et de lui présenter un rapport à ce sujet à sa soixante-treizième session.

_____________________________________

[1] Documents officiels de l’Assemblée générale, soixante-douzième session, Supplément no 23 (A/72/23), chap._.
[2] A/AC.109/2017/7.
[3] Voir A/68/966-S/2014/573, annexe I.
[4] Résolution 1514 (XV).
[5] A/69/189.
[6] Loi no°2010-2 du 5 janvier 2010 relative à la reconnaissance et à l’indemnisation des victimes des essais nucléaires.
[7] A/72/74.

Massive profits from France's economic exploitation of French Polynesia revealed at United Nations commitee hearings

"A wide range of current and potential sources of income derived from our territory represents revenue that should be used in the development of our new economic and social model of an independent economy. Instead, such current revenue is transferred to France" - Richard Arihau Tuheiava, MP

__________________________________________

STATEMENT

H.E. Richard Ariihau TUHEIAVA

Elected Member

Assembly of French Polynesia

to the Special Committee on Decolonization

United Nations

22 June 2017

Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Members of the Special Committee,

I have the honour to address you in my capacity as elected member of the House of Assembly of French Polynesia. It has been over four years since French Polynesia has been re-inscribed on its list of Non Self-Governing Territories by consensus General Assembly resolution of 17 May 2013. We reiterate our appreciation for the global support in this effort. We remain, however, disappointed that the administering Power continues to deny its obligations under Article 73(e) of the U.N. Charter to transmit information on our territory.

Mr. Chairman,

Various investigations made since Ma'ohi Nui was relisted on the C-24 list have revealed that the relationship between the administering Power and the territory of French Polynesia is financially abusive since decades, and does not ensure "the paramount interest of the inhabitants of the territory" as reflected in Article 73(a) of the UN Charter. Indeed, the administering Power has kept full control and sovereignty over the natural resources of French Polynesia. Permit several illustrations:

1) Exclusive economic zone (EEZ)

French Polynesia’s EEZ is covering 5 millions square kilometers of ocean. Although the current French organic law allows for the administrative 'competencies' of management and exploration of the natural resources to be monitored by our local elected Government, Provision 2 § 2 of the UN Convention of the Law Of Sea (UNCLOS) appears to acknowledge that full right of sovereignty over our EEZ remains with France as the State Party. The result is France is listed as the 2nd largest maritime power in the world. This rank generates sources of income in terms of international maritime trade, and a significant geopolitical influence.

2) Aerial Surface

Provision 2 § 2 of UNCLOS also extends the right of sovereignty of the administering Power over the undersea & seabed resources as well as the aerial zone above our EEZ. In this regard, France has created two taxes applicable to all its Overseas Collectivities, including in French Polynesia:

   a) The 'Redevance Océanique" fee charged to each airline company whose planes cross our aerial zone, and land at the international airport of Tahiti-Faaa, amount to several hundred millions US dollars per year, collected by the French government.

   b) An "Airport Tax' is being collected by the administering Power on every airline ticket purchased to enter in French Polynesia or to travel out of it.

3) Spatial occupation

Since the 70’s, the French spatial program conducted from its Spatial Base in Kourou, French Guyana has been a tremendous source of income for France. More than 300 artificial satellites cross the spatial zone above the 5 million sq. km2 of French Polynesia’s EEZ every hour. Such spatial activity is a significant business for the administering Power.

4) Seabed Resources

   A significant quantity of world class-quality Cobalt, Platinum and Manganese, as well as Rare Earths, has been be located within the EEZ of French Polynesia. On the matter of ownership and control of these resources, the French Organic Law governing French Polynesia  (Article 14) gives to the administering Power the unilateral authority of controlling the market of 'strategic raw materials".

Mr. Chairman,

   These are but a few examples indicating that the colonial legislation governing French Polynesia ensures the full unilateral authority of France over the natural resources of our territory. A wide range of current and potential sources of income derived from our territory represents revenue that should be used in the development of our new economic and social model of an independent economy. Instead, such current revenue is transferred to France.

Mr. Chairman,

   The second issue I wish to raise is the question of nuclear testing. We note that references to much of the information that we have provided to this Committee and the Fourth Committee in previous years on issues related to the impacts of nuclear testing has been omitted from all relevant U.N. documents. I provide two examples to this effect:

   Firstly, we have provided to this Committee the resolution of the Assembly of French Polynesia adopted on 27 November 2014 that called upon the administering Power to recognize the colonial nature of its nuclear testings in our territory.

Secondly, during the Fourth Committee hearings last year, one of the 18 petitioners Mr. Yves CONROY publicly stated that his deceased spouse has been officially recognized by the French Committee of Compensation of the Nuclear Victims as having been contaminated by one the 46 atmospheric nuclear tests conducted on Moruroa atoll - even as she had never been to the nuclear site. This revelation is scientific evidence that the French nuclear testing could have contaminated the whole population of our country! 

No reference of these documented facts was made in the U.N. documentation.

Mr. Chairman,

The omission of reference to these and other important developments surrounding the effects of nuclear testing on our people is cause for major concern that the selectivity of information continues to be influenced by the same administering Power that refuses to comply with its U.N. obligations regarding our territory.

We are hopeful that the continuous updates on this item to be included in future reports of the UN Secretary General will be more comprehensive, and consistent with the commitment to decolonization expressed by the new Secretary General in his address to the organizational session of your Special Committee last February.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chagos to be subject of International Court Advisory Opinion

MEETINGS COVERAGE

GA/11924

22 JUNE 2017

• GENERAL ASSEMBLY
 
• PLENARY

SEVENTY-FIRST SESSION, 88TH MEETING (AM)

General Assembly Adopts Resolution Seeking International Court’s Advisory Opinion on Pre-independence Separation of Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius

Minister Cites Need to Complete Decolonization Process as United Kingdom Says It Will Cede Territory When No Longer Needed for Defence

The General Assembly requested today that the International Court of Justice render an advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius before that Indian Ocean island nation’s independence in the 1960s.

By a recorded vote of 94 in favour to 15 against, with 65 abstentions, the Assembly adopted the text contained in document A/71/L.73, recalling its 1965 resolution in which it asked the United Kingdom not to dismember the territory of Mauritius ahead of its independence in 1968.  It asked the Court whether the decolonization of Mauritius had been carried out in a lawful manner, given the Archipelago’s subsequent separation.

Also by the text, the Assembly asked the Court to advise on the consequences arising from the United Kingdom’s continuing administration of the Chagos Archipelago under international law, including the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.  It pointed, in particular, to Mauritius’ inability to resettle its nationals, including those of Chagossian origin, on the islands.

Speaking before the action, Anerood Jugnauth, Mauritius’ Minister Mentor and Minister for Defence and Rodrigues – also a former Prime Minister and President – said “a vote for the draft resolution […] is a vote in support of completing the process of decolonization, respect for international law and the rule of law”.  Recalling that that he had been accompanied by Chagossians forcibly evicted from their islands following the separation, he emphasized that his country had never accepted the situation, and had not been in a position to consent before gaining statehood, even if the United Kingdom claimed that compensation had been given for its consent.

Describing the Chagos Archipelago as part of his country since at least the eighteenth century, when France had governed it, he said the entire territory had been ceded to the United Kingdom in 1810, and kept intact until the unlawful excision of the Chagos Archipelago on 8 November 1965.  He added that information had come to light about British efforts to manipulate the international community at the time, and to present the United Nations with a fait accompli regarding the separation.  Those facts alone should warrant a fresh look at the situation, he emphasized.

The United Kingdom’s representative called for withdrawal of the draft resolution in order to keep a more constructive path open.  Emphasizing that his country would not consent to having a bilateral dispute submitted for judicial settlement, he recalled that, in recent talks, the United Kingdom’s offers had clearly signalled acknowledgement of Mauritius’ long-term interest in the Archipelago, offering a framework for joint management of all its islands except Diego Garcia, the site of a military base.

He went on to state that United Kingdom had decided against resettling the Chagossians on the grounds of feasibility, cost, defence and security interests.  However, it was implementing a $50 million support package designed to improve their livelihoods.  The focus of Mauritius throughout recent talks had not been on the Chagossians, but rather on transferring sovereignty, he said.  However, since the territory had been created for defence purposes in a joint agreement with the United States, sovereignty would revert to Mauritius when the territory was no longer required for that purpose.

Other speakers voiced respect for the principles of self-determination of peoples, the sovereignty of States and international law.  Those opposing the resolution underlined the need for a consensual bilateral approach to resolving disputes between States, pointing out that the Court did not have mandatory jurisdiction in such issues.  The representative of the United States said the Assembly’s action represented the circumvention of normal procedure, describing it as a “back-door” way to get the issue on the Court’s docket.

Many of those supporting the text prioritized the need to complete the decolonization process.  India’s representative, while conceding his country’s security concerns relating to the Indian Ocean, said that, on balance, it was a matter of principle for India to uphold the decolonization process, as well as respect for the sovereignty of nations.

El Salvador’s representative called for broadening the Court’s jurisdiction, pointing out that his small country lacked large armies and nuclear weapons.  “It is international law that protects us,” he pointed out.

On the budgetary implications of the resolution, a Secretariat official reported that it was not possible to determine an exact figure, but based on recent precedents, the cost of an advisory opinion concerning the Chagos Archipelago could range from $450,000 to $600,000.

Also speaking today were representatives of Congo, Venezuela (for the Non‑Aligned Movement), Angola (for the Southern African Development Community), Egypt, Kenya, United Republic of Tanzania, Chile, Croatia, France, Trinidad and Tobago, Australia, Uruguay, Germany, China, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden, Canada, Portugal, Israel, Brazil, Myanmar and Indonesia.

Before the action on the resolution, the Assembly paid tribute to the late President Baldwin Lonsdale of Vanuatu.  Following a minute of silence and a statement by the Assembly President, the following delegates delivered statements:  Congo (on behalf of the Group of African States), Mongolia (on behalf of the Group of Asia-Pacific States), Romania (on behalf of the Group of Eastern European States), Honduras (on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States), Australia (on behalf of the Western European and other States), United States (the host country) and Vanuatu.

READ THE FULL REPORT HERE