Several British Territories Expand International Membership

Two United Kingdom-administered territories have expanded their participation in international organisations in furtherance of the development process of these dependent territories. At the thirty-second session of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) held in the Dominican Republic, the Cayman Islands was admitted as the ninth associate member of ECLAC on 13th June 2008. A year ago, the Turks and Caicos Islands was admitted as an associate member of ECLAC, one of the five regional economic commissions of the United Nations.

ECLAC, and its counterpart Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific(ESCAP), provide associate membership for non-independent countries in their respective terms of reference. With the admission of the Cayman Islands, ECLAC now has nine associate members. Other UK-administered territories with associate membership in ECLAC include the Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, British Virgin Islands and Montserrat. The associated countries of the Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, along with the United States dependent territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands are also associate members of ECLAC. Bermuda is expected to join ECLAC in 2009.

There are also nine members of ESCAP.

Associate Member Date of Admission

1. American Samoa 28 July 1988
2. Cook Islands 11 July 1972
3. French Polynesia 31 July 1992
4. Guam 24 July 1981
5. Hong Kong, China**** 25 November 1947
6. Macao, China ***** 26 July 1991
7. New Caledonia 31 July 1992
8. Niue 3 August 1979
9. Northern Mariana Islands 22 July 1986



The text of the ECLAC resolution admitting the Cayman Islands as an associate member follows:

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
Thirty-Second Session
Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
9-13 June 2008

ADMISSION OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS AS AN ASSOCIATE MEMBER OF THE ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

Resolution

The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean,

Recalling that paragraph 3(a) of the terms of reference of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean states that “Any territory, or part or group thereof, may on presentation of its application to the Commission by the member responsible for the international relations of such territory, part or group of territories, be eligible for admission by the Commission as an associate member of the Commission,”

Recognizing that the Cayman Islands enjoys close economic, cultural and social ties with the rest of the region and that it is committed to strengthening these links wherever possible,

Aware also that associate membership in the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean will make a considerable contribution to the effort to achieve this goal,

Welcoming the request made by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that the Cayman Islands should be granted associate membership in the Commission,

Decides that the Cayman Islands shall be admitted as an associate member of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean.

***********

Several months prior, the Turks and Caicos Islands was also admitted to the Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee (CDCC), a subsidiary body of ECLAC comprising the wider Caribbean region. It was unclear why the CDCC resolution included reference to 1997 resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly and of the Economic and Social Council as part of the legislative authority, when more updated resolutions as recent as 2007 on the same subject were available.

The text of the CDCC resolution admitting the Turks and Caicos Islands as an associate member follows:

Twenty-Second Session of the Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee (CDCC) LC/CAR/L.169
Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago
22-23 April 2008

RESOLUTION 69 (XXII)

ADMISSION OF THE TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS AS AN ASSOCIATE MEMBER OF THE CARIBBEAN DEVELOPMENT AND COOPERATION COMMITTEE (CDCC)

Ministers and Heads of Delegations participating at the twenty-second session of the
CDCC,

Considering the desirability that the economic, social and cultural relations among all peoples in the Caribbean area should be strengthened;

Bearing in mind the Constituent Declaration and Functions and Rules of Procedure of the Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee;

Aware that the Turks and Caicos Islands was admitted as an associate member of ECLAC by resolution 628(XXXI) at its thirty-first session held in Montevideo, Uruguay, from 20 to 24 March 2006; and that this issue was subsequently brought to the attention of and endorsed by the Economic and Social Council as an integral part of the Biennial Report of ECLAC (3 July 2004 to 24 March 2006) (ECOSOC Official Records, 2006, Supplement No. 20) (E/2006/20) (LC/G.2317-P);

Noting that the Turks and Caicos Islands also participates as an associate member of the OECS, and is a member of the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank (ECCB);

Taking into account United Nations General Assembly resolution 52/73 of 10 December
1997 which, inter alia, requests the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system, as well as regional organizations, to strengthen existing measures of support and formulate appropriate programmes of assistance to the remaining non-self-governing territories, within the framework of their respective mandates, in order to accelerate progress in the economic and social sectors of those territories;

Also taking into account United Nations General Assembly resolution 52/77 of 10
December 1997 which, inter alia, called on member States, organizations and United Nations agencies to continue to assist the Territory in social and economic development;

Cognizant that the Economic and Social Council in resolution 1997/66 of 25 July 1997
endorsed, inter alia, the participation of appointed and elected representatives of non-self governing territories in the relevant meetings and conferences of the agencies and organizations so that territories may benefit from the related activities of the United Nations system;

Welcome the participation of the Turks and Caicos Islands in the works of this Committee and for the first time in its biennial Meeting as an ECLAC/CDCC associate member.

Adopted 23rd April 2008

U.N Association of Virgin Islands Critiques UN Decolonisation Implementation

A representative of the United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands (UNAVI), in an address before the Special Committee on Decolonisation on 11th June, presented a measured analysis of the lack of implementation of the decolonisation mandate by the United Nations. The presentation was made by Attorney Juliette Chin on behalf of UNAVI President, Attorney Judith L. Bourne. It was the only statement made on the question of the United States Virgin Islands, and the only one from a Caribbean territory. A statement was also made by Sabina Flores Perez of Guam who addressed the implications of the continued and accelerated militarisation of that Pacific territory. The elected government of the US Virgin Islands was not represented for the second year in succession, having broken a long established precedent of annual presentations to the Special Committee on Decolonisation by a representative of that territorial government dating back to 1975.

The United Nations press release on the meeting can be found at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gacol3177.doc.htm

Followng is the full statement of the United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands:

_____________________________________________________________________________________



STATEMENT TO THE UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION
by JUDITH L. BOURNE, President
UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
United Nations Headquarters
New York, NY.

11th June 2008
Mr. Chairman,

Please accept the compliments of The United Nations Association of
the Virgin Islands (UNAVI) to yourself and to the other distinguished members of the Special Committee. UNAVI is pleased once again to provide our perspective on the decolonization process. Due to the inability of our officers to be in New York at this time, this presentation is being read by a colleague, Attorney Juliette Chin.

UNAVI has contributed to the discussion in most of the Caribbean regional seminars up to 2006 as the only NGO in the US Virgin Islands which promotes political status development in our territory.

We are concerned about our removal from the group of NGOs normally invited to those seminars and hope that this is a mere oversight that can be corrected in 2009, and that our absence has nothing to do with any discomfort that may have been caused by the depth of our analysis regarding the failure of the UN to carry out its mandate.

Mr. Chairman,

The continued existence of sixteen territories on the UN list and the lack of substantive positive movement in this 21st century is a travesty of the purpose of this Committee, and is directly related to the lack of implementation of the decolonization mandate. Much of this is attributable to the indifference of some administering powers who sense that the member states are no longer interested in real decolonization.

But a significant part of it is due to the inaction of the United Nations system which has failed to carry out, or has inadequately carried out, the activities which this Committee has directed it to do in the annual resolutions.

One example is the resolution this committee adopted on May 27th of this year on Dissemination of Information on Decolonization. The resolution is essentially the same as other resolutions on this item since the beginning of the 1st International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism in 1992, with a few additions here and there. One of these additions is reference to the information leaflet on decolonization entitled “What the United Nations Can Do to Assist Non Self-Governing Territories.” This document gives the web addresses of some of the U.N. bodies and has nice color pictures. However, it gives no insight on which agencies provide the referenced assistance. The document is thus of questionable use, yet it is projected in your resolution as a major contribution to the dissemination of information on decolonization.

Further, you may recall that in 2007, the Department of Public Information, when queried, could give no indication as to whether the information which it says it disseminates has ever reached the territories themselves. DPI could not even confirm whether the UN Information Centres had a mandate to service the territories. In 2008, these questions remain unanswered. Yet again, the resolution you just adopted recognizes the role of the UN Information Centres in disseminating information to us.

This is but one of many examples of the disconnect between what the UN system says it does, and what actually gets done. Is there really any wonder why we continue to be non self-governing?

In the US Virgin Islands, the awareness among the people of the actual political status options available to them is virtually non-existent, despite decades of resolutions originating in this committee on the creation of education programs to heighten the awareness of these issues. The inability of this committee to require the UN departments to actually carry out committee decisions, is nothing short of tragic. What this inaction has fostered is the perception that the UN is impotent when it comes to decolonization, despite contrary statements from UNAVI. This has facilitated the political atmosphere which has found the US Virgin Islands and other United States - administered territories being told that the UN is no longer relevant to us, and that we are merely internal, domestic issues.

Indeed, an article published in the local on-line newspaper on the US Memorial Day celebrations held in the US Virgin Islands last month began with the statement “It's been almost 100 years since the territory became part of the United States”, and no one other than I, who wrote a letter to the editor in response, appeared to recognize that the statement was fundamentally incorrect.

How will this committee respond to these amazingly erroneous beliefs which are constant, often unstated, underlying premises in news stories, popular comments and political statements? Will this committee take issue with them in your resolution? Or will you simply ignore them?

This committee has referred to the current USVI Constitutional Convention as an aspect of our progress towards self-determination. Putting aside the fact that the US law authorizing the development of a local constitution clearly delimits its scope to the confines of our present colonial relationship, a recent exchange illustrates both the abdication of any responsibility by the administering power for the political education or political development of the territory and the lack of an informed consciousness within the territory.

As the USVI government has stated that it does not have the resources to fund the expenses of the Convention, the Governor requested technical assistance funding from the Office of Insular Affairs of the Department of the Interior of the administering power. The response came from an Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary and stated that “Because your drafting of a constitution is an exercise in self-government, we believe it important that the entire effort, including the financing, be accomplished locally...”

Firstly, the request was addressed by our Governor to a subdivision of the Interior Department rather than to the State Department, secondly; the response was in derogation of clear responsibilities of the administering power; and thirdly, this response was considered to be disappointing but not scandalous.

Clearly, a refusal to require that action be taken on the many valuable activities mandated in the annual resolutions is to turn aside from the stated purpose of this Committee. The United States itself responded in 2007 to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and acknowledged that there have been no changes in the political status of any of the US - administered territories. Is there a new purpose to simply legitimize status quo colonial arrangements as some new acceptable form of self-government, contrary to the real situation on the ground?

What happened to the case-by-case analysis which the committee adopted which would have provided detail on the current colonial arrangements?

What happened to the Plan of Implementation of the Decolonization Mandate endorsed by the General Assembly which called for much needed political analysis to be done by an independent expert?

What happened to the proposal by the distinguished ambassador of Dominica at the opening of the Special Committee in February to create a working group to deal with the small territories?

It appears that all of these proposals designed to actually carry out the decolonization mandate have been systematically blocked, while the status quo continues. Thus, in 2008, less than two years before the second decade ends, we have repetitive resolutions with no apparent prospect of implementation, with the cycle repeating itself over and over, year after year. And the United States Virgin Islands actually moves further away from activities and from a mind set that encourage self determination.

Mr. Chairman,

We note with interest the decision of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at its Seventh Session this May to convene an expert seminar on decolonization. UNAVI fully endorsed this approach to bring some expert analysis to these issues. Perhaps the conclusions of the Permanent Forum experts will provide this committee with much needed information on the dynamics of contemporary colonial arrangements.

Mr. Chairman,

The implementation of the decolonization mandate continues to require the full attention of UN member states. We in the territories who are committed to self-determination are deeply troubled that the UN appears to be ready to abandon the decolonization process at the end of this decade, declare victory, and move on. For our own sakes and in recognition of the many member states which emerged from colonialism, we appeal to you to demand that the UN system comply with your directives on decolonization.

I thank the committee for its time and attention.


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

U.N. Committee Calls for General Assembly Consideration of Puerto Rico

The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation for the second consecutive year has adopted a resolution calling for the U.N. General Assembly to deal directly with the issue of the self-determination of Puerto Rico.

This provision is contained in Operative Paragraph 7 of the resolution (reprinted below) which “requests the (U.N.) General Assembly to consider the question of Puerto Rico comprehensively in all of its aspects.” The same language was included in the 2007 committee resolution on the issue, and most speakers reiterated the view that the General Assembly must examine the case of Puerto Rico which had been removed from the U.N. list of non self-governing territories in 1953 following the adoption of an ‘autonomous’ status in their 1952 Constitution.

The U.N. also ‘de-listed’ the Netherlands Antilles in 1953 on the same premise that the arrangement of the six islands and Suriname on the South American coast was sufficiently autonomous. As it turned out, the Dutch had a better case than the Americans in terms of ‘autonomous sufficiency’ given the continued applicability to Puerto Rico (and the other four U.S. – administered territories) of the infamous Article IV(3) (2) of the U.S Constitution which states that the U.S. Congress has the right to “make all needful rules for territory or other property of the U.S.”

Equating territory (including colonised countries) with property still remains a rather sensitive subject into the 21st century, so other softer designations were invented over time to describe the territories, such as insular areas, offshore areas and the like. The terms ‘possessions’ and ‘offshore possessions’ still remain a favourite of the U.S. Congress in its legislation on the territories. It seems that equating territories as any ‘other property’ is very much alive. Changing this anachronistic terminology in future legislation where the territories are referenced might be a worthy project for the non-voting delegates of the territories.

The issue of a full measure of self-government became more complex in 1960 when the U.N. General Assembly adopted the “Decolonisation Declaration” (Resolution 1514 XV) which confirmed the inalienable right of self-determination of the people in those territories. The General Assembly on the same day also adopted the companion Resolution 1541 (XV) which identified and defined the three legitimate options of political equality, namely integration, free association and independence.

The question at that stage was whether the de-listing of territories before the definition was adopted was premature, and should be re-visited. While there was significant sentiment to that effect, there was not enough political will to act, given the composition of the U.N. in 1960 when most of Africa and Asia remained under colonial rule. The two resolutions did serve to intensify the momentum for self-determination in colonies throughout the world, including in Puerto Rico.

Since that time, the self-determination of Puerto Rico was kept very much alive by Puerto Ricans in the territory, as well as those who resided in other parts of the world. Political parties such as the Puerto Rico Independence Party, the Puerto Rican Socialist Party and the Puerto Rico Nationalist Party joined with non-governmental organisations to pressure the United Nations to keep the issue of the self-determination of Puerto Rico on the minds of U.N. member states. This resulted in a compromise decision by the Special Committee on Decolonisation to examine the case of Puerto Rico and adopt a decision on its self-determination. It was determined that the Special Committee decision would not be forwarded to the General Assembly for action (although the decision is contained in the committee’s report).

After some 26 resolutions and decision of the Special Committee regarding Puerto Rico – and now the 27th - it appears that the critical mass has been reached for the logical step to be taken by the General Assembly to act. It is observed that the earlier interest by a number of groups in having Puerto Rico‘re-listed’ appears no longer to be a consideration. In any event, both methods, re-listing, or having the case of Puerto Rico self-determination taken up directly by the General Assembly, would require Assembly approval. It appears that the consistent frustrations expressed by representatives of other territories already listed regarding the lack of implementation of decolonisation resolutions did not fall on deaf ears in Puerto Rico,and appears a determining factor in the Puerto Rico approach to bypass the re-listing process in favour of direct General Assembly consideration. This may prove to be a wise strategy.

This approach will undoubtedly require a considerable lobbying efort among U.N. member states who would be subjected to an expected political pressure directly to the political leadership on their respective capitals. If there is adherence to the resolutions of the Non-Aligned Movement(NAM) on this matter, then such pressures should not matter, and a comfortable majority for support should emerge.

A summary of the United Nations press release on the United Nations on Puerto Rico appears below, along with the text of the resolution.


_____________________________________________________________________________________

United Nations Press Release


SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION ADOPTS TEXT CALLING ON UNITED STATES

TO EXPEDITE SELF-DETERMINATION PROCESS FOR PUERTO RICAN PEOPLE

9th June 2008

The Special Committee on Decolonization today called upon the Government of the United States to expedite a process that would allow the Puerto Rican people fully to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence.

In a resolution adopted by consensus, the decolonization body –- known formally as the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples -- requested the President of the United States to release all Puerto Rican political prisoners serving sentences for cases relating to the Territory’s struggle for independence and to the Vieques Island “peace struggle”.

The Special Committee, also known as the “Committee of 24”, urged the Government of the United States to complete the return of occupied land and installations on Vieques Island and in Ceiba; respect the fundamental human rights to health and economic development of their inhabitants; and expedite and cover the costs of decontaminating the areas previously used in military exercises.

Introducing the text, Cuba’s representative said that, while the Special Committee and the General Assembly had been adopting resolutions and decisions reaffirming the inalienable right of the Puerto Rican people to self-determination and independence, the United States, as colonial Power, had tried by all means to consolidate its economic, political and social domination over the “brotherly Latin American and Caribbean country”. Because of its culture, history, traditions and especially its people’s unswerving will, Puerto Rico would continue to be a Latin American and Caribbean nation, with its own national identity. After the Special Committee’s adoption of the text, he said: “The adoption of this resolution today is a tribute to the patriotic spirit of the Puerto Rican people and the tradition of struggle led by their heroes, who are also the heroes of Cuba and all the Americas.”

This morning, the Special Committee heard 18 petitioners, who presented the views of various Puerto Rican groups, parties and organizations. Many requested the General Assembly to call on the United States to begin a just and equitable process to allow the people of Puerto Rico to exercise their right to self-determination, confirming to resolution 1514 (XV). Puerto Rican people could no longer tolerate that consideration of Puerto Rican self-determination be “parked in a corner of chimeras” by the Assembly, a representative of the Puerto Rico Bar Association said.

Among the issues that required attention, petitioners mentioned the imposition of the death penalty for federal crimes, despite its prohibition by the Constitution of Puerto Rico; extradition of those facing death penalty; occupation and environmental contamination of Vieques; political prisoners serving disproportionate sentences in United States jails; and rising federalization of Puerto Rican life.

Anibal Acevedo-Vilá, Governor of Puerto Rico, said the process of self-determination for the Puerto Rican people had not been concluded in 1952, when the General Assembly, on the request of the United States, had concluded that a new constitutional status had been reached that had attributes of “sovereignty”. The United States Government had not complied with its promises to the international community, and a recent White House report on the matter stated that Puerto Rico had only two options: integration as a federal state, or independence.

He recalled having written in a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the United States had perpetuated a “monumental fraud”. The Department of State must officially notify the United Nations of its current position. While supporting neither statehood nor independence, but rather the autonomous status supported by the majority of Puerto Ricans, he was asking the Special Committee, as an elected official, to request the United States to explain inconsistencies between its position in the 1950s and its current position.

Accusing the Governor of supporting the status quo, State Senator José Carriga Pico said true self-determination would make Puerto Rico the fifty-first State of the United States, while Luis Vega Ramos, a Member of Puerto Rico’s House of Representatives, called for independence in free association with the administering Power.

Kenneth D. McClintock, President of the Puerto Rico Senate, disagreeing with many other petitioners, said that the Territory’s ultimate political status was essentially a domestic matter of the United States, to be decided by its citizens residing in Puerto Rico and the Congress. It was not incumbent upon the Special Committee or the General Assembly to take action on the status of Puerto Rico.

Speaking prior to the adoption of today’s draft resolution were the representatives of Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Panama, Venezuela, Dominica (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Syria, Iran, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Cuba.

The full U.N. press release can be found at: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gacol3176.doc.htm

End


_____________________________________________________________________________________

Resolution adopted by United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation

on Puerto Rico


9th June 2008


The Special Committee,


Bearing in mind the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, as well as the resolutions and decisions of the Special Committee concerning Puerto Rico,


Considering that the period 1990-2000 was proclaimed by the General Assembly, in its resolution 43/47 of 22 November 1988, as the International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, and that by resolution 55/146 of 8 December 2000, the General Assembly declared the period 2001-2010 the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism,


Bearing in mind the 26 resolutions and decisions adopted by the Special Committee on the question of Puerto Rico, contained in the reports of the Special Committee to the General Assembly, in particular those adopted without a vote in recent years,


Recalling that 25 July 2008 marks the one hundred and tenth anniversary of the intervention in Puerto Rico by the United States of America,
Noting with concern that despite the diverse initiatives taken by the political representatives of Puerto Rico and the United States in recent years, the process of decolonization of Puerto Rico has not yet been set in motion,


Stressing the urgent need for the United States to lay the groundwork for the full implementation of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the resolutions and decisions of the Special Committee concerning Puerto Rico,


Noting that the inter-agency Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status designated by the President of the United States, which submitted its report on 22 December 2005, affirmed that Puerto Rico is a territory subject to United States congressional authority and that initiatives concerning Puerto Rico’s status have been subsequently presented to the Congress of the United States,


Also noting the “Panama Proclamation”, adopted by the Latin American and Caribbean Congress for the Independence of Puerto Rico, which was held in Panama from 17 to 19 November 2006 and attended by 33 political parties from 22 countries of the region,


Further noting the debate in Puerto Rico on the search for a procedure that would make it possible to launch the process of decolonization of Puerto Rico, and aware of the principle that any initiative for the solution of the political status of Puerto Rico should originate from the people of Puerto Rico,


Aware that Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, was used for over 60 years by the United States Marines to carry out military exercises, with negative consequences for the health of the population, the environment and the economic and social development of that Puerto Rican municipality,


Recalling the decision of the Government of the United States to put an end to the bombings and military exercises on Vieques Island from 1 May 2003, which was the outcome of the prolonged process conducted during years of peaceful protests carried out by the people of Puerto Rico as well as the wide campaign of international solidarity, which has been appropriately reflected in the work and documents of the Special Committee,


Noting the consensus existing among the people and the Government of Puerto Rico on the necessity of ensuring the clean-up, decontamination and return to the people of Puerto Rico of all the territory previously used for military exercises and installations, and of using them for the social and economic development of Puerto Rico,


Also noting the complaints made by the inhabitants of Vieques Island regarding the continued bombing and the use of open burning for clean-up, which exacerbate the existing health problems and pollution and endanger civilian lives,


Further noting the consensus among the people of Puerto Rico in favour of the release of the Puerto Rican political prisoners who have been serving sentences in United States prisons for more than 27 years for cases related to the struggle for Puerto Rico’s independence, as well as those serving sentences for cases related to the Vieques Island struggle for peace,


Noting the concern of the people of Puerto Rico regarding violent actions, including repression and intimidation, against Puerto Rican independence fighters in Puerto Rico, including those that have recently come to light through documents declassified by federal agencies of the United States,


Also noting that in the final document of the Fourteenth Summit of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Havana from 11 to 16 September 2006, and at other meetings of the Movement, the right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination and independence is reaffirmed on the basis of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV); the Government of the United States is urged to assume its responsibility to expedite a process that will allow the Puerto Rican people to fully exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence; the Government of the United States is urged to return the territory and occupied installations on Vieques Island and at the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station to the Puerto Rican people, who constitute a Latin American and Caribbean nation; and the General Assembly is urged to actively consider the question of Puerto Rico in all its aspects,


Having heard statements and testimonies representative of various viewpoints among the people of Puerto Rico and their social institutions,


Having considered the report of the Rapporteur of the Special Committee on the implementation of the resolutions concerning Puerto Rico,


1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination and independence in conformity with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the applicability of the fundamental principles of that resolution to the question of Puerto Rico;


2. Reiterates that the Puerto Rican people constitute a Latin American and Caribbean nation that has its own unequivocal national identity;


3. Calls upon the Government of the United States of America to assume its responsibility to expedite a process that will allow the Puerto Rican people fully to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the resolutions and decisions of the Special Committee concerning Puerto Rico;


4. Notes the broad support of eminent persons, governments and political forces in Latin America and the Caribbean for the independence of Puerto Rico;


5. Also notes the debate in Puerto Rico on the implementation of a mechanism that would ensure the full participation of representatives of all viewpoints prevailing in Puerto Rico, aware of the principle that any initiative for the solution of the political status of Puerto Rico should originate from the people of Puerto Rico;


6. Expresses serious concern regarding actions carried out against Puerto Rican independence fighters, and encourages the investigation of those actions with the necessary rigor and with the cooperation of the relevant authorities;


7. Requests the General Assembly to consider the question of Puerto Rico comprehensively in all its aspects;


8. Urges the Government of the United States, in line with the need to guarantee the Puerto Rican people their legitimate right to self-determination and the protection of their human rights, to complete the return of occupied land and installations on Vieques Island and in Ceiba to the people of Puerto Rico; respect fundamental human rights, such as the right to health and economic development; and expedite and cover the costs of the process of cleaning up and decontaminating the impact areas previously used in military exercises through means that do not continue to aggravate the serious consequences of its military activity for the health of the inhabitants of Vieques Island and the environment;


9. Requests the President of the United States of America to release all Puerto Rican political prisoners serving sentences in United States prisons for over 27 years for cases relating to the struggle for the independence of Puerto Rico, as well as those serving sentences for cases relating to the Vieques Island peace struggle;


10. Takes note with satisfaction of the report prepared by the Rapporteur of the Special Committee,1 in compliance with its resolution of 14 June 2007;


11. Requests the Rapporteur to report to the Special Committee in 2009 on the implementation of the present resolution;


12. Decides to keep the question of Puerto Rico under continuous review

UN Committee Approves Resolutions on Information and Visiting Missions

The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation adopted three resolutions on 27th May 2008 at the beginning of its substantive session. The texts read virtually identical to the 2007 resolutions adopted by the committee, and vary little from those adopted annually by the committee since before the beginning of the decade.

The resolutions provide some formidable activities that if carried out over the years of their adoption would have moved the decolonisation process significantly ahead. However, the level of UN implementation has not kept pace with the activities prescribed, necesitating the repetition of the projected activities each year.

The texts now go to the U.N. Fourth Committee for consideration in the fall before being considered by the full General Assembly for adoption in early December.

The text of the resolutions are reproduced below.


_____________________________________________________________________________________


A/AC.109/2008/L.4


Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted
under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations


The General Assembly,


Recalling its resolution 1970 (XVIII) of 16 December 1963, in which it requested the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples to study the information transmitted to the Secretary-General in accordance with Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations and to take such information fully into account in examining the situation with regard to the implementation of the Declaration, contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960,


Recalling also its resolution 62/112 of 17 December 2007, in which it requested the Special Committee to continue to discharge the functions entrusted to it under resolution 1970 (XVIII),


Stressing the importance of timely transmission by the administering Powers of adequate information under Article 73 e of the Charter, in particular in relation to the preparation by the Secretariat of the working papers on the Territories concerned,


Having examined the report of the Secretary-General,


1. Reaffirms that, in the absence of a decision by the General Assembly itself that a Non-Self-Governing Territory has attained a full measure of self-government in terms of Chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations, the administering Power concerned should continue to transmit information under Article 73 e of the Charter with respect to that Territory;


2. Requests the administering Powers concerned, in accordance with their Charter obligations, to transmit or continue to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social and educational conditions in the Territories for which they are respectively responsible, as well as the fullest possible information on political and constitutional developments in the Territories concerned, including the constitution, legislative act or executive order providing for the government of the Territory and the constitutional relationship of the Territory to the administering Power, within a maximum period of six months following the expiration of the administrative year in those Territories;


3. Requests the Secretary-General to continue to ensure that adequate information is drawn from all available published sources in connection with the preparation of the working papers relating to the Territories concerned;


4. Requests the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples to continue to discharge the functions entrusted to it under General Assembly resolution 1970 (XVIII), in accordance with established procedures.




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


A/AC.109/2008/L.5

Dissemination of information on decolonization




The General Assembly,


Having examined the chapter of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the dissemination of information on decolonization and publicity for the work of the United Nations in the field of decolonization,


Recalling General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and other resolutions and decisions of the United Nations concerning the dissemination of information on decolonization, in particular Assembly resolution 61/129 of 14 December 2006,


Recognizing the need for flexible, practical and innovative approaches towards reviewing the options of self-determination for the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories with a view to implementing the plan of action for the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism,


Reiterating the importance of dissemination of information as an instrument for furthering the aims of the Declaration, and mindful of the role of world public opinion in effectively assisting the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories to achieve self-determination,


Recognizing the role played by the administering Powers in transmitting information to the Secretary-General in accordance with the terms of Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations,


Recognizing also the role of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat, through the United Nations information centres, in the dissemination of information at the regional level on the activities of the United Nations,


Welcoming the issuance by the Department, in consultation with the United Nations Development Programme, the specialized agencies and the Special Committee, of an information leaflet on assistance programmes available to the Non-Self-Governing Territories,


Aware of the role of non-governmental organizations in the dissemination of information on decolonization,


1. Approves the activities in the field of dissemination of information on decolonization undertaken by the Department of Public Information and the Department of Political Affairs of the Secretariat, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations on decolonization, in particular the preparation, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 61/129, of the information leaflet entitled “What the UN Can Do to Assist Non-Self-Governing Territories”, issued in March 2007, and encourages wide dissemination of the information leaflet;


2. Considers it important to continue and expand its efforts to ensure the widest possible dissemination of information on decolonization, with particular emphasis on the options of self-determination available for the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories, and to this end, requests the Department of Public Information to empower the United Nations information centres in the relevant regions to disseminate material to the Non-Self-Governing Territories;


3. Requests the Secretary-General to further enhance the information provided on the United Nations decolonization website by including the full series of reports of the regional seminars on decolonization, the statements and scholarly papers presented at those seminars and links to the full series of reports of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples;


4. Requests the Department of Public Information to continue its efforts to update web-based information on the assistance programmes available to the Non Self-Governing Territories;


5. Requests the Department of Political Affairs and the Department of Public Information to implement the recommendations of the Special Committee and to continue their efforts to take measures through all the media available, including publications, radio and television, as well as the Internet, to give publicity to the work of the United Nations in the field of decolonization and, inter alia:


(a) To develop procedures to collect, prepare and disseminate, particularly to the Territories, basic material on the issue of self-determination of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories;


(b) To seek the full cooperation of the administering Powers in the discharge of the tasks referred to above;


(c) To explore the idea of a programme of collaboration with the decolonization focal points of territorial Governments, particularly in the Pacific and Caribbean regions, to help improve the exchange of information;


(d) To encourage the involvement of non-governmental organizations in the dissemination of information on decolonization;


(e) To encourage the involvement of Non-Self-Governing Territories in the dissemination of information on decolonization;


(f) To report to the Special Committee on measures taken in the implementation of the present resolution;


6. Requests all States, including the administering Powers, to accelerate the dissemination of information referred to in paragraph 2 above;


7. Requests the Special Committee to continue to examine this question and to report to the General Assembly at its sixty-fourth session on the implementation of the present resolution.




***********
A/AC.109/2008/L.6

Question of sending visiting and special missions to Territories


The Special Committee,


Having considered the question of sending visiting missions to Territories,


Recalling the relevant resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and the Special Committee requesting the administering Powers to cooperate fully with the United Nations by receiving visiting missions in the Territories under their administration,


Mindful that United Nations visiting missions provide an effective means of assessing the situation in those Territories and of ascertaining the wishes and aspirations of the peoples thereof regarding their future status,


Conscious that United Nations visiting missions enhance the capacity of the United Nations to assist the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories in attaining the objectives set forth in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, in other relevant resolutions of the Assembly and in the plan of action for the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism,


Noting with appreciation the continuing exemplary cooperation of New Zealand, as an administering Power, in the work of the Special Committee, and that, at the invitation of the Government of New Zealand, two missions to observe the referendums in Tokelau were dispatched, in February 2006 and October 2007,


Recalling with satisfaction the cooperation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as the administering Power, in facilitating the United Nations special mission to the Turks and Caicos Islands in April 2006 at the request of the territorial Government,


Recalling the importance of the previously expressed desire of the territorial Governments of American Samoa and of Anguilla for a visiting mission by the Special Committee,


1. Stresses the need to dispatch periodic visiting missions to Non-Self-Governing Territories in order to facilitate the full, speedy and effective implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with respect to those Territories, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations on decolonization and the plan of action of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism;1


2. Calls upon the administering Powers that have not yet done so to cooperate or continue to cooperate with the United Nations by facilitating United Nations visiting missions to the Territories under their administration, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations on decolonization;


3. Requests the administering Powers to cooperate fully with the Special Committee in exploring the possibility of undertaking visiting or special missions in furtherance of the decolonization mandate of the General Assembly;


4. Requests its Chair to continue consultations with the administering Powers concerned and to report thereon to the Special Committee on the results of those consultations.

U.N. Secretary-General Declares Decolonisation ‘Incomplete’

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has declared that “the monumental task (of decolonisation) is as yet complete.” In a message read on his behalf to a Pacific intergovernmental meeting of the Special Committee on Decolonisation which convened in Bandung, Indonesia from 15th to 17th May, the Secretary-General said that “colonialism has no place in today’s world,” and “urge(d) all administering powers to actively engage with the United Nations in discharging the U.N. mandate on decolonisation.” The Secretary General’s message went on to “encourage all parties to continue working together to complete the decolonisation process in every one of the remaining 16 non self-governing territories.”

As the statement from the Secretary-General was being read, it was reported that a group of students from West Papua were demonstrating outside the conference site in favour of the re-inscription of that territory on United Nations List of Non Self-Governing Territories.

Regional Meetings on Decolonisation

The annual intergovernmental meetings on decolonisation are held by the Special Committee on Decolonisation during alternating years in United Nations member countries in the Caribbean and Pacific regions, respectively. The sessions are funded through the UN regular budget and attended by a representative portion of UN member states of the Special Committee as chosen by the various regional groups. Participants also include representatives from some of the 16 territorial governments formally listed by the UN as non self-governing, along with several non-governmental organisations. Others are invited in their individual capacity, as identified by the U.N. Secretariat.

In the 1990s, representative groups from territories not on the U.N. list were permitted to observe the proceedings without directly participating. In recent years, however, this practice was ended at the behest of some administering powers who did not want any recognition of the colonial nature of territories under their administration. A number of these territories had been prematurely removed from the UN list in the past.

The rather unusual rules of procedure for these regional meetings provide that only the UN member states of the Special Committee are permitted to serve on the Drafting Committee which agrees the final report of the meeting based on the text provided by the Secretariat. In past conferences, this draft text has often omitted certain views considered adverse to the position of some member states. In some cases, recommendations have been included in the report on issues that were never discussed at the meeting. The report is ultimately adopted by the Special Committee at UN Headquarters where the text is discussed, and often further amended by UN member states who may or may not have attended the regional meeting.

These meetings were originally conceived as part of the Plan of Action (POA) of the First International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (1991-2000) adopted by the UN General Assembly. The sessions were meant as a good faith effort to bring all of the parties to the table for frank and open discussions aimed at accelerating the decolonisation process. The meetings were also an activity contained in the POA of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, which was identical to the POA of the first International Decade, because of the limited implementation of the earlier recommendations.

An assessment on the POA of the First International Decade, and a mid-term review of the Second International Decade were presented by an international expert at previous regional meetings of the Special Committee. These assessments were published by the journal Overseas Territories Report, and are available upon request to: overseasreview@yahoo.com.

The meeting venue of Bandung was the site of the formation of the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) which served to intensify and organise the global effort to end colonialism in most of Africa, and Asia, and major parts of the Caribbean and Pacific. Amid the lack of implementation of UN General Assembly decolonisation resolutions, it was hoped that the historical importance of the venue would serve to stimulate an otherwise dormant UN system to undertake methods to re-start a “stalled” decolonisation process, as it has been characterised by the UN Office of International Oversight Services (OIOS).

Concerns have been expressed, however, that the “repetition of process,” which characterises the contemporary UN treatment of the matter, would contribute to UN “decolonisation fatigue” leading to what many fear as an attempt to legitimise the present colonial arrangements, for expediency. The aim of this approach is said to be the ultimate removal of the territories from the UN list – not by achieving a full measure of self-government, but rather by changing the definition of self-government. Sadly, the UN continues to skillfully avoid undertaking the case-by-case review process for each territory – a mechanism annually adopted by the UN General Assembly - to assess the dynamics of the present colonial arrangements in each territory.

Amid the limitations, some participants in past regional decolonisation sessions have succeeded in inserting some provisions that reflect contemporary decolonisation concerns in the meeting report. The 2006 Pacific Decolonisation Meeting had relevant provisions to this effect:


• As long as administering powers exercise unilateral authority to make laws and other regulations affecting the Non Self-Governing Territories without their consent, pursuant to such methods as legislation, orders in council and other methods, a territory should not be considered self-governing.

• There is no alternative to the principle of self-determination which is also a fundamental human right.

• The inalienable rights of the people of the Non Self-Governing Territories must be guaranteed by the United Nations and the Special Committee in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, and Resolutions 1514 (XV) and 1541 (XV) of 15 December 1960.

• The UN should develop a programme to disseminate information with the aim of raising public awareness in the territories in order to heighten people’s understanding of the legitimate political status options available to them in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions, including the 1960 (Decolonisation) Declaration.

• All Non Self-Governing Territories should be given access to relevant United Nations programmes in the economic and social sphere, including those emanating from the plans of action of the major summits and conferences, in furtherance of capacity-building and consistent with the necessary preparation for the attainment of as full measure of full internal self-government.

Some of this language is later contained in the General Assembly resolutions. The 2007 Caribbean Decolonisation meeting for the Caribbean held in Grenada included similar provisions, identical in most cases with 2006 (and earlier). There were also a few new “qualifying” considerations which appear to have been inserted to support attempts at the legitimisation of “colonialism by consent,” or “voluntary colonialism.” These qualifiers included:

• Reference to the “view of some meeting participants on the need to consider the adoption of new thinking on decolonisation within the context of the current global realities.”

• Reference to what was described as “the array of legitimate transitions to self-determination, provided that the people of a territory have the opportunity to make a full and informed choice.”

This language is vague enough to be rendered meaningless, but there is no doubt as to the intention of its inclusion. It will be interesting to see whether the recommendations from the 2008 seminar will also contain these references, or whether the spirit of Bandung will generate recognition of the significance of their negative implications. A full analysis of the recommendations of the Bandung decolonisation meeting is forthcoming upon its conclusion.

U.N. Indigenous Forum Adopts Decolonisation Agenda

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.