The United Nations (U.N.) Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PFII) at its Seventh Session held in New York ended its two-week session on 2nd May 2008 with the adoption of recommendations to implement the U.N.’s dormant decolonisation agenda. These recommendations were based on the conclusions of the half-day discussion on the Pacific region where a host of non-governmental organisations expressed concerns for the lack of implementation of the United Nations decolonisation mandate, and offered solutions to jump-start the process.
Relevant Recommendations on Decolonisation adopted at the Seventh Session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
• The Permanent Forum recommends that an expert seminar be held, without financial implications, and invites the participation of the Committee on the Elimination of racial Discrimination and the Special Committee on Decolonisation to examine the impact of the United Nations decolonisation process on indigenous peoples of the non self-governing territories which are now or have been listed on the United Nations list of Non Self-Governing Territories. The Permanent Forum requests that independent experts and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples be invited to participate in the seminar. Furthermore, the Forum requests that indigenous peoples under non self-governing territories status also be invited.
• The Permanent Forum expresses its concern for the human rights of indigenous peoples in the non self-governing territories in the Pacific region and calls on the Human Rights Council to designate a Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Indigenous Peoples of those Territories.
• The Permanent Forum invites the Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples to examine and report on the situation of the human rights of indigenous peoples in non self-governing territories of the Pacific region and urges relevant States to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur for that purpose.
• The Permanent Forum invites the Chairman of the Special Committee (on Decolonisation) to report on the decolonisation process within the Pacific region to the Permanent Forum at its eighth session in 2009.
The momentum of the successful Pacific initiative leading to the adoption of the Permanent Forum recommendations was given great impetus following the adoption by the by the United Nations General Assembly on 13th December 2007 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 3 of the Declaration confirmed that “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination (and) by virtue of that right freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Article 4 of the Declaration indicates that in exercising this right, indigenous peoples “have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters related to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.”
Pacific Position
An extensive paper presented to the Seventh Session of the Forum by Mililani Trask, Director of the Indigenous World Association and a coalition of Pacific indigenous organisations, expressed the dilemma faced by indigenous peoples over United Nations reluctance to enact the measures its General Assembly had adopted for decades in the areas of self-determination and decolonisation. The paper, which was also endorsed by a number of Caribbean indigenous organisations, was published in its entirety in the May edition Overseas Territories Report (OTR), and can be obtained from OTR at overseasreview@yahoo.com.
In her statement, Director Trask pointed out that ‘international law concedes that the peoples of the non self-governing territories are denied the most important of all human rights, the right of self-governance,” and that (U.N. member) “states were to assist these peoples in attaining a full measure of self-government.” She recalled that since the Cold War ended, only on non self-governing territory (Timor Leste) had achieved this full measure of self-government, and that a number of territories “remain in a state of political disenfranchisement as colonies of the Administering States.” In this connection, Trask listed Guam and American Samoa under United States administration, Kanaki – New Caledonia under French jurisdiction, Pitcairn under United Kingdom control, and Tokelau under New Zealand supervision as indications of the existing colonial arrangements formally recognised by the United Nations. Also recognised by the U.N. are the Caribbean colonial territories including the U.S. Virgin Islands under U.S. administration, and Bermuda, Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, British Virgin Islands and Anguilla under United Kingdom jurisdiction.
Trask also made reference to territories such as French Occupied Polynesia, Easter Island, Hawaii and Alaska which had been removed from UN list of non self-governing territories, but whose situation nevertheless had been raised both in the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and in the Human Rights Council. She made specific reference to the failure of the U.N. Decolonisation Committee to respond to requests from the CERD for information related to racism in the territories “for 19 consecutive years,” and commented that “it appears that we are dealing with a situation of institutionalized racism.”
The Pacific statement went on to recount the different U.N. bodies which have ignored the legislative mandate from the General Assembly on decolonisation including the Special Committee on Decolonisation, various specialised agencies and technical organs, and other U.N. bodies. A plan of implementation to this effect had even been endorsed repeatedly by the U.N. General Assembly, but its implementation has been ignored by the wider U.N. system, giving substance to the adage that “all U.N. resolutions are equal, but some resolutions are more equal than others.” The Pacific statement recalled that “for ten years, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) had repeatedly requested that the (U.N.) Secretariat of the Special Committee produce reports related to the implementation of the U.N. decolonisation resolutions,” pursuant to repeated resolutions of the General Assembly. The statement went on to recount in detail the many failures of the U.N. system to live up to its international obligations.
The Pacific statement also brought to the attention of the meeting that the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PFII) had adopted in 2004 a recommendation which “request(ed) the Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples (to) undertake a study on the United Nations decolonisation process and the Special Committee on Decolonisation to assess its historical and current impact on the human rights of indigenous peoples of the non self-governing territories.”
The 2004 recommendation of the Permanent Forum also “request(ed) the U.N. Secretary-General to undertake a mid-decade review on the Second Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism to determine whether substantial progress (had) been made in achieving the goals of the Second Decade and to identify proposals for addressing obstacles in achieving (those goals).” Similar to the recommendations in the UN General Assembly resolutions, these decisions of the Permanent Forum have not been undertaken.
Other statements supported the concerns expressed by Ms. Trask. Speaking on behalf of the Pacific Caucus, Malia Nobrega, a member of the Indigenous World Association, Na Koa Ikaika o ka Lahui Hawaki’i and the Waikiki Hawaiian Civic Club focused considerable attention on human rights issues. In this connection, she noted that “much of the human rights deprivations in the Pacific (loss of cultural integrity, inability to protect our ancestor’s remains, alienation from traditional lands, etc.) are inextricably linked to our international personalities as non self-governing territories (both presently and formerly listed NSGTs).”
Ms. Nobrega ermphasised that “the human rights ‘situation’ in these territories is abhorrent and serves as the most powerful challenge to U.N. legitimacy.” She expressed deep concern that “the U.N. engages in ‘colonial accommodation,’ as it is well known that the Special Committee on Decolonisation remains at best lamentably ineffective and at worst an active participant in the systematic denial of the indigenous peoples of the non self-governing territories to the most basic human right of self-determination.”
Kai’opua Fyfe, Director of the Koani Foundation, also addressed the Permanent Forum on behalf of the Hawai’i Caucus and Affiliated Organisations on the same matter. Director Fyfe began with emphasizing that the objective of his presentation was to “overcome the obstacles that have blocked progress in achieving the goals of the Second Decade of Eradicating Colonialism, particularly as they applied to Hawai’i Ka Pae’ Aina.” He proceeded with a chronology of events related to the history of the annexation of Hawai’i including its placement on the U.N. list of non self-governing territories in 1946, and the events which led to the removal of the territory from the U.N. list in 1959 – one year before the adoption by the U.N. General Assembly of the landmark Decolonisation Declaration. The presentation favoured the re-inscription of Hawai’i to the U.N. list of non self-governing territories. Reference was also made to U.S. Public Law 103-150 of 1993 in which the U.S. officially apologized for its 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai’i, and to the shadow report on the violation of human rights of Native Hawaiians submitted to the 86th Session of the Human Rights Committee “refuting assertions by the USA that it had fulfilled its international obligations regarding the Kingdom of Hawai’i.”
Director Fyfe advised that the Human Rights Committee in its concluding observations and recommendations on the adherence to the right to self-determination under Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) expressed “regret that it had not received sufficient information on the consequences on the situation of Indigenous Hawaiian Peoples for the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii which resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Hawaiian people.” He also made reference to the petition of the Koani Foundation presented to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) on the recommendation of the experts of the Human Rights Committee.
Yet another statement from the Pacific was presented by Julian Aguon on behalf of the Indigenous Chomoru People’s Nation and Affiliated Indigenous Chomoru Organisations. Mr. Aguon’s presentation forces on the impact of the United States military build-up in Guam following the closing of the operations in Okinawa, Japan. Aguon argued that the “massive military expansion exacts devastating consequences on (the Chamoru people…who already suffer the signature maladies of a colonial condition.” He went further to explain that “this aggressive militarization of our homeland endangers our fundamental and inalienable right to self-determination, the exercise of which our administering power, the United States, has strategically denied us – in glaring betrayal of its international obligations under the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; UN General Assembly Resolution 1514, to name but some.”
He also made reference to the fact that representatives from Guam had come to the UN Headquarters in New York “year after year, at great personal cost, appealing to the UN to follow through with its mandate,” (but after) almost thirty years of testimony, (there had been) nothing to show for it.” He went on to say that “the failure of the U.S. to honour its international obligations to Guam and her native people, the non-responsiveness of the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation to our rapid deterioration and the overall non-performance of relevant US and UN Decolonisation organs and officials combine to carry our small chance of survival to its final coffin.”
Focus now shifts to the implementation of the Permanent Forum recommendations.
29 April 2008
Indigenous Pacific Expresses Views on Decolonisation
The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PFII) was established by the United Nations Economic and Social Council in 2000 to address a range of concerns affecting indigenous peoples in economic and social development, culture, environment, education, health and human rights. The Seventh Session of the Permanent Forum convened from 21st April to 2nd May 2008 at United Nations Headquarters in New York.
A half-day session on Issues Related to Indigenous Peoples of the Pacific was held on 23rd April which focused on a number of themes including climate change and the Pacific, migration, urbanization, development and human rights. A comprehensive paper was presented by Ms. Mililani B. Trask, Director of the Indigenous World Association, on behalf of a coalition of Pacific and Caribbean indigenous organisations. The presentation addressed the present crisis stemming from the lack of implementation by the United Nations of its international obligations in decolonising the remaining non self-governing territories.
It is to be recalled that the U.N. General Assembly by Resolution 62/118 of 17 December 2007 for the third consecutive year:
“Request(ed) the Special Committee to collaborate with the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, within the framework of their respective mandates, with the aim of exchanging information on developments in those Non-Self-Governing Territories which are reviewed by those bodies.”
No action on this resolution has thus far been taken. OTR has consistently observed, with much regret, the lack of implementation of the U.N. mandate on decolonisation. We are therefore pleased to reprint the collective views of the Pacific indigenous community, supported by organisations in the Caribbean including Puerto Rico, in the May, 2008 edition of our publication Overseas Territories Review OTR. Copies are available by contacting the editors at overseasreview@yahoo.com .
A half-day session on Issues Related to Indigenous Peoples of the Pacific was held on 23rd April which focused on a number of themes including climate change and the Pacific, migration, urbanization, development and human rights. A comprehensive paper was presented by Ms. Mililani B. Trask, Director of the Indigenous World Association, on behalf of a coalition of Pacific and Caribbean indigenous organisations. The presentation addressed the present crisis stemming from the lack of implementation by the United Nations of its international obligations in decolonising the remaining non self-governing territories.
It is to be recalled that the U.N. General Assembly by Resolution 62/118 of 17 December 2007 for the third consecutive year:
“Request(ed) the Special Committee to collaborate with the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, within the framework of their respective mandates, with the aim of exchanging information on developments in those Non-Self-Governing Territories which are reviewed by those bodies.”
No action on this resolution has thus far been taken. OTR has consistently observed, with much regret, the lack of implementation of the U.N. mandate on decolonisation. We are therefore pleased to reprint the collective views of the Pacific indigenous community, supported by organisations in the Caribbean including Puerto Rico, in the May, 2008 edition of our publication Overseas Territories Review OTR. Copies are available by contacting the editors at overseasreview@yahoo.com .
27 April 2008
St. Croix’s Contribution to Athletic Excellence
For fans of American basketball, the beginning of the National Basketball Association (NBA) playoff competition among the leading professional teams is a very special time. Only basketball at the Olympic Games is equal in significance, if not in excitement. For those of us who have played the game at the collegiate or international levels, the playoffs reinvigorate often dormant feelings associated with “the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat and the human drama of athletic competition,” as coined by the legendary television broadcaster Chris Schenkel who we used to watch on the week - old tapes of “Wide World of Sports” television programme. The tapes had to be shipped to the territory for airing, before there was cable and satellite television.
Of the many professional players who began the 2007-08 NBA season, it is remarkable that two players from the island of St. Croix in the Virgin Islands form part of two of these elite playoff teams – Tim Duncan of the San Antonio Spurs and Raja Bell of the Phoenix Suns. What are the odds that one, let alone two, world class athletes would emerge from a small Caribbean island of 50,000 people? Duncan is considered by the experts as one of the top players ever to play at the professional level. His level of play is almost effortless, and his near-perfection of the fundamentals of the game is un-paralleled. For his part, Bell has emerged as one of the premier defenders in the league, and a prolific long distance shooter outside the three-point line (At this writing, he already has 21 points at halftime!).
Both young men are articulate and intense, and represent the people of the Virgin Islands and the wider Caribbean with great distinction. They make all Crucians especially proud! It is too bad that their two teams are meeting in the first round of the playoffs where one will be eliminated.
As the 2008 in Beijing rapidly approach, would it not have been a delight to see both of these athletes joining other Virgin Islands athletes on the US Virgin Islands National Team this summer? “Sports autonomy” provides for non self-governing territories to field their own Olympic teams without regard for the political dependency status of these territories. As a result, the US Virgin Islands basketball team has always been quite competitive on the international level, in such competitions as the Central American and Caribbean Games, and the Pan American Games, among others. The team draws its players from the many Virgin Islands student-athletes competing at the collegiate level in a number of US universities. Some have later competed professionally in Europe and elsewhere. Olympic residency rules, however, appear to restrict the participation of Duncan on the territory’s team, and he plays for the US team instead. Bell has participated on Virgin Islands international teams over the years. So, we may never witness the real Virgin Islands basketball team in Olympic competition. Too bad.
It is interesting, though, that the NBA properly recognizes the international nature of the US Virgin Islands in correctly classifying these two Crucians as forming part of the international contingent of professional basketball players of the NBA. Accordingly, the US Virgin Islands flag is flown with the other flags representing the league’s “international players.” This is but another example of the international dimension of the US Virgin Islands as a non self-governing territory under international law where the ultimate political status of the territory remains unresolved. It has taken basketball to bring this objective reality to the forefront once again.
Of the many professional players who began the 2007-08 NBA season, it is remarkable that two players from the island of St. Croix in the Virgin Islands form part of two of these elite playoff teams – Tim Duncan of the San Antonio Spurs and Raja Bell of the Phoenix Suns. What are the odds that one, let alone two, world class athletes would emerge from a small Caribbean island of 50,000 people? Duncan is considered by the experts as one of the top players ever to play at the professional level. His level of play is almost effortless, and his near-perfection of the fundamentals of the game is un-paralleled. For his part, Bell has emerged as one of the premier defenders in the league, and a prolific long distance shooter outside the three-point line (At this writing, he already has 21 points at halftime!).
Both young men are articulate and intense, and represent the people of the Virgin Islands and the wider Caribbean with great distinction. They make all Crucians especially proud! It is too bad that their two teams are meeting in the first round of the playoffs where one will be eliminated.
As the 2008 in Beijing rapidly approach, would it not have been a delight to see both of these athletes joining other Virgin Islands athletes on the US Virgin Islands National Team this summer? “Sports autonomy” provides for non self-governing territories to field their own Olympic teams without regard for the political dependency status of these territories. As a result, the US Virgin Islands basketball team has always been quite competitive on the international level, in such competitions as the Central American and Caribbean Games, and the Pan American Games, among others. The team draws its players from the many Virgin Islands student-athletes competing at the collegiate level in a number of US universities. Some have later competed professionally in Europe and elsewhere. Olympic residency rules, however, appear to restrict the participation of Duncan on the territory’s team, and he plays for the US team instead. Bell has participated on Virgin Islands international teams over the years. So, we may never witness the real Virgin Islands basketball team in Olympic competition. Too bad.
It is interesting, though, that the NBA properly recognizes the international nature of the US Virgin Islands in correctly classifying these two Crucians as forming part of the international contingent of professional basketball players of the NBA. Accordingly, the US Virgin Islands flag is flown with the other flags representing the league’s “international players.” This is but another example of the international dimension of the US Virgin Islands as a non self-governing territory under international law where the ultimate political status of the territory remains unresolved. It has taken basketball to bring this objective reality to the forefront once again.
16 April 2008
Reflections on a Caribbean Leader
Monday, April 7 was the birthday of the second elected governor Cyril Emanuel King who passed away while in office in January of 1978. King’s distinguished career was chronicled in the excellent publication “Profiles of Outstanding Virgin Islanders,” and is required reading for those interested in Virgin Islands history. King graduated with a bachelor's degree in public administration from American University in 1951. He had been appointed in 1949 as an assistant to U.S. Senator Hubert Humphrey, and was the first person of African descent to serve in the office of a U.S. senator.
King was later appointed in 1957 by the Organic Act Committee of the Virgin Islands as its deputy in Washington, D.C. to organize the lobbying effort in the U.S. Congress to gain amendments to the Virgin Islands Organic Act. In 1971, President John F. Kennedy appointed him Virgin Islands Government Secretary which was similar to the present Secretary of State position in Puerto Rico, and forerunner of the post of Lieutenant Governor in the US Virgin Islands. He was elected to the US Virgin Islands Legislature in 1972, and was subsequently elected governor for a four-year term in 1974. He served three years of what was to become his only term.
As a young writer and advisor on international affairs to Governor King, I was honored to have had the opportunity to work for this most formidable leader whose dynamism, charisma and persistence dominated the political landscape of the day. Working for Governor King trained me in how to perform under pressure. In later years when I would address various United Nations organizations on behalf of the government, I would call on that discipline he instilled to successfully deal with the challenges of representing the territory in the international arena. Without a doubt, Governor King was a most formidable boss who commanded excellence of those who worked for him. In turn, we gained valuable experience which would serve us well later in our careers.
Of the many experiences I had in working under Governor King, one particular instance remains vivid. It was an early September morning in 1977, around 6:30 AM or so, when my phone rang in my residence in Scott Free, St. Thomas. I had only recently relocated from St. Croix to write for the governor. On the other line was Governor King who was calling to inform me that I was to meet him in St. Croix that morning. I could heard the loud roar of the Antilles Airboat engines in the background. “Meet me in St. Croix,” Governor King said, “and don’t be late.”
I didn’t know which event he was attending in St. Croix. All I knew was that I was to meet him there – on time. Quickly showering and dressing, I leaped out the front door, briefcase in hand, into my Volkswagen bug, drove quickly through the narrow Scott Free Road and down Crown Mountain Road. I made the sharp left turn onto the highway towards town, to see if I could get on the next airboat to St. Croix. Luckily there was an available seat (or someone was bumped, I can’t remember which), and I was shortly on my way to St. Croix. I now had to find out where Governor King was going – and I couldn’t be late. As luck would have it, Education Commissioner Gwendolyn Kean was on the same flight and she advised me that the governor was scheduled to speak to an assembly of new teachers that morning. I caught a ride with Commissioner Kean and St. Croix District Superintendent Gloria Canegata who were both officiating at the event.
After twenty minutes, we were pulling into the courtyard of an elementary school at mid-island where the event was taking place. Just ahead, I could see the taillights of Governor King’s official black Buick Electra pulling up to the curb. The Governor emerged momentarily from the car and headed towards the foyer of the school. I thanked Mrs. Kean and Mrs. Canegata for the ride, jumped from the car, and headed towards the school.
Governor King had been quickly surrounded by teachers and administrators who he took the time to patiently greet before he delivered his remarks. He had a certain presence which drew people around him. Even as he would silently enter a room from the rear, people would seem to sense that he was there, and instinctively turn around. As he stood in the center of this group of educators, he glanced around the room and spotted me nearby with my legal pad in hand taking notes. He gave me a quick nod in recognition that I arrived – and that I wasn’t late. Had I not been there, he may not have asked me to accompany him on the next “mission.”
It was my job at such events to draft the press release for the Governor’s outstanding Press Secretary Richie Allen for review and delivery to the media. I also had to get the names of the people who were photographed with the Governor. These complimentary pictures would be proudly displayed in many Virgin Islands homes. The Governor’s expert photographer, Leland Bertrand, was quite prolific in the number of pictures he would take of Virgin Islanders of all persuasions, and we had some interesting times linking the pictures with the names on my legal pad.
Governor King always had time for people, and he was famous for his impromptu stops along the roadside to talk to construction workers, sanitation workers, businesspersons, students and just about everyone else. Quite unexpectedly, he would walk out of Government House with his administrator Levron (Pops) Saraw and head down the hill to Main Street to hear the concerns and ideas of the people. He especially had a lot of time for the youth and often stopped to watch young people play baseball and other sports in the various athletic leagues around the territory.
Governor King was also an avid regionalist, and developed close relations with his counterpart Premier Robert Bradshaw of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla during the first two years of his term. He always recognized the progressive role of nationals of the Eastern Caribbean in the economic development of the US Virgin Islands. King became the first governor of the territory to make an official visit to the region, traveling to St. Kitts on several occasions. He also welcomed Premier Bradshaw on official visits to the territory. He was the first to participate in a meeting of CARICOM when he attended the Second Conference of the Heads of Government held in Basseterre, St. Kitts in December of 1975. Serious issues on the status of CARICOM nationals residing in the US Virgin Islands were addressed at that meeting.
He was also the first governor to speak before the United Nations on the evolution of the constitutional status of the US Virgin Islands. This 1975 speech served as the precedent for the participation of successive governments in the United Nations review process of the constitutional development of the territory. By 2008, the territory still exists pursuant to a federal “Organic Act” in lieu of a local constitution – never mind, addressing the deficiencies in the prevailing political status of an unincorporated territory. As early as 1975, Governor recognised the prevailing situation as an anachronism.
Governor King’s policies promoted innovation, implementation, self-help and the necessary political autonomy for the territory to engage the wider Caribbean and the world. He was clearly ahead of his time. His perspectives are largely unknown to later generations. Efforts should be made to heighten public awareness of the philosophies and opinions of this important leader in Virgin Islands and Caribbean history.
King was later appointed in 1957 by the Organic Act Committee of the Virgin Islands as its deputy in Washington, D.C. to organize the lobbying effort in the U.S. Congress to gain amendments to the Virgin Islands Organic Act. In 1971, President John F. Kennedy appointed him Virgin Islands Government Secretary which was similar to the present Secretary of State position in Puerto Rico, and forerunner of the post of Lieutenant Governor in the US Virgin Islands. He was elected to the US Virgin Islands Legislature in 1972, and was subsequently elected governor for a four-year term in 1974. He served three years of what was to become his only term.
As a young writer and advisor on international affairs to Governor King, I was honored to have had the opportunity to work for this most formidable leader whose dynamism, charisma and persistence dominated the political landscape of the day. Working for Governor King trained me in how to perform under pressure. In later years when I would address various United Nations organizations on behalf of the government, I would call on that discipline he instilled to successfully deal with the challenges of representing the territory in the international arena. Without a doubt, Governor King was a most formidable boss who commanded excellence of those who worked for him. In turn, we gained valuable experience which would serve us well later in our careers.
Of the many experiences I had in working under Governor King, one particular instance remains vivid. It was an early September morning in 1977, around 6:30 AM or so, when my phone rang in my residence in Scott Free, St. Thomas. I had only recently relocated from St. Croix to write for the governor. On the other line was Governor King who was calling to inform me that I was to meet him in St. Croix that morning. I could heard the loud roar of the Antilles Airboat engines in the background. “Meet me in St. Croix,” Governor King said, “and don’t be late.”
I didn’t know which event he was attending in St. Croix. All I knew was that I was to meet him there – on time. Quickly showering and dressing, I leaped out the front door, briefcase in hand, into my Volkswagen bug, drove quickly through the narrow Scott Free Road and down Crown Mountain Road. I made the sharp left turn onto the highway towards town, to see if I could get on the next airboat to St. Croix. Luckily there was an available seat (or someone was bumped, I can’t remember which), and I was shortly on my way to St. Croix. I now had to find out where Governor King was going – and I couldn’t be late. As luck would have it, Education Commissioner Gwendolyn Kean was on the same flight and she advised me that the governor was scheduled to speak to an assembly of new teachers that morning. I caught a ride with Commissioner Kean and St. Croix District Superintendent Gloria Canegata who were both officiating at the event.
After twenty minutes, we were pulling into the courtyard of an elementary school at mid-island where the event was taking place. Just ahead, I could see the taillights of Governor King’s official black Buick Electra pulling up to the curb. The Governor emerged momentarily from the car and headed towards the foyer of the school. I thanked Mrs. Kean and Mrs. Canegata for the ride, jumped from the car, and headed towards the school.
Governor King had been quickly surrounded by teachers and administrators who he took the time to patiently greet before he delivered his remarks. He had a certain presence which drew people around him. Even as he would silently enter a room from the rear, people would seem to sense that he was there, and instinctively turn around. As he stood in the center of this group of educators, he glanced around the room and spotted me nearby with my legal pad in hand taking notes. He gave me a quick nod in recognition that I arrived – and that I wasn’t late. Had I not been there, he may not have asked me to accompany him on the next “mission.”
It was my job at such events to draft the press release for the Governor’s outstanding Press Secretary Richie Allen for review and delivery to the media. I also had to get the names of the people who were photographed with the Governor. These complimentary pictures would be proudly displayed in many Virgin Islands homes. The Governor’s expert photographer, Leland Bertrand, was quite prolific in the number of pictures he would take of Virgin Islanders of all persuasions, and we had some interesting times linking the pictures with the names on my legal pad.
Governor King always had time for people, and he was famous for his impromptu stops along the roadside to talk to construction workers, sanitation workers, businesspersons, students and just about everyone else. Quite unexpectedly, he would walk out of Government House with his administrator Levron (Pops) Saraw and head down the hill to Main Street to hear the concerns and ideas of the people. He especially had a lot of time for the youth and often stopped to watch young people play baseball and other sports in the various athletic leagues around the territory.
Governor King was also an avid regionalist, and developed close relations with his counterpart Premier Robert Bradshaw of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla during the first two years of his term. He always recognized the progressive role of nationals of the Eastern Caribbean in the economic development of the US Virgin Islands. King became the first governor of the territory to make an official visit to the region, traveling to St. Kitts on several occasions. He also welcomed Premier Bradshaw on official visits to the territory. He was the first to participate in a meeting of CARICOM when he attended the Second Conference of the Heads of Government held in Basseterre, St. Kitts in December of 1975. Serious issues on the status of CARICOM nationals residing in the US Virgin Islands were addressed at that meeting.
He was also the first governor to speak before the United Nations on the evolution of the constitutional status of the US Virgin Islands. This 1975 speech served as the precedent for the participation of successive governments in the United Nations review process of the constitutional development of the territory. By 2008, the territory still exists pursuant to a federal “Organic Act” in lieu of a local constitution – never mind, addressing the deficiencies in the prevailing political status of an unincorporated territory. As early as 1975, Governor recognised the prevailing situation as an anachronism.
Governor King’s policies promoted innovation, implementation, self-help and the necessary political autonomy for the territory to engage the wider Caribbean and the world. He was clearly ahead of his time. His perspectives are largely unknown to later generations. Efforts should be made to heighten public awareness of the philosophies and opinions of this important leader in Virgin Islands and Caribbean history.
07 April 2008
International Dimension of a USVI Constitution
The United States Virgin Islands, as a U.S. - administered unincorporated territory in the Caribbean has embarked on its Fifth Constitutional Convention to draft a local constitution to replace the Revised Organic Act of 1954 which is a federal law that serves in lieu of a constitution. The Revised Act updated the original Organic Act of 1936. The system of governance under which the territory exists is underpinned by the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution which provides in Article 3 that the US Congress “shall make all needful rules for territory or other property of the United States,” and thus may legislate for the territories it administers.
Other US - administered territories in the Caribbean and Pacific regions have addressed their constitutional advancement to varying degrees. Puerto Rico drafted a constitution in 1952 based on a commonwealth political status which, in effect, maintained the applicability of the Territorial Clause. The Northern Mariana Islands in 1976 approved a significantly more autonomous commonwealth arrangement and adopted a constitution based on that status. The territory of Guam adopted by referendum a similar autonomous commonwealth arrangement to its neighboring Marianas, but the proposal was not accepted by the US Congress during a process which took up much of the decade of the 1990s. Thus, Guam also is organized via an organic act. American Samoa completed its constitution in 1960, providing for the retention of many local customs and governance structures. An American Samoa political status commission in 2007 has made certain recommendations regarding the present arrangement.
Since the enactment of the US Virgin Islands Revised Organic Act of 1954, constitutional advancement has been attained through ad hoc Congressional legislation, which included in 1968 the authority to replace the US-appointed governor with an elected governor, among other incremental changes. In 1971, one year after the election of the first governor, a constitutional convention was authorized, without regard to US Congressional authorization, with a draft constitution adopted in 1972. The document was not adopted in a local referendum, however, because of a less than required voter turn-out.
In 1976, Congress adopted legislation authorizing the Territory to draft its own constitution recognizing the sovereignty of the United States over the islands. A constitutional convention was elected the following year, and in 1979 the draft constitution emanating from the convention was rejected in referendum. A subsequent convention in 1980 also produced a document which failed to be adopted by referendum in 1981.
Several years prior, in 1979, the US President Jimmy Carter had completed a policy review of the governance of the US territories conducted by an Inter-Agency Territorial Policy Review Task Force chaired by the US Department of Interior which maintains administrative oversight of the US – administered territories. One of the conclusions of the policy review was the authorization for the territories to make recommendations or modifications to the prevailing political status. Federal impetus to this process, however, did not materialize as a result of the 1980 US presidential elections which resulted in the change of US government administration from President Carter to President Ronald Reagan.
Nevertheless, the territorial government proceeded to establish its first political status commission in 1980, consistent with the Carter Administration authorization, to study potential changes to the existing political status arrangement with the aim “to negotiate the relationship of the (US) Virgin Islands…and to provide for popular ratification of a territorial-federal relationship.” The local legislation authorizing the first US Virgin Islands Status Commission made an important distinction between the 1976 federal law authorizing the creation of constitutional conventions which were limited to the prevailing political status arrangement, and the Carter Administration policy recommendations authorizing the territories to address the broader picture of political status modernization.
This first Status Commission existed until 1982, and produced important recommendations, several of which were adopted by the territorial government at that time। Although the public education phase of its work was not completed, the Commission did raise the consciousness of the electorate of that period as to the distinction and inter-relationship between the constitution and the political status processes.
Accordingly, during the 1982 general election, the electorate decided in a non-binding referendum issue that the status issue should be addressed before writing a constitution. For procedural reasons, however, legislation to convene a fifth constitutional convention was introduced instead, and despite recommendations to reduce the original cost of the convention, the Legislature did not adopt the measure.
In 1983, a number of alternative mechanisms were considered to address the political status issue. By 1984, the Fifteenth Legislature of the US Virgin Islands created a Select Committee on Status and Federal Relations which also contributed to the growing body of work on political evolution. The subsequent legislature did not re-establish the Select Committee, however. By 1988, legislation was adopted to create a broader Commission on Status and Federal Relations which added significantly to the body of work already done by the previous two bodies. A referendum on political status options was held in 1993 following an extensive public education campaign, but failed to garner the necessary fifty percent of the registered voters. The territory, therefore reverted to the status quo political status, by default.
No legislation was adopted addressing either the political status or local constitution issues in the intervening period, until 2004 when a bill was adopted to create a Fifth Constitutional Convention with the aim of a 2006 referendum on a draft document. This was later amended to give more time for the process to take shape. The present process requires that a draft constitution would be adopted by two-thirds vote of the thirty delegates of the Convention. The President of the Convention would then submit the draft to the Governor of the US Virgin Islands, who would, in turn, within ten (10) days submit the document to the President of the United States of America.
The President would have sixty (60) calendar days to review the document, with substantive input from the relevant U.S. federal departments, in particular Interior and Justice, before transmitting it to the Congress of the United States which would have a period of sixty (60) legislative days for its review. Hearings on the draft would most probably be held in committees of the US House of Representatives and the Senate where representatives of the Constitutional Convention would introduce the draft and answer any queries which may arise. It is also possible that other selected individuals could make their views known to the Congress during the hearings. After the congressional review period, and any amendments which may be made to the text by the Congress, the draft document would be returned to the US Virgin Islands for submission to the voters in a referendum.
In the course of the public sessions of the Fifth Constitutional Convention, a presentation was made on the International Dimension of a US Virgin Islands Constitution by Dr. Carlyle Corbin, international advisor on governance and former US Virgin Islands Minister of State for External Affairs. The presentation examined the relevant international treaties and agreements relating to the constitutional development of the territory, as well as relevant resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly. The presentation also covered a number of human rights treaties in relation to the drafting by the Convention of its bill of rights. Of particular note was reference to the Treaty of Cession which transferred the islands from Danish to US jurisdiction in 1917, particularly as related to the disposition of the inhabitants of the islands at the transfer. The paper goes on to review specific language included in previous draft constitutions of the US Virgin Islands which remain relevant to the present exercise. The paper goes on to examine specific competencies contained in the constitutions of American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico which might be useful in the contemporary US Virgin Islands process. The presentation also makes reference to key provisions of the new constitution which went into force in the British Virgin Islands in 2007, specifically as related to cultural and national identity. The presentation concludes with the important distinction between the drafting of a constitution based on the prevailing dependency status, and the process of self-determination which provides non-territorial options of political equality.
The text of the presentation is available upon request from Overseas Territories Review at: overseasreview@yahoo.com.
Other US - administered territories in the Caribbean and Pacific regions have addressed their constitutional advancement to varying degrees. Puerto Rico drafted a constitution in 1952 based on a commonwealth political status which, in effect, maintained the applicability of the Territorial Clause. The Northern Mariana Islands in 1976 approved a significantly more autonomous commonwealth arrangement and adopted a constitution based on that status. The territory of Guam adopted by referendum a similar autonomous commonwealth arrangement to its neighboring Marianas, but the proposal was not accepted by the US Congress during a process which took up much of the decade of the 1990s. Thus, Guam also is organized via an organic act. American Samoa completed its constitution in 1960, providing for the retention of many local customs and governance structures. An American Samoa political status commission in 2007 has made certain recommendations regarding the present arrangement.
Since the enactment of the US Virgin Islands Revised Organic Act of 1954, constitutional advancement has been attained through ad hoc Congressional legislation, which included in 1968 the authority to replace the US-appointed governor with an elected governor, among other incremental changes. In 1971, one year after the election of the first governor, a constitutional convention was authorized, without regard to US Congressional authorization, with a draft constitution adopted in 1972. The document was not adopted in a local referendum, however, because of a less than required voter turn-out.
In 1976, Congress adopted legislation authorizing the Territory to draft its own constitution recognizing the sovereignty of the United States over the islands. A constitutional convention was elected the following year, and in 1979 the draft constitution emanating from the convention was rejected in referendum. A subsequent convention in 1980 also produced a document which failed to be adopted by referendum in 1981.
Several years prior, in 1979, the US President Jimmy Carter had completed a policy review of the governance of the US territories conducted by an Inter-Agency Territorial Policy Review Task Force chaired by the US Department of Interior which maintains administrative oversight of the US – administered territories. One of the conclusions of the policy review was the authorization for the territories to make recommendations or modifications to the prevailing political status. Federal impetus to this process, however, did not materialize as a result of the 1980 US presidential elections which resulted in the change of US government administration from President Carter to President Ronald Reagan.
Nevertheless, the territorial government proceeded to establish its first political status commission in 1980, consistent with the Carter Administration authorization, to study potential changes to the existing political status arrangement with the aim “to negotiate the relationship of the (US) Virgin Islands…and to provide for popular ratification of a territorial-federal relationship.” The local legislation authorizing the first US Virgin Islands Status Commission made an important distinction between the 1976 federal law authorizing the creation of constitutional conventions which were limited to the prevailing political status arrangement, and the Carter Administration policy recommendations authorizing the territories to address the broader picture of political status modernization.
This first Status Commission existed until 1982, and produced important recommendations, several of which were adopted by the territorial government at that time। Although the public education phase of its work was not completed, the Commission did raise the consciousness of the electorate of that period as to the distinction and inter-relationship between the constitution and the political status processes.
Accordingly, during the 1982 general election, the electorate decided in a non-binding referendum issue that the status issue should be addressed before writing a constitution. For procedural reasons, however, legislation to convene a fifth constitutional convention was introduced instead, and despite recommendations to reduce the original cost of the convention, the Legislature did not adopt the measure.
In 1983, a number of alternative mechanisms were considered to address the political status issue. By 1984, the Fifteenth Legislature of the US Virgin Islands created a Select Committee on Status and Federal Relations which also contributed to the growing body of work on political evolution. The subsequent legislature did not re-establish the Select Committee, however. By 1988, legislation was adopted to create a broader Commission on Status and Federal Relations which added significantly to the body of work already done by the previous two bodies. A referendum on political status options was held in 1993 following an extensive public education campaign, but failed to garner the necessary fifty percent of the registered voters. The territory, therefore reverted to the status quo political status, by default.
No legislation was adopted addressing either the political status or local constitution issues in the intervening period, until 2004 when a bill was adopted to create a Fifth Constitutional Convention with the aim of a 2006 referendum on a draft document. This was later amended to give more time for the process to take shape. The present process requires that a draft constitution would be adopted by two-thirds vote of the thirty delegates of the Convention. The President of the Convention would then submit the draft to the Governor of the US Virgin Islands, who would, in turn, within ten (10) days submit the document to the President of the United States of America.
The President would have sixty (60) calendar days to review the document, with substantive input from the relevant U.S. federal departments, in particular Interior and Justice, before transmitting it to the Congress of the United States which would have a period of sixty (60) legislative days for its review. Hearings on the draft would most probably be held in committees of the US House of Representatives and the Senate where representatives of the Constitutional Convention would introduce the draft and answer any queries which may arise. It is also possible that other selected individuals could make their views known to the Congress during the hearings. After the congressional review period, and any amendments which may be made to the text by the Congress, the draft document would be returned to the US Virgin Islands for submission to the voters in a referendum.
In the course of the public sessions of the Fifth Constitutional Convention, a presentation was made on the International Dimension of a US Virgin Islands Constitution by Dr. Carlyle Corbin, international advisor on governance and former US Virgin Islands Minister of State for External Affairs. The presentation examined the relevant international treaties and agreements relating to the constitutional development of the territory, as well as relevant resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly. The presentation also covered a number of human rights treaties in relation to the drafting by the Convention of its bill of rights. Of particular note was reference to the Treaty of Cession which transferred the islands from Danish to US jurisdiction in 1917, particularly as related to the disposition of the inhabitants of the islands at the transfer. The paper goes on to review specific language included in previous draft constitutions of the US Virgin Islands which remain relevant to the present exercise. The paper goes on to examine specific competencies contained in the constitutions of American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico which might be useful in the contemporary US Virgin Islands process. The presentation also makes reference to key provisions of the new constitution which went into force in the British Virgin Islands in 2007, specifically as related to cultural and national identity. The presentation concludes with the important distinction between the drafting of a constitution based on the prevailing dependency status, and the process of self-determination which provides non-territorial options of political equality.
The text of the presentation is available upon request from Overseas Territories Review at: overseasreview@yahoo.com.
26 March 2008
Father of the Modern-Day British Virgin Islands Commemorated
On March 3, the people of the British Virgin Islands commemorated the birthday of the late Honorable H. Lavity Stoutt. A parade was held in his honor and a program conducted in Palm Grove Park where prominent speakers memorialized the life and work of the territory’s first elected chief minister who is affectionately remembered as the “father of the country.” It was a well-deserved tribute for this highly-respected leader who presided over the modernization of the British Virgin Islands as we have come to know it today.
H. Lavity Stoutt was born in 1929 in Tortola and attended the Zion Hill Methodist Church, and later the Senior School which became the Virgin Islands Secondary School, and later the BVI High School. He later studied house and boat building, and began a career in wholesale and retail business. He served his community as superintendent in the West End Society of the Methodist School. He married Hilda Smith of Carrot Bay in 1956 with whom together he had six children. Mr. Stoutt began his political career when he was appointed to the Executive Council as a Minister of Works and Communications following the general elections of 1960 and 1963. In 1966 he participated in the constitutional conference in London which advocated for a full ministerial system to be extended to the territory. He led the newly-formed BVI United Party into the 1967 elections and became the territory’s first Chief Minister. He would give some 38 years of unbroken service to the people of the British Virgin Islands before his death in 1995, having served five times as chief minister He was the longest serving parliamentarian in the Caribbean.
H. Lavity Stoutt’s entry into elected politics marked the acceleration of the development process of the territory. Over the following ten years active community groups successfully advocated for community control of Wickham’s Cay and prime land on the island of Anegada for the use and development of the people. Legislative measures crucial to the future development of the territory were also adopted including ordinances creating the Tourist Board, Immigration and Passport laws, Caribbean Development Bank membership, Land Surveyor laws, a Scholarship Trust Fund the creation of the Development Bank of the Virgin Islands and the Labor Code among other measures.
By 1976, a new constitution was enacted for the territory which increased the number of constituencies to nine, abolished nominated membership, and removed certain responsibilities from the British-appointed governor to the elected chief minister. The post 1976 period saw an unprecedented rate of economic growth in the British Virgin Islands with the emergence of a dual pillar economy of tourism and the international financial sector. This advancement was largely attributed to the vision of H. Lavity Stoutt who was also a staunch advocate of regional cooperation. The territory joined ther Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States during his tenure.
He also recognized the importance of developing formal relations with the U.S. Virgin Islands. Chief Minister Stoutt and US Virgin Islands Governor Alexander A. Farrelly forged a close bond through which a dynamic intergovernmental relationship was formed with the signing of the first formal agreement between the two elected governments creating the Inter Virgin Islands Conference in 1990. This new organization was designed as a mechanism for cooperation between government agencies in the respective territories. Emerging from this agreement were the beginnings of sustained cooperation in law enforcement, natural resources management, inter-island transportation, cultural preservation and a host of other areas of collaboration. This agreement set the stage for future cooperation between the elected governments of the two territories. Chief Minister Stoutt and Governor Farrelly shared the view that the political evolution of the two territories warranted the development of such cooperation between the elected leadership, even as there were those in both territories who felt that such intergovernmental relations should only take place on their behalf between London and Washington. These two leaders stood firm, and won the backing of Washington and London for their initiative.
Chief Minister Stoutt was also a proponent for increased self-government and devolution of power from Britain, and spoke regularly on the need for a true partnership between London and the British dependent territories to correct the political imbalances. Speaking before the British Virgin Islands Legislative Assembly in October 1992, Stoutt questioned the British assertion at the time that the financial services sector would not be sustainable because of the need for possible restrictions. On the contrary, new laws aimed to facilitate transparency and due diligence in the financial sector were enacted enabling the British Virgin Islands to become a model for financial services worldwide.
Chief Minister Stoutt was a staunch advocate of constitutional advancement for the British Virgin Islands. In a 1993 address to the people of the territory, he pointed that in 1967 the budget of the territory was still subsidized by London, and “as a result of our good stewardship” the territory no longer received grant-in-aid from the British by 1979. He emphasized that this was done within the framework of the shift of government financial control to an elected minister. He asserted that there would be “no turning back” to the days when the elected government would have no control over its financial management, and not the “slightest consideration” should be given to any other reduction of the powers of the elected government.
He was clear in his vision that the British Virgin Islands should be granted full internal self-government and ultimately independence. Subsequently, when unilateral changes in 1994 were made from London creating four new ‘at-large’ electoral seats in addition to the nine district seats - without the opportunity for a debate in the local Legislative Council - Stoutt denounced the action as “a plot to derail” him, according to the obituary published in the Independent of London upon his death. As a consummate politician, however, he maneuvered this adversity to his advantage, and his party won all four of the at-large seats in the 1995 election. He later announced that “the people have had their say and their voice had been heard.”
British Virgin Islands Deputy Governor Elton Georges who worked with Chief Minister Stoutt from the 1980s until his death once wrote that H. Lavity Stoutt was a “dynamic, visionary leader who believed in creating ever-expanding opportunities for the people of the territory to be prosperous.” One of these opportunities was the idea of the creation of a institution of tertiary education, even as others were not in favor. As it turned out, the Community College which now bears his name has become an exemplary institution of higher learning recognised world wide. Quite appropriately, its choir performed at the commemoration at Palm Grove Park in honor of the life, dedication and commitment of this Virgin Islands stalwart who Deputy Governor Georges so aptly described as having a “dominant and unshakeable” place in British Virgin Islands history.
H. Lavity Stoutt was born in 1929 in Tortola and attended the Zion Hill Methodist Church, and later the Senior School which became the Virgin Islands Secondary School, and later the BVI High School. He later studied house and boat building, and began a career in wholesale and retail business. He served his community as superintendent in the West End Society of the Methodist School. He married Hilda Smith of Carrot Bay in 1956 with whom together he had six children. Mr. Stoutt began his political career when he was appointed to the Executive Council as a Minister of Works and Communications following the general elections of 1960 and 1963. In 1966 he participated in the constitutional conference in London which advocated for a full ministerial system to be extended to the territory. He led the newly-formed BVI United Party into the 1967 elections and became the territory’s first Chief Minister. He would give some 38 years of unbroken service to the people of the British Virgin Islands before his death in 1995, having served five times as chief minister He was the longest serving parliamentarian in the Caribbean.
H. Lavity Stoutt’s entry into elected politics marked the acceleration of the development process of the territory. Over the following ten years active community groups successfully advocated for community control of Wickham’s Cay and prime land on the island of Anegada for the use and development of the people. Legislative measures crucial to the future development of the territory were also adopted including ordinances creating the Tourist Board, Immigration and Passport laws, Caribbean Development Bank membership, Land Surveyor laws, a Scholarship Trust Fund the creation of the Development Bank of the Virgin Islands and the Labor Code among other measures.
By 1976, a new constitution was enacted for the territory which increased the number of constituencies to nine, abolished nominated membership, and removed certain responsibilities from the British-appointed governor to the elected chief minister. The post 1976 period saw an unprecedented rate of economic growth in the British Virgin Islands with the emergence of a dual pillar economy of tourism and the international financial sector. This advancement was largely attributed to the vision of H. Lavity Stoutt who was also a staunch advocate of regional cooperation. The territory joined ther Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States during his tenure.
He also recognized the importance of developing formal relations with the U.S. Virgin Islands. Chief Minister Stoutt and US Virgin Islands Governor Alexander A. Farrelly forged a close bond through which a dynamic intergovernmental relationship was formed with the signing of the first formal agreement between the two elected governments creating the Inter Virgin Islands Conference in 1990. This new organization was designed as a mechanism for cooperation between government agencies in the respective territories. Emerging from this agreement were the beginnings of sustained cooperation in law enforcement, natural resources management, inter-island transportation, cultural preservation and a host of other areas of collaboration. This agreement set the stage for future cooperation between the elected governments of the two territories. Chief Minister Stoutt and Governor Farrelly shared the view that the political evolution of the two territories warranted the development of such cooperation between the elected leadership, even as there were those in both territories who felt that such intergovernmental relations should only take place on their behalf between London and Washington. These two leaders stood firm, and won the backing of Washington and London for their initiative.
Chief Minister Stoutt was also a proponent for increased self-government and devolution of power from Britain, and spoke regularly on the need for a true partnership between London and the British dependent territories to correct the political imbalances. Speaking before the British Virgin Islands Legislative Assembly in October 1992, Stoutt questioned the British assertion at the time that the financial services sector would not be sustainable because of the need for possible restrictions. On the contrary, new laws aimed to facilitate transparency and due diligence in the financial sector were enacted enabling the British Virgin Islands to become a model for financial services worldwide.
Chief Minister Stoutt was a staunch advocate of constitutional advancement for the British Virgin Islands. In a 1993 address to the people of the territory, he pointed that in 1967 the budget of the territory was still subsidized by London, and “as a result of our good stewardship” the territory no longer received grant-in-aid from the British by 1979. He emphasized that this was done within the framework of the shift of government financial control to an elected minister. He asserted that there would be “no turning back” to the days when the elected government would have no control over its financial management, and not the “slightest consideration” should be given to any other reduction of the powers of the elected government.
He was clear in his vision that the British Virgin Islands should be granted full internal self-government and ultimately independence. Subsequently, when unilateral changes in 1994 were made from London creating four new ‘at-large’ electoral seats in addition to the nine district seats - without the opportunity for a debate in the local Legislative Council - Stoutt denounced the action as “a plot to derail” him, according to the obituary published in the Independent of London upon his death. As a consummate politician, however, he maneuvered this adversity to his advantage, and his party won all four of the at-large seats in the 1995 election. He later announced that “the people have had their say and their voice had been heard.”
British Virgin Islands Deputy Governor Elton Georges who worked with Chief Minister Stoutt from the 1980s until his death once wrote that H. Lavity Stoutt was a “dynamic, visionary leader who believed in creating ever-expanding opportunities for the people of the territory to be prosperous.” One of these opportunities was the idea of the creation of a institution of tertiary education, even as others were not in favor. As it turned out, the Community College which now bears his name has become an exemplary institution of higher learning recognised world wide. Quite appropriately, its choir performed at the commemoration at Palm Grove Park in honor of the life, dedication and commitment of this Virgin Islands stalwart who Deputy Governor Georges so aptly described as having a “dominant and unshakeable” place in British Virgin Islands history.
11 March 2008
Thoughts on Dependencies, Enclaves and Territorial Claims
In the classic 1982 work “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa,” the great West Indian thinker Dr. Walter Rodney examined the ramifications of Europe’s creation of artificial boundaries in Africa which contradicted the historical reality of the time. Had the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) not accepted the European-drawn borders after independence, perhaps many of the subsequent disputes between neighboring countries would not have arisen. This same strategy of colonial demarcation used in Africa was also responsible for the carving up of island groups in the Caribbean, Pacific and elsewhere. Such divisions were usually made irrespective of the local population, and often resulted in rather unusual political configurations. The northeastern Caribbean is one such example.
On the island of Sint Maarten, one side is part of the Netherlands Antilles which is an associated country of the Netherlands Kingdom (comprised of Holland, Netherlands Antilles and Aruba). The islands of Saba and St. Eustatius (part of the Netherlands Antilles) are closest to St. Maarten, and together with the more distant Curacao and Bonaire form the five-island Netherlands Antilles (which itself will fragment into five parts by the end of 2008). The other side of the island is French St. Martin which was historically governed by the French overseas department of Guadeloupe until it won separate commune status from Paris in 2007. St. Martin can now deal directly with France. Thus, we have one island with two countries, two different official languages, with separate currencies and nationalities.
Since the elected governments of the two sides of the island are not at equal political level, functional cooperation on cross-border issues is not an exact science. The elected leaders, to their credit, have established joint arrangements so they can coordinate what would otherwise be routine functional activities, if the countries were independent. If this scenario were not sufficiently complex, add to the mix the nearby island of Anguilla, a British dependent territory with its own governance structure, separate currency and official language (with and hourly ferry boat service to and from French St. Martin, weather permitting). The combined population of the three countries is under 100,000 with family ties between and among the three countries commonplace – as Europe underdeveloped Africa, so it apparently did to the Caribbean, as well.
This fragmentation of island peoples is also illustrated in the present division between the British Virgin Islands and the US Virgin Islands. This configuration emerged from centuries of alternating control exercised by the British, Danish, Dutch, Spanish, French and even the Knights of Malta (among others). Ultimately the British ended up with one set of Virgins, and the Americans with the other set. In this case, the two territories use the same currency and have the same official language. The elected governments on both sides of their aquatic border (best identifiable via global positioning system) initiated discussions in the early 1990s on formal cooperation, including political confederation. No lasting alternative was achieved to the current political division between the two dependencies. They exist today under separate systems of government and differing perspectives on political evolution characterised by systematically increasing autonomy on the one side versus a drift towards partial integration with the US on the other side. Former Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sir James Mitchell once remarked that “the safety of the haven of mediocrity is a foolish illusion.”
The British Virgin Islands and US Virgin Islands did enter into a bilateral cooperation agreement in 1990, updated by predecessor governments in 2004, designed to regularise official contacts on obvious issues of mutual interest. The sustainability of such arrangements is always questionable, and in the political vacuum, bilateral differences continue to reoccur unnecessarily.
Similar curious island divisions can be seen in the Pacific region. The Independent State of Samoa and American Samoa, for example, are comprised of people of the same culture and language, but which have been divided into one independent state and one dependent territory. The division between the US dependencies of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands is also of note given that the Chamorro people are native to both territories and comprise a single culture. But even as these two are neighboring US dependencies, their respective governance arrangements are markedly different. Guam is appropriately on the United Nation list of non self-governing territories while the Marianas maintains an internationally accepted autonomous status. Perhaps there may be a convergence of these dependency models in future, as the process of reversing the Marianas autonomy accelerates through unilateral US Congressional action designed to remove immigration control from Marianas jurisdiction, and the judicial determination to take away the territory’s ownership of its submerged land which it thought it had owned. Legislation to review the whole political arrangement amidst these new interpretations has been introduced in the Marianas legislative body.
Variations on this theme abound. They include the anachronistic remnants of ‘empire’ where 18th and 19th century economic exploitation (sugar, bananas, spices, enslaved and indentured people) has given way to 21st century strategic positioning for control over natural resources – particular energy resources - that can now be better exploited through new technologies. Thus, the United Kingdom insists on its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands/Malvinas even as its claim belies geography and demography, but is consistent with the contemporary colonial cartography. A war was even fought with Argentina in support of this claim. After all, an exclusive economic zone is at stake.
Spain maintains the Autonomous Community of the Canarie Islands off the coast of Morocco (much to their chagrin). Ownership of oil and gas deposits have been continuously contested in these waters. Morocco itself lays claim to Western Sahara, where a referendum process has been put on hold in favour of United Nations-sponsored negotiations between Morocco and the Frente Polisario. U.N. reports indicate that these discussions have resulted only in a “restatement of position” of the two parties. Serbia, in regards to Kosovo, can shed some light on what happens when negotiations result in such “restatements of position” – especially when energy resources are involved. Will there be a similarly imposed solution in Sahara without consensus of the Security Council?
There’s more. Despite United Nations resolutions to the contrary, the UK leased the Indian Ocean island of Chagos (Diego Garcia) to the US for use as a military base – even as the island is historically a part of Mauritius. The native population was tricked/forced/intimidated into boarding boats to leave their homeland, ostensibly for medical purposes, and then prohibited from returning. Even as the UK courts have sided with the right of the Chagos people to return, the ruling continues to be appealed by the British. Former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali may have been right that “the desired results (in international affairs) are often achieved by stealth.”
In the South China Sea, China, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan all claim the Spratly Islands for strategic reasons as well as for the control of natural resources in that area. There are many other examples across the globe too numerous to describe in this present space. But a close examination of the world map would reveal a striking number of rocks, islets, cays and the like in the oceans and seas around the globe, with the telltale bracketed abbreviations of the names of the countries which have laid claim.
As the polar ice caps continue to melt at an ever-accelerating rate from the effects of climate change as a result of the burning of fossil fuels, new areas of territorial conquest are already beginning to emerge to ensure control over more of these resources to burn more fossil fuels. Thus, a new frontier has opened from the South Atlantic to Antarctica where the UK has used its sovereignty claim on Falklands/Malvinas as the basis for its argument to control large areas of Antarctica. Other seafaring developed states are also making territorial claims in that area.
As the water levels rise, what of the present islands which may quickly be inundated by the oceans and seas? Will claims be made to the resulting submerged land which was once above water? As Steele Pulse thoughtfully observed, “in these times of science and technology, the world is an unconscious lavatory.”
On the island of Sint Maarten, one side is part of the Netherlands Antilles which is an associated country of the Netherlands Kingdom (comprised of Holland, Netherlands Antilles and Aruba). The islands of Saba and St. Eustatius (part of the Netherlands Antilles) are closest to St. Maarten, and together with the more distant Curacao and Bonaire form the five-island Netherlands Antilles (which itself will fragment into five parts by the end of 2008). The other side of the island is French St. Martin which was historically governed by the French overseas department of Guadeloupe until it won separate commune status from Paris in 2007. St. Martin can now deal directly with France. Thus, we have one island with two countries, two different official languages, with separate currencies and nationalities.
Since the elected governments of the two sides of the island are not at equal political level, functional cooperation on cross-border issues is not an exact science. The elected leaders, to their credit, have established joint arrangements so they can coordinate what would otherwise be routine functional activities, if the countries were independent. If this scenario were not sufficiently complex, add to the mix the nearby island of Anguilla, a British dependent territory with its own governance structure, separate currency and official language (with and hourly ferry boat service to and from French St. Martin, weather permitting). The combined population of the three countries is under 100,000 with family ties between and among the three countries commonplace – as Europe underdeveloped Africa, so it apparently did to the Caribbean, as well.
This fragmentation of island peoples is also illustrated in the present division between the British Virgin Islands and the US Virgin Islands. This configuration emerged from centuries of alternating control exercised by the British, Danish, Dutch, Spanish, French and even the Knights of Malta (among others). Ultimately the British ended up with one set of Virgins, and the Americans with the other set. In this case, the two territories use the same currency and have the same official language. The elected governments on both sides of their aquatic border (best identifiable via global positioning system) initiated discussions in the early 1990s on formal cooperation, including political confederation. No lasting alternative was achieved to the current political division between the two dependencies. They exist today under separate systems of government and differing perspectives on political evolution characterised by systematically increasing autonomy on the one side versus a drift towards partial integration with the US on the other side. Former Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sir James Mitchell once remarked that “the safety of the haven of mediocrity is a foolish illusion.”
The British Virgin Islands and US Virgin Islands did enter into a bilateral cooperation agreement in 1990, updated by predecessor governments in 2004, designed to regularise official contacts on obvious issues of mutual interest. The sustainability of such arrangements is always questionable, and in the political vacuum, bilateral differences continue to reoccur unnecessarily.
Similar curious island divisions can be seen in the Pacific region. The Independent State of Samoa and American Samoa, for example, are comprised of people of the same culture and language, but which have been divided into one independent state and one dependent territory. The division between the US dependencies of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands is also of note given that the Chamorro people are native to both territories and comprise a single culture. But even as these two are neighboring US dependencies, their respective governance arrangements are markedly different. Guam is appropriately on the United Nation list of non self-governing territories while the Marianas maintains an internationally accepted autonomous status. Perhaps there may be a convergence of these dependency models in future, as the process of reversing the Marianas autonomy accelerates through unilateral US Congressional action designed to remove immigration control from Marianas jurisdiction, and the judicial determination to take away the territory’s ownership of its submerged land which it thought it had owned. Legislation to review the whole political arrangement amidst these new interpretations has been introduced in the Marianas legislative body.
Variations on this theme abound. They include the anachronistic remnants of ‘empire’ where 18th and 19th century economic exploitation (sugar, bananas, spices, enslaved and indentured people) has given way to 21st century strategic positioning for control over natural resources – particular energy resources - that can now be better exploited through new technologies. Thus, the United Kingdom insists on its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands/Malvinas even as its claim belies geography and demography, but is consistent with the contemporary colonial cartography. A war was even fought with Argentina in support of this claim. After all, an exclusive economic zone is at stake.
Spain maintains the Autonomous Community of the Canarie Islands off the coast of Morocco (much to their chagrin). Ownership of oil and gas deposits have been continuously contested in these waters. Morocco itself lays claim to Western Sahara, where a referendum process has been put on hold in favour of United Nations-sponsored negotiations between Morocco and the Frente Polisario. U.N. reports indicate that these discussions have resulted only in a “restatement of position” of the two parties. Serbia, in regards to Kosovo, can shed some light on what happens when negotiations result in such “restatements of position” – especially when energy resources are involved. Will there be a similarly imposed solution in Sahara without consensus of the Security Council?
There’s more. Despite United Nations resolutions to the contrary, the UK leased the Indian Ocean island of Chagos (Diego Garcia) to the US for use as a military base – even as the island is historically a part of Mauritius. The native population was tricked/forced/intimidated into boarding boats to leave their homeland, ostensibly for medical purposes, and then prohibited from returning. Even as the UK courts have sided with the right of the Chagos people to return, the ruling continues to be appealed by the British. Former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali may have been right that “the desired results (in international affairs) are often achieved by stealth.”
In the South China Sea, China, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan all claim the Spratly Islands for strategic reasons as well as for the control of natural resources in that area. There are many other examples across the globe too numerous to describe in this present space. But a close examination of the world map would reveal a striking number of rocks, islets, cays and the like in the oceans and seas around the globe, with the telltale bracketed abbreviations of the names of the countries which have laid claim.
As the polar ice caps continue to melt at an ever-accelerating rate from the effects of climate change as a result of the burning of fossil fuels, new areas of territorial conquest are already beginning to emerge to ensure control over more of these resources to burn more fossil fuels. Thus, a new frontier has opened from the South Atlantic to Antarctica where the UK has used its sovereignty claim on Falklands/Malvinas as the basis for its argument to control large areas of Antarctica. Other seafaring developed states are also making territorial claims in that area.
As the water levels rise, what of the present islands which may quickly be inundated by the oceans and seas? Will claims be made to the resulting submerged land which was once above water? As Steele Pulse thoughtfully observed, “in these times of science and technology, the world is an unconscious lavatory.”
01 March 2008
United Nations Study Completed on Assistance to Overseas Territories
The Caribbean Subregional Headquarters of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) has completed a comprehensive study on the role of the wider United Nations system in assisting the development process of non-independent countries. Most of these countries are associate members of ECLAC and of its counterpart U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), two of the five U.N. regional commissions worldwide.
The 71 page study complete with extensive citations was carried out by Dr. Carlyle G. Corbin, former Minister of State for External Affairs of the U.S. Virgin Islands who is a past chairman of the ECLAC Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee (CDCC), and was the founding chairman of its Working Group of Associate Member Countries. He is presently an international advisor on democratic governance.
An abstract of the study, and the complete document can be downloaded from the publications webpage of the ECLAC Port of Spain website. Check the 2007 publications. www.eclac.cl/portofspain
An earlier 2004 ECLAC study conducted by the same author on the participation of non-independent countries in the United Nations world conferences and summits of the United Nations General Assembly is also available at the same website under the 2004 publications.
The 71 page study complete with extensive citations was carried out by Dr. Carlyle G. Corbin, former Minister of State for External Affairs of the U.S. Virgin Islands who is a past chairman of the ECLAC Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee (CDCC), and was the founding chairman of its Working Group of Associate Member Countries. He is presently an international advisor on democratic governance.
An abstract of the study, and the complete document can be downloaded from the publications webpage of the ECLAC Port of Spain website. Check the 2007 publications. www.eclac.cl/portofspain
An earlier 2004 ECLAC study conducted by the same author on the participation of non-independent countries in the United Nations world conferences and summits of the United Nations General Assembly is also available at the same website under the 2004 publications.
29 February 2008
U.N. Resumes Struggle To Meet Contemporary Decolonisation Target
The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation met February 28th to begin its annual consideration of the remaining sixteen non self-governing territories. In the Atlantic/Caribbean, the territories in question are Bermuda, Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, British Virgin Islands, Anguilla, and the US Virgin Islands. The commonwealth/territory of Puerto Rico is not on the U.N list although two consecutive White House reports in 2005 and 2007 have confirmed its non self-governing political status – so perhaps they should be on the list.
In the Pacific, the territories are American Samoa and Guam administered by the U.S. The commonwealth/territory of the Northern Mariana Islands is not on the U.N. list but expanding U.S. Congressional control is becoming increasingly clear, effectively eroding what was originally thought as an autonomous arrangement – at least that was the agreement. Perhaps, they should also be on the U.N. list. Other territories are Tokelau (admirably) administered by New Zealand, and New Caledonia administered by France. Other ‘listed’ territories include Pitcairn and St. Helena (U.K.).
The organizational session of the meeting proceeded in the usual manner with an opening statement by Secretary General Ban Ki Moon who announced the election of officers which included Indonesia as chairman, Cuba and Congo as vice chairs, and Syria as Rapporteur. Indonesia replaced St. Vincent and the Grenadines who chaired for the previous two years. Of the 28 members of the committee, nine are small island territories from the Caribbean and Asia/Pacific, and the chairmanship of the committee, up to this point, had rotated between the Caribbean during the 1990s and the Pacific in the new decade.
Another set of listed territories under review of the committee are those subject to sovereignty disputes. Gibraltar is claimed by U.K. and Spain, Falkland Islands/Malvinas is claimed by U.K. and Argentina, and Western Sahara is claimed by Morocco and the Frente Polasario. This might explain the formal presence of an interesting array of additional member countries which attended the event, including Argentina and Brazil which represent the strong Latin American position on the sovereignty of the Malvinas Islands. Spain, of course, was present as it is party to the disputed sovereignty with the U.K. over Gibraltar. The interest of other non- committee members such as Thailand, Turkey, Lebanon and Malaysia is less certain, and subject to interesting speculation.
An interesting diversion from previous practice occurred as the U.S. delegate sat in his designated committee seat as the administering power of the three territories under U.S. administration. The U.S. usually attends the meeting, but does not occupy their seat since they had formally withdrawn their cooperation with the Special Committee in the early 1990s. Perhaps they were seated in deference to the presence of the Secretary-General. Maybe it also signals that they may wish to resume formal cooperation with the committee. One can only hope.
Interestingly, the U.K. representative was present, but did not occupy the seat – which is normally what the U.S. has done over the years. The U.K. withdrew its formal cooperation from the committee in 1986. Meanwhile, France was seated in their proper place as the administering power of New Caledonia – they administer Tahiti and Wallis and Futuna in the Pacific, as well, but these territories are no longer on the U.N. list, so they dare not be mentioned in committee deliberations. In any case, SG Moon gave the usual SG statement referencing the historic background on the U.N. role in decolonisation, and calling on the Special Committee to “continue to advance the decolonisation process,” notwithstanding evidence of a decolonisation stalemate in the U.N. system which suggests little if any such advancement. The SG dutifully offered the full support of the U.N. to the process. The new Chairman, Ambassador Marty M. Natalegawa of Indonesia characterised decolonisation - as most chairs had done before him - as the “unfinished business of the United Nations,” and that the U.N. must “continue to give decolonisation a high priority,” even as the decolonisation process was termed “effectively stalled” in a 2007 report of the United Nations’ own Office of Internal Oversight (OIOS). The new chair should read the OIOS report closely, and review available independent analyses providing the rationale for why the process is “stalled,” as the time-worn excuse continues to be offered that non-cooperation by the administering powers has prevented the work from being done. To his credit, the new Chairman recalled the role of his country in promoting “independence from colonial rule” through the convening of the Bandung Conference in 1955 which “laid a new foundation for the cause of decolonisation across the globe.” Indeed, if the spirit of Bandung were still vivid, the decolonisation process would have been completed long ago. Introducing the Bandung principles into the discussion could only prove useful.
Among the obligatory statements of congratulation by several members of the committee, the presentations of the Caribbean countries of Dominica and St. Lucia were most substantive and forward-looking. Dominica Ambassador Crispin Gregoire emphasised that with only a few short years remaining until the end of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, the decolonisation process must be stimulated since the process of review of the territories has been insufficient. He called for the implementation of the Plan of Implementation of the Decolonisation Mandate already endorsed by the General Assembly which included the use of important independent expertise to compensate for inadequate information available to the countries. He noted that the “repetition of process,” which finds little in-depth analysis of the situation in the territories, has not served the committee well. In order to remedy this inadequacy, and to give the process a chance to succeed, the Dominica ambassador proposed the establishment of a working group to review comprehensively the situation in the small territories. He expressed concern that the territories under sovereignty disputes could begin to overshadow the need for increased attention to be paid to the issues in the small territories.
The Minister Counselor of St. Lucia Michelle Joseph supported the Ambassador of Dominica in his proposal for the working group. She indicated that the committee had “arrived at a very important juncture in its history as the self-determination process in the territories appeared more difficult to achieve than ever.” This was due in large measure, she noted, to the insufficiency of “information dissemination to the people of the territories on their legitimate political options.” She went further to say that “the extent of information and analysis on the situation in the territories is not enough for the member states to offer any real solutions on moving the decolonisation process forward.” She pointed out that the U.N. Plan of Implementation which had called for independent studies and analyses on the evolution of self-government in each territory “has gone largely ignored,” along with the case-by-case work plan for each territory, and “the backlog of reports on the implementation of decolonisation resolutions mandated by the General Assembly each year.” She concluded that “significant progress can only be made through innovative measures, since it has become clear that the standard method of work has not yielded significant results.”
It is unclear whether these important proposals by the Caribbean governments will be acted upon. After all, these points have been forcefully made for years by the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) in statements to the General Assembly. In the face of what the Dominican ambassador described as an “often reluctant United Nations system,” the infamous ability of the bureaucracy to withstand any short-term pressure and return to “business as usual” is well known.
We shall see whether 2008 - under a new United Nations Secretary-General and a new Chairman of the Special Committee - proves any differently.
In the Pacific, the territories are American Samoa and Guam administered by the U.S. The commonwealth/territory of the Northern Mariana Islands is not on the U.N. list but expanding U.S. Congressional control is becoming increasingly clear, effectively eroding what was originally thought as an autonomous arrangement – at least that was the agreement. Perhaps, they should also be on the U.N. list. Other territories are Tokelau (admirably) administered by New Zealand, and New Caledonia administered by France. Other ‘listed’ territories include Pitcairn and St. Helena (U.K.).
The organizational session of the meeting proceeded in the usual manner with an opening statement by Secretary General Ban Ki Moon who announced the election of officers which included Indonesia as chairman, Cuba and Congo as vice chairs, and Syria as Rapporteur. Indonesia replaced St. Vincent and the Grenadines who chaired for the previous two years. Of the 28 members of the committee, nine are small island territories from the Caribbean and Asia/Pacific, and the chairmanship of the committee, up to this point, had rotated between the Caribbean during the 1990s and the Pacific in the new decade.
Another set of listed territories under review of the committee are those subject to sovereignty disputes. Gibraltar is claimed by U.K. and Spain, Falkland Islands/Malvinas is claimed by U.K. and Argentina, and Western Sahara is claimed by Morocco and the Frente Polasario. This might explain the formal presence of an interesting array of additional member countries which attended the event, including Argentina and Brazil which represent the strong Latin American position on the sovereignty of the Malvinas Islands. Spain, of course, was present as it is party to the disputed sovereignty with the U.K. over Gibraltar. The interest of other non- committee members such as Thailand, Turkey, Lebanon and Malaysia is less certain, and subject to interesting speculation.
An interesting diversion from previous practice occurred as the U.S. delegate sat in his designated committee seat as the administering power of the three territories under U.S. administration. The U.S. usually attends the meeting, but does not occupy their seat since they had formally withdrawn their cooperation with the Special Committee in the early 1990s. Perhaps they were seated in deference to the presence of the Secretary-General. Maybe it also signals that they may wish to resume formal cooperation with the committee. One can only hope.
Interestingly, the U.K. representative was present, but did not occupy the seat – which is normally what the U.S. has done over the years. The U.K. withdrew its formal cooperation from the committee in 1986. Meanwhile, France was seated in their proper place as the administering power of New Caledonia – they administer Tahiti and Wallis and Futuna in the Pacific, as well, but these territories are no longer on the U.N. list, so they dare not be mentioned in committee deliberations. In any case, SG Moon gave the usual SG statement referencing the historic background on the U.N. role in decolonisation, and calling on the Special Committee to “continue to advance the decolonisation process,” notwithstanding evidence of a decolonisation stalemate in the U.N. system which suggests little if any such advancement. The SG dutifully offered the full support of the U.N. to the process. The new Chairman, Ambassador Marty M. Natalegawa of Indonesia characterised decolonisation - as most chairs had done before him - as the “unfinished business of the United Nations,” and that the U.N. must “continue to give decolonisation a high priority,” even as the decolonisation process was termed “effectively stalled” in a 2007 report of the United Nations’ own Office of Internal Oversight (OIOS). The new chair should read the OIOS report closely, and review available independent analyses providing the rationale for why the process is “stalled,” as the time-worn excuse continues to be offered that non-cooperation by the administering powers has prevented the work from being done. To his credit, the new Chairman recalled the role of his country in promoting “independence from colonial rule” through the convening of the Bandung Conference in 1955 which “laid a new foundation for the cause of decolonisation across the globe.” Indeed, if the spirit of Bandung were still vivid, the decolonisation process would have been completed long ago. Introducing the Bandung principles into the discussion could only prove useful.
Among the obligatory statements of congratulation by several members of the committee, the presentations of the Caribbean countries of Dominica and St. Lucia were most substantive and forward-looking. Dominica Ambassador Crispin Gregoire emphasised that with only a few short years remaining until the end of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, the decolonisation process must be stimulated since the process of review of the territories has been insufficient. He called for the implementation of the Plan of Implementation of the Decolonisation Mandate already endorsed by the General Assembly which included the use of important independent expertise to compensate for inadequate information available to the countries. He noted that the “repetition of process,” which finds little in-depth analysis of the situation in the territories, has not served the committee well. In order to remedy this inadequacy, and to give the process a chance to succeed, the Dominica ambassador proposed the establishment of a working group to review comprehensively the situation in the small territories. He expressed concern that the territories under sovereignty disputes could begin to overshadow the need for increased attention to be paid to the issues in the small territories.
The Minister Counselor of St. Lucia Michelle Joseph supported the Ambassador of Dominica in his proposal for the working group. She indicated that the committee had “arrived at a very important juncture in its history as the self-determination process in the territories appeared more difficult to achieve than ever.” This was due in large measure, she noted, to the insufficiency of “information dissemination to the people of the territories on their legitimate political options.” She went further to say that “the extent of information and analysis on the situation in the territories is not enough for the member states to offer any real solutions on moving the decolonisation process forward.” She pointed out that the U.N. Plan of Implementation which had called for independent studies and analyses on the evolution of self-government in each territory “has gone largely ignored,” along with the case-by-case work plan for each territory, and “the backlog of reports on the implementation of decolonisation resolutions mandated by the General Assembly each year.” She concluded that “significant progress can only be made through innovative measures, since it has become clear that the standard method of work has not yielded significant results.”
It is unclear whether these important proposals by the Caribbean governments will be acted upon. After all, these points have been forcefully made for years by the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) in statements to the General Assembly. In the face of what the Dominican ambassador described as an “often reluctant United Nations system,” the infamous ability of the bureaucracy to withstand any short-term pressure and return to “business as usual” is well known.
We shall see whether 2008 - under a new United Nations Secretary-General and a new Chairman of the Special Committee - proves any differently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)