Guahan and Self-Determination

by Jonathan Blas Diaz
2008 Guam Congressional Delegate Candidate

Entertainment comes in many different forms and our political self determination process on Guahan shouldn't be reduced to such levels. It is clear that many before me have tried in vain to change political relationship (and they should be commended), but I am reminded constantly that people in leadership (both here and in the continent) shape our destiny. Where might you be in this script? What character do you play and whose line is up next?

Perhaps we might find that the self-determination process on Guam is complicated because those who have held office have not done enough or have become too jaded over the negotiations with our administering power. Perhaps we have been too apathetic to think that this is the way it has been for so long that we just don't want to see real change.

Yet in my mind, this is insufficient and further dictates our efforts to move forward and start anew if we are willing to share the load. I hope that I can share with you a story so that the message is loud and clear. It is a story filled with hopes and dreams about one who has been in the movement from the sidelines and now speaks to you today. Her name is Maria Nieves Materne and she is my auntie, my mentor, and my friend. It is through her that I understand what self-determination is and what it is not. Many people know this person and she deserves our attention today.

I first met Auntie Nieves last year around this time, although her family and my family went to school together over the years. She knew who my family was because some of her older siblings went to school with my mom and uncles. Auntie Nieves is my reminder of the good ole days when Uncle Angel Santos jerked our consciousness in the 1990's. I was in high school then, but was intently listening, reading and watching from the sidelines.

She was there, right beside our Uncles and Aunties who took a stand over the Chamorro right to own property in our homeland. I was an altar server at that time. I watched Uncle Angel line his kids in full formation at the Barrigada Church after I opened it at 5 a,m. (with the help of Tan Marian Siket) preparing for the 6 a.m. Mass. Uncle Angel was praying to a God that his mother and father, Tan Amanda and Tun Angel knew because it is what they were taught by their parents who lived during the hell years of World War II.

Uncle Angel's gaze was so penetrating that I grew to fear this man who eventually became our hero. He reminds us today to be strong and to push forward with our dream of self-determination. I grew to be afraid of this man that I only knew from a distance because he helped to move us in the right direction. Natural born leaders, like prophets, are feared because they speak the truth. Yet, Auntie Nieves knew him and stood by his side just like the many others who came to his aid.

Like Uncle Angel Santos, Auntie Nieves always gives of herself, no matter the cost to others and for the sake of the next generation. She has always said that to be Chamoru, you must be humble, self-less and never wanting the more. She is almost always by my side and I am very happy that she is now mentoring me to be the gentleman and steward of Guahan, the place that always has something to give even if we don't have it. It is with this kind of steadfast diplomacy that we must use to see to it that our dream of self-determination comes true. We owe it to the next generation of island children who are watching the adults intently at our next move. Auntie Nieves teaches me to be humble and to always remember that everything in life is about relationships – how we treat each other and how we react towards each other.

Self-determination today calls for drastic measures that can be accomplished if we all work together. If you are someone who comes from a different background, whether ethnic or racial, please stand with your Chamoru today who seeks a better life for ALL who call Guahan home. Rise my friends from the ashes of the past, forgive others, and let us move forward. We must educate everyone on this island that the Chamoru has been treated unfairly, unjustly, and unequivocally dehumanized throughout the centuries. Without adequate education or tolerance, our dreams can never come to fruition. If you wish to help, contact your leaders today and encourage them to collect more names on our registry and draft a plebiscite so that everyone can have their input into the process. Non-Chamorus should also help with constructing this plebiscite because Guam is home too.

I remain steadfast that our quest for self-determination is alive and well and will continue forward no matter the cost. We must be humble and determined that we will see a plebiscite drafted so that we can vote in the 2010 elections. We need everyone's cooperation during this process and it is with great hope that we determine what we have dreamed about for centuries. Our pride as individuals should take the back seat so that we can move forward together. Every script is written so that the next generation understands that peace can be achieved if we really want it. There is no more time to waste and with your help, all things can be achieved.

So let's work with our sisters and brothers from the continent so that greed and selfishness does not take precedence. Our very dignity as a collective multicultural community is dependent upon competent and capable servant leaders who can see this through to the very end. Stand in solidarity with your Chamoru sisters and brothers who have long awaited this dream of self-determination.

U.N. Support to Territories Adopted

The United Nations (UN) Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) on the final day of the 2008 Session ending in late July adopted its annual resolution on “Support to Non Self-Governing Territories by the Specialised Agencies and international organisations associated with the United Nations”– but not without the usual detractors.

The international mandate on assistance to the non self-governing territories from the UN system, as a means of advancing their progress towards full self-government, has provided these territories for decades with the opportunity to gain valuable experience through participation in international deliberations on relevant issues affecting them. If they are to assume the increasing responsibilities of full self-government, a role in the UN system makes perfect sense. This activity has been supported by longstanding resolutions of ECOSOC and the General Assembly. In June, the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation adopted its own annual resolution on the matter, along with a package of other resolutions addressing various aspects of the promotion of self-government.

Dissenting Views

The larger countries which administer territories, and a few other developed countries, continue to express misgivings by abstaining on the vote on the ECOSOC resolution on support to the territories, even as they have supported over the years the participation of these territories in UN activities through other UN votes. In recent years, a number of these countries have based their objection on the contention that that the rules of procedure governing the specific UN bodies should be respected. The reality is that the rules of many of these UN organisations have always been respected, since provisions for the participation of territories have been put in place with the concurrence of these same administering countries.

Examples include resolutions providing for the participation of these territories in the UN world conferences from 1992 through 2005, as well as provisions for associate membership or observer status in a number of UN specialised agencies. Why, then, this emphasis on the respect for rules of procedure, if they are already being respected?

In the 2008 ECOSOC session, the rationale for abstaining on the resolution came from the usual groups of countries, particularly the European Union (EU), the United States, Japan - and even the Russian Federation. The EU position on the issue is rather puzzling since France and the United Kingdom administer a considerable number of the remaining non self-governing territories, most of which are the beneficiaries of support from a variety of UN organisations including UNESCO, the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the regional economic commissions among other UN bodies. EU-administered territories have also benefitted from participation in UN world conferences on environment, sustainable development, and small island developing states among others – consistent with the rules of procedure adopted by the UN with administering power concurrence.

Yet, speaking before the vote on behalf of the EU, France contended that “the subject in the resolution does not fall within the competence of ECOSOC.” But, since ECOSOC is the main UN body devoted to economic and social matters, and since the resolution addresses economic and social development assistance, how can the resolution be regarded as outside the competence of ECOSOC?

The US representative at the meeting expressed its own version of the issue. The US “agreed, in principle, that UN funds, programmes and specialised agencies can usefully provide support to territories that are not UN members, so long as the domestic laws and policies of a territory's administering power allow such UN support.” This is a statement of the obvious since the rules of the UN bodies require any request for territorial participation to be agreed by the administering country. So far, so good.

However, the US representative went on to “object to provisions in the resolution” that they somehow perceive to be an interference in the power of the administering country to decide “the nature, if any,” of territorial participation in UN programmes and activities. Since it is long established that the participation must be agreed by the administering powers, where’s the issue? The further contention that the prevailing arrangements for the US control of foreign affairs of the territories “has been accepted by the territories” belies the fact that the US territories have neither accepted not rejected their present status as non self-governing territories in the absence of a legitimate process of self-determination.

There are also numerous cases where the territories have not “accepted” such arrangements, after having been denied administering power approval to join such international bodies as the World Tourism Organisation, the Caribbean Community, the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, the Association of Caribbean States or the Pacific Islands Forum, among others. Most recently, the Governor of American Samoa, for example, has objected to the lack of US concurrence for the territory to join the Pacific Islands Forum, whilst various US Virgin Islands governments have similarly objected to the obstacles placed in the way to gain permission to seek participation in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and other regional bodies. Similar blocking of Puerto Rico’s interest in engaging various Latin American and other international institutions is legendary.

The further contention that the ECOSOC resolution somehow “infringe(s) upon the relations between the U.S. federal government and the governments of its territories, as well as upon the internal constitutional arrangements of the United States” is unnecessarily alarmist, and only serves to re-state administering power unilateral authority over the territory. This argument is made even in the face of the existence and maintenance of all of the controls over the dependency. These annual re-statements of position by member states, deviating little from previous years, are in dire need of updating and substantive correction.

One administering power, the Pacific state of New Zealand which administers Tokelau in the Pacific, spoke in favour of the resolution and made note of the longstanding support historically provided by UNDP and other UN bodies in their socio-economic and constitutional evolution of that territory. Bolivia, Cuba and Syria also spoke in favour of the resolution which had over 20 co-sponsors.

The Russian Federation, on the other hand, made an extraordinary proposal to remove from the ECOSOC agenda what it termed the “political item” of support to the territories. No such proposal was made to remove other items with a far higher degree of political implication, such as the one on “economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people.” In reality, there is equal merit for both items to remain on the ECOSOC agenda, and the Russian position favouring one, but not the other, might be reconsidered using the same principle applied to its veto of the Zimbabwe sanctions resolution (along with China) in the UN Security Council a month ago. All of these issues are but variations on the contemporary colonial/post colonial dynamic requiring the support of the UN and its member states.

Information Lacking on UN Support

Through it all, the dearth of information on the actual support to the territories continues to limit the awareness of the governments on the role of the UN bodies reflecting in the statements in the general discussion. According to the ECOSOC resolutions on the matter, the UN Secretary-General provides a report on the implementation of support to the territories each year. Rather than an annual substantive analysis of UN support by the UN Secretariat, the Secretary-General sends a request for information to the various UN and other international bodies for information on their assistance programmes. A compilation of the replies to this request constitute the content of the report on implementation. The trouble is that only a small fraction of the UN bodies actually reply. This makes for a largely incomplete report, even devoid of information from agencies which have continued to provide assistance to the territories for years. There was no UNDP reply this year, even as that Programme is the main provider of UN assistance to the territories. There was no ECLAC reply, even as the Caribbean territories are integrated into their programmes and activities (with longstanding administering power concurrence), and even as the substantive research on the issue has been conducted in that commission. There is no reply from the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) which similarly integrates territories into their work programme.

Such an incomplete substantive Secretary General’s Report tends to reinforce the faulty assumption that the UN agencies are somehow resistant to providing support to the territories. The reality is that the territories participate in a wide array of UN programmes and activities. Apart from the insufficiency of replies, the information is available on the websites of these agencies. Those who prepare the Secretary-General’s Report on the issue could do more in-depth research, rather than rely on the fraction of replies from a few agencies.

The overall issue of participation of the territories in the UN system was the subject of a comprehensive study undertaken for the ECLAC entitled “Further Integration of Associate Members in the United Nations System,” and published in December, 2007. The study is regarded as the most comprehensive examination to date on the subject. This study could have been made a document for consideration of the members of ECOSOC this year to provide insight on the nature, extent and challenges of participation of the territories in the UN system. At the least, the study could have been referenced in the 2008 ECOSOC resolution. Ironically, the very research study which would have shed considerable light on the nature and scope of territorial participation in the wider UN system was not made available to ECOSOC or to the General Assembly. Perhaps the update to the study could be included in the official ECOSOC documentation for 2009, but only if a member state so requests. In any case, without a more comprehensive picture of the level of territorial participation in the UN system, the UN’s 2009 consideration of this issue promises to be “déjà vu all over again,” with the same re-statements from the same countries, with the same language in the resolution and the same limited information in the Secretary-General’s report. This does little to further the development process of the territories for which this exercise is designed to assist.

Hidden within this repetitiveness are significant omissions and deletions of important text from the ECOSOC resolution. One such omission was the reference to the 2004 ECLAC decision to examine possible territorial participation in technical programmes of ECOSOC, in areas such as statistics and sustainable development. Both ECLAC resolutions were referenced several years ago. Amazingly, reference to a virtually identical 1998 resolution was retained by ECOSOC, even as it is standard UN practice that older references are deleted in favour of newer ones.

In the final analysis, the die was cast at the outset of the 2008 ECOSOC discussion when the acting chairman announced that the resolution had "no programme budgetary implications.” If a resolution that is to provide support to the territories has no budgetary implications, then the territories are wondering what kind of support is being considered.

Conclusions of Decolonisation Committee

Aside from the companion resolution on UN assistance, the Decolonisation Committee one month earlier adopted its usual number of resolutions on political, constitutional and socio-economic development of the territories. Of particular note is the consolidated resolution with recommendations on the decolonisation and self-determination process of eleven small island territories, mostly in the Caribbean and Pacific. A bit of political sleight-of-hand is reflected in the subtle changes introduced, and subsequently agreed by the member governments. Several are noteworthy.

First, reference to the 2001 World Conference against Racism (WCAR) was removed from a footnote, as it was no longer deemed relevant to the paragraph. Never mind that the paragraph referenced “all UN world conferences in the economic and social sphere” in which the territories were eligible to participate, including the WCAR. Could this deletion have been a concession to those countries which disassociated from the conclusions of the racism conference, even as the rationale for that action was questionable?

Other issues conspicuously absent from the resolution include the concerns repeatedly expressed by the representatives of the territories at the regional seminars on decolonisation over the unilateral authority of the administering powers to legislate for the territories without their consent, and often against their will. A number of other key issues contained in the reports of these seminars are also never reflected in the resolution.

There was also no reference to the decision of the May, 2008 UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to hold an expert seminar on decolonisation, and the invitation for the Decolonisation Committee to participate in it. In fact, the UN resolution has repeated for years the request that the Decolonisation Committee develop a working relationship with both the Permanent Forum, as well as with the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), but no action to date has been taken to develop such a natural linkage. Interestingly, the CERD has to write each year in its annual report, rather embarrassingly, that it cannot obtain from the Decolonisation Committee the requested information on racism issues in the territories.

On the sections of the resolution addressing the individual territories, a number of changes were made, with several most noteworthy. On American Samoa, reference was inexplicably deleted from the previous year to the request by the territory’s non-voting Congressional delegate requesting US clarification on the role of the UN in the political status development of the US territories. Rather than delete the language, it would have been better to add the rather interesting and widely reported US response to the delegate’s query.

On Anguilla, references were properly added to the fact that the territory’s new position was to seek full internal self-government. Regarding the British Virgin Islands, reference was also added which took note of the new constitution, but the revisions to the constitutional proposals in the Cayman Islands were not reflected.

In the case of Guam, despite impassioned pleas for UN review of the ongoing militarisation of the territory made by representatives of native Chamorro organisations at the 2008 decolonisation seminar and at its annual session in New York, the resolution only expressed the committee’s awareness “of deep concerns by civil society and others regarding the potential social and other impacts” of the situation.

Finally, on the US Virgin Islands, reference was made to the establishment of a constitutional convention, but nothing was said about the decline of the territory’s request for assistance from its administering power to conduct its public education programme on the constitution. Also, all reference was removed to the longstanding request of the territory for the delegation of authority to seek formal status with the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, and the Association of Caribbean States. It would have been better to have added language on why the requests by successive territorial governments were either denied or ignored over the years.

A second key resolution adopted by the Decolonisation Committee renews the committee mandate each year, and had only cosmetic updates. Interestingly, this resolution contains a number of activities which are agreed by the governments year after year, but never implemented. These include reports on the implementation of such mandated activities as a constructive programme of work on a case-by-case basis for each territory, and the plan of action for the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. Yet, these two initiatives are cited in the resolution as “an important legislative authority for the attainment of self-government by the Non-Self-Governing Territories.” Deleted from the same resolution several years ago was the important third component, the Plan of Implementation (POI) of the Decolonisation Mandate, which provided the mechanism for the UN system to actually carry out its responsibility. Without the POI, everything else is just re statement of principles. It is rather like “spinning a top in mud.”

The United Nations is to be commended for its excellent work in a wide array of substantive areas in many parts of the world. It is inconsistent with the UN's demonstrated excellence that the necessary political will among the governments, and the substantive support necessary to carry out the activities approved by these very same governments, remains insufficient to implement the self-determination mandate only two years before the end of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. The contemporary self-determination process for the remaining territories must re-emerge as a significant political issue warranting the required degree of UN attention, human and financial resources if the mandate of the UN Charter is to be realised.

Eastern Caribbean Supports Development of Neighbouring Island Territories

The Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) has expressed its strong support for constitutional advancement of the three overseas territories within its membership to ensure the proper environment for the integration of these territories in the OECS economic union. The nine-members of the OECS include six independent states in addition to the territory of Montserrat as a full member, and the territories of the British Virgin Islands and Anguilla as associate members.

This declaration of support for the evolution of the territories from dependent status was made at the 47th Meeting of the Authority of Heads of Government held in St. Lucia in May, and is included in the official communique of the Meeting, as follows:


COMMUNIQUE
47th Meeting of the OECS Authority
23rd – 24th May 2008


ECONOMIC UNION

Relationship of Non-Independent Member States


"The Authority welcomed a report from the consultant Dr. Francis Alexis of Grenada engaged to examine options available to the Non Independent Member States (NIMS) – Montserrat, Anguilla and the Virgin Islands - in the evolution of the process towards the proposed OECS Economic Union.

The Authority noted the consultant’s recommendation that the most effective solution to the constitutional challenges facing the NIMS would be constitutional advancement which would enable them to sign and ratify OECS Treaties on their own without having to depend on that authority being delegated by the British Government. The Authority also accepted the suggestion by the Consultant that consideration be given to an arrangement that exempted the NIMS from commitments that their constitutional status did not allow them to undertake.

The Authority accepted an invitation extended by the Chief Minister of Anguilla for an OECS participation along with the NIMS in a joint engagement with the British Government in October to address issues related to the constitutional status of the NIMS."

________________________________________________________________________________


OECS Provides Substantive Support to the Territories

OECS support for the political and socio-economic evolution of the territories within its membership is illustrated in the integration of these territories in OECS programmes. In this connection, the OECS Secretariat, under the leadership of Dr. Len Ismael, furnished the United Nations with a comprehensive report on its assistance to the three non self-governing territories within its membership.

The OECS report was provided in response to the annual request from the U.N. Secretary-General for information from U.N. bodies and regional institutions. The U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) reviews these activities during its summer substantive session, and adopts a resolution that calls for continued and expanded assistance to the non self-governing which are oprimarily in the Caribbean and Pacific. The 2008 ECOSOC session will take up the matter during the week of 21 July.

Following is the submission by the OECS to the U.N. on its support to the territories:


Organization of Eastern Caribbean States

Support provided by the Secretariat of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States to the Non-Self-Governing Territories of Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands and Montserrat


(a) Review of the St. George’s Declaration

41. Montserrat is a member, and Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands are associate members, of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States. The St. George’s Declaration of Principles for Environmental Sustainability in the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States sets out the broad framework to be pursued for environmental management in the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States region. The Declaration, which had been signed by the Ministers of the Environment of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States at St. George’s, Grenada, in April 2001, was revised in 2006. Copies of the revised version were distributed to the three Territories.

Additionally, a communication plan has been developed to support and guide regional- and national-level activities aimed at enhancing environmental management in these Territories and the member countries of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States through implementation of the revised St. George’s Declaration by key stakeholders in the public sector and staff in the Secretariat of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States. Pursuant to this, a number of communications products have been proposed, including a “workshop” (or “popular”) version, to be used to familiarize stakeholders with the revised Declaration in a workshop setting. The workshop version has been printed and distributed.

(b)St. George’s Declaration-related monitoring and reporting

42. A draft reporting instrument has been finalized based on a series of national workshops on St. George’s Declaration-related reporting, coupled with a regional workshop held late in the current reporting period. “Finalized” national St. George’s Declaration reports have been received from Montserrat, Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands.

43. The regional workshop held in January 2008 as well as the national workshops held in member States provided further support to member States in the preparation of national reports. The purpose of the workshops was to:

• Foster increased understanding of the St. George’s Declaration among technical natural resources managers and enable them to use it as a tool for improved environmental management

• Build awareness and appreciation of the St. George’s Declaration within ministries and public sector agencies dealing with related or critical supporting areas

(c) Disaster response and risk reduction

44. UNDP in Barbados awarded a grant of US$ 400,000 to the Secretariat of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States for the implementation of community risk reduction measures. The Disaster Programme of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States Secretariat targeted, in the first instance, the British Virgin Islands and a State member of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States for the implementation of pilot community-based projects. The activities of this component are focused on communities and households that are vulnerable to natural hazards such as landslides and floods.

45. UNDP has assisted the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States in focusing on building capabilities in communities for landslide risk reduction that utilizes low-cost methods. In the British Virgin Islands, the purpose of the project is to reduce the landslide and flooding risks in the ghetto area/crab lot community. The Organization of Eastern Caribbean States has allotted the sum of US$ 145,000 to assist in providing a set of construction implementation interventions related to ghut (gully) sidewall elevations and sediment traps, modelling of water flows on slopes and within channels, and engaging key stakeholders so as to ensure ownership of the intervention.

46. The Environment and Sustainable Development Unit of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States executed service contracts in member States totalling 1,949,811 Eastern Caribbean dollars (EC$) for the period 2006-2007, compared with EC$ 763,634 for the previous fiscal year period. The distribution of these expenditures to Non-Self-Governing Territories by member States of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States was as follows: EC$ 208,996.21 to Anguilla, EC$ 416,353.76 to the British Virgin Islands and EC$ 27,836.76 to Montserrat.

(d) Institutional strengthening of environmental management

47. In 2004, the Secretariat of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, through its Environment and Sustainable Development Unit, provided technical assistance to the Government of Montserrat through the conduct of a strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats (SWOT) analysis with senior Government officials. This facilitated the formulation of a set of recommendations on the requirements for improved management of sustainable development in the context of general and environmental concerns.

(e) Small grants facility

48. Through its small grants facility, the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States supported community-based medium-sized ecotourism projects: the Big Spring Heritage Tourism and East End Pond conservation projects in Anguilla and the Piper’s Pond conservation project in Montserrat. The cost of the investments in Anguilla and Montserrat was approximately EC$ 300,000/US$ 111,211.

(f) National focal point meetings

49. The Social Policy Unit of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States Secretariat convenes an annual national focal point meeting, in which Anguilla and Montserrat participate. Designated national focal points have an opportunity to meet to discuss the annual work programme of the Social Policy Unit and obtain an indication of where they add value to the work programme.

(g) Organization of Eastern Caribbean States youth initiative

50. The Non-Self-Governing Territories members were included in a series of island youth rap sessions as part of the preliminary activities leading up to the identification of an Organization of Eastern Caribbean States youth initiative.

(h) Localization of the Millennium Development Goals

51. The British Virgin Islands are benefiting directly from a process of localization of the Millennium Development Goals. This process allows the British Virgin Islands to examine:

(a) Existing programmes/projects/activities to determine how they impact the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals;

(b) What has been achieved to date;

(c) What needs to be done to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015;
(d) How to integrate the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals into the existing national planning and programmes/projects/activities.

(i) Implementation of the Labour Market Programme of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States

52. Certain components of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States Labour Market Programme, such as labour-market information systems and the memorandum of understanding between the Secretariat of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States and the International Labour Organization, are currently implemented by the Non-Self-Governing Territories members.

(j) Statistics Project of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States

53. Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands and Montserrat are involved in the Statistics Project of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, which is aimed at improving statistical systems, including statistics on tourism, throughout the region. The Secretariat of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States is undertaking a series of tourism fact-finding missions extending throughout the member countries to ascertain the current state of tourism statistics. Emphasis is being placed on yachting data.

________________________________________________________________________________

Support from the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)

The provision of OECS support to the Caribbean territories is in addition to that which is furnished by the wider Caribbean Community (CARICOM) which includes Montserrat as a full member, and Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the Cayman Islands as associate members.

In this connection, the Heads of CARICOM at its 29th Meeting in July 08:

"Expressed their deep disappointment that the Government of the United Kingdom has denied the request of Montserrat for an Entrustment which would enable that Member State's particiupation in the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (and) urged the Government of the United Kingdom to review its position on the Entrustment."

_____________________________________________________________________________

Whilst not independent states, the Caribbean territories are nevertheless integral components of the social and economic fabric of the region, as evidenced by their participation in the premier regional institutions of the OECS and CARICOM. Continued political support given by the Caribbean independent states is critical to the expeditious political development of these territories within the framework of the Caribbean region.

Data on Some Dependencies Omitted in UN Documents

An important function of the United Nations (UN) is the compilation and publication of statistical information and indicators on economic and social development in countries around the planet. This data is valuable to governments, civil society, experts, researchers and individuals in the continual examination of economic and social trends in jurisdictions worldwide.

Inclusion of data on the Non-Independent Countries (NICs) is equally useful for those who follow developments in this unique set of non-sovereign countries. Generally, these NICs are so-defined because of their associate membership (or eligibility) in the respective UN regional economic commissions, but there are many others which exist under varying political and constitutional arrangements with larger countries.

The Non-Independent Countries (NICs)

Caribbean

There are ten Non-Independent Caribbean Countries (NICCs) which are associate members of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), including seven classified by the UN as Non Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs) and three designated as Self-Governing Territories (SGTs). Thus, the United Kingdom - administered territories of Bermuda, Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, British Virgin Islands and Anguilla join with the United States – administered US Virgin Islands as the seven NSGTs in the Caribbean. Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles in association with the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and U.S. – administered Puerto Rico constitute the SGT category (even as the level of self-government in Puerto Rico is subject to question). All but Bermuda are associate members of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Island jurisdictions such as Martinique, Guadeloupe and French Guiana which are overseas departments of France are not eligible for separate status in ECLAC because of their status as politically integrated with the French Republic - and by extension, the European Union. It is often the case that because of the size of their economy, and despite their integrated status, their data is included in international statistical documents.

Pacific

In the case of the Pacific, a similar situation applies. A number of the Non-Independent Pacific Countries (NIPCs) are associate members of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). The Non Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs) listed by the UN in the Pacific are the US-administered territories of American Samoa and Guam, the French –administered territory of New Caledonia and the New Zealand-administered territory of Tokelau. The Northern Mariana Islands with its autonomous arrangement (albeit in reversal) with the US, the autonomous French Polynesia, and the two freely associated states of the Cook Islands and Niue in their association arrangement with New Zealand, constitute the Self-Governing Territories (SGT) category on the Pacific side. Hong Kong and Macau are also included, as they remain associate members of ESCAP pursuant to the terms of the agreements between China and the United Kingdom governing the re-integration of those former territories.

Statistics for NICs

It is always useful to have the statistical indicators of these Non-Independent Countries (NICs) included in the UN statistical documentation as it facilitates economic and social analysis, and is helpful to international business in investment decision-making. It is encouraging that many of the UN statistical documents contain significant information on this group of countries. The lack of availability of data for many of the NICs is often a constraint since the level of statistical capacity in the NICs varies significantly. This has been identified as an area where international technical assistance could prove especially useful.

Another factor influencing the presentation of data may be the level of political awareness of the UN statistical researchers who may have to determine the ‘political correctness’ of separate inclusion of data on individual NICs. As the political and constitutional dynamics of these countries can be fairly complex, it should not be assumed that these expert technicians would also have access to expert political analysis on these issues.

UN Statistical Publications

Within this context, three UN statistical publications among many offer some insights into the presentation and availability of economic and social development data. The first publication is the Monthly Bulletin of Statistics which is published by the Statistics Division of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. This is a highly useful reference with coverage of the ten Non-Independent Caribbean Countries (NICCs), while only omitting the small economies of Niue and Tokelau where data may not be as readily available. (It is to be noted, however, that some of this data may be accessed from the UN Development Programme which has historically provided services to both jurisdictions, or from ESCAP in which Niue enjoys associate membership).

The Monthly Bulletin of Statistics admirably exceeds the coverage of the recognised NICs by including non-independent countries and other jurisdictions with varying autonomous relationships with UN member states, and even several integrated parts of larger countries. Thus, data is available on the Aland Islands with its unique relationship with Norway, and the Faroe Islands and Greenland with their respective autonomous relationships within the Kingdom of Denmark. This is commendable since the economies of these territories warrant separate inclusion in their own right. It is also interesting that data is included on the French overseas departments of Guadeloupe, Martinique and Reunion, even as they are integrated parts of France. These outer-most areas of the French Republic (as it is termed) clearly fit the bill as individual economies, even as they are politically integrated, and not autonomous. Perhaps data on the US “outer-most areas” of Hawaii and Alaska should be included in future.

The second publication is the highly useful World Population Prospects document which is published by the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs. The coverage of this document is not as complete as the Monthly Bulletin of Statistics published by the Statistics Division, and is interesting in its omissions as well as in its inclusions. Thus, the population document omits all of the United Kingdom-administered territories of Bermuda, Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, British Virgin Islands and Anguilla. Data on US-administered American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands, New Zealand-administered-Tokelau, and the New Zealand associated countries of the Cook Islands and Niue are also missing. Nevertheless, these omitted economies are listed in the beginning of the publication which classify countries by major area and region of the world. Demographic information on these Non-Independent Countries (NICs) is readily available, however, from other agencies of the UN system, so their exclusion from the demographic document is puzzling, especially as the Population Division's two highly useful statistical charts on rural and urban population, respectively, complete extensive data on the NICs.

The third publication, and one of the most specialised UN statistical publications, is the Energy Statistics Yearbook. The aim of this publication is “to provide a global framework of comparable data on long-term trends in the supply of mainly commercial primary and secondary forms of energy.” The document is perhaps the most intriguing of the three in terms of how it treats island countries, especially the NICs.

In the Country Nomenclature explanation at the beginning of the text, it is explained that statistics for the United States includes the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and oil statistics as well as for coal trade statistics, also include Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands. The explanation also inexplicably indicates that the Pacific Islands used for military purposes - Johnston Atoll, Midway Islands and Wake Island –– were also subsumed under the US statistics. More on this later.

In the statistical tables of the energy document, data for the Caribbean and Central America is in the North American region (an interesting interpretation of the political cartography). In tables 1-3 of the document on production, trade and consumption of commercial energy, data for all of the UK-administered territories except the Turks and Caicos Islands is listed, along with statistics for Aruba, the Netherlands Antilles, Puerto Rico, Greenland, Martinique and Guadeloupe. Data for the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and French Guiana are appropriately listed in the South America category, with Hong Kong and Macau statistics also properly listed under Asia. The Faroe Islands is under Europe. The Pacific category includes data for the Cook Islands, French Polynesia, New Caledonia and Niue. Data is also included for Gibraltar (in the European section), and St. Helena (in the African section).

It is in table 14 on the production, trade and consumption of crude petroleum that has raised eyebrows, and returns attention to the beginning of the document where it was indicated that data for the US-administered territories is subsumed under the US statistical totals. In this regard, only data on Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, of all of the non-independent countries (NICs), is made available. Data on Martinique also appears, even as this is not a country, non-independent or otherwise, but is a part of the EU. Table 15 on international trade of crude petroleum does not even include the few NICs listed in table 14. A subsequent table on refinery distillation capacity only includes Aruba and Martinique.

Invariably, of the 38 tables included in the document, data on the NICs is included primarily when energy consumption is addressed. In the areas of energy production, however, data on the NICs is absent. Thus, in the case of oil statistics, the data for the US-administered territories is included with the US statistics, providing no opportunity for an assessment of performance in this sector in the US-administered territories. This is clearly evident in the specific tables dealing with refinery distillation capacity, production, trade and consumption of gasoline where data on most of the NICs appears, except for the US -administered territories.

The exclusion of oil production and trade statistics is puzzling given that the US Virgin Islands maintains the largest oil refinery in the Western Hemisphere, with significant refining capacity, imports of crude, and exports of refined petroleum products to the US and other markets. The five US – administered territories, with the exception of Puerto Rico, are also not within the customs zone of the United States, so are therefore separate economies. All warrant separate attention, notwithstanding the arbitrary decision to exclude their data – unless, of course, the decision was not so arbitrary.

The decision to include separate data for NICs, or to include that data in the statistics of the larger country with which the territory has a political relationship, should be made carefully, based on established principles. All efforts should be made to provide separate data for NICs if the document is to have validity and meaning to those who look to UN studies for information. Such decisions should not be left to chance or misinterpretation, nor subject to any unilateral political direction. Such omissions detract from otherwise excellent UN documents.

US Virgin Islands in 2017

The presentation below entitled “US Virgin Islands 2017” was made by Dr. Carlyle G. Corbin, International Advisor on Democratic Governance, to a conference on Virgin Islands 2020 sponsored by the Virgin Islands Institute of Development which convened at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on 27th June 2008. The text of the presentation was made available by permission.

Introduction

Barring any extraordinary political developments over the next several years, the US Virgin Islands in the year 2017 will observe the centennial under United States jurisdiction as an unincorporated territory. This is less than a decade away. The constitutional conventions in the territory which convened in the 1960s and 1970s to draft a local constitution based on the present political status did not culminate in a local constitution. Subsequent attempts to deal with the broader picture of modernising the political status of the territory in the 1980s and 1990s resulted in an inconclusive referendum in 1993. Thus, the US Virgin Islands reverted to the current status quo, and is one of sixteen remaining dependent territories/colonies in the world nine years before the centennial.

An Historical Context

At the turn of the 20th Century, a number of European countries had vast territorial holdings in Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean and elsewhere. Virtually all of Africa was under the control of European powers which carved up the continent with the aim of taking the human and material wealth of Africa to fuel European prosperity. Much the same applied in the Pacific region where territories were acquired as the spoils of war, as in the case of Guam and the Philippines after the defeat of Spain in 1899. The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI) administered by the US under a United Nations mandate emerged as three separate military-strategic associate states on the one hand (Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau), and an initially-autonomous territorial status on the other hand (Northern Marianas).

The US Virgin Islands had a similar history, spending many more years under Danish jurisdiction as has been spent thus far under the United States. Indeed, the transfer from Denmark to the U.S. was done in the form of a land purchase by way of the 1917 Treaty of Cession.

At the end of WWII, many of the territories acquired by the developed countries still remained as colonial possessions. Part of the reason for the creation of the United Nations in 1945 was to address the disposition of these territories. Since then, over eighty territories have achieved a full measure of self-government, either through integration with another country with full political rights, free association with another country or political independence.

All of these self-governing models exist in the Caribbean. In addition to the independent countries, the French West Indies of Martinique, Guadeloupe and French Guiana are examples of political integration, while the former territories of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba achieved free association with the Netherlands. These are the three forms of genuine self-government with minimum standards set by the United Nations in its resolutions.

Other territories like Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and others have internationally recognised political arrangements with substantial autonomy, while also enjoying full representation in the parliament of the cosmopolitan country with which they share citizenship.

Still others are progressing in stages. The Caribbean/Atlantic territories of the Turks and Caicos Islands and the British Virgin Islands have new constitutions, but have not yet achieved full internal self-government. The Cayman Islands, Montserrat, and Anguilla are in varying stages of constitutional review leading to a modernised territorial status. Bermuda with its advanced political status views independence as an eventuality. Puerto Rico continues to pressure Congress – and now the United Nations – to come to a final determination as to the self-governing nature of its commonwealth arrangement, or whether it should move towards the permanent alternatives of statehood, free association or independence.

U.S. Virgin Islands

Amidst these political developments in the region, the US Virgin Islands is in the midst of its fifth attempt to draft a local constitution based on the present status. Invariably, the question of the relationship of a constitution with a final determination on political status has once again arisen.

Many have supported the view that the political status of the territory should be addressed first, with a constitution written subsequently based on the chosen status. Since the present dependency status was never meant to be permanent, as it is not sufficiently autonomous, a permanent status should be achieved at some point. A local constitution based on the present status will not solve this dilemma. Integration as one of the fifty states would suffice. It would be more likely, however, that such an unlikely move to integration would be as a part of an existing state, in consideration of the small population of the US Virgin Islands, as well as similar ethnic considerations which hampered US Congressional consideration of statehood for Puerto Rico in the 1990s. Other alternatives such as independence and free association are also viable alternatives, but it would only be through an updated analysis on the implications of these options of political equality that the people would be able to make an informed decision.

Territorial lawmakers, however, have chosen the approach of writing a local constitution. This has provided an opportunity for public discussion on political and constitutional issues which would not have ordinarily been examined. Since the first and only political status referendum of 1993, no public discourse had been held on these issues until 2006 when the University of the Virgin Islands received a mandate to begin a political education process.

Both the political status education process of the 1990s, and the present constitutional convention, have at least one thing in common – in both cases, the US Government, as the duly authorized administering power under the United Nations (UN) Charter, rejected requests for financial assistance from the territorial government to conduct a sustainable public education programme. This rejection was extraordinary given the specific international legal obligations of the US under Article 73 (b) of the UN Charter to actively promote self-government in the territories under its administration. This denial of assistance coincides with the support provided internationally for the promotion of specific forms of democratic governance in many countries throughout the world, and is a disappointing indication of the apparent low level of priority given to the political development of the territories via a process of self-determination.

Perhaps a President Obama government, if successful in the November 2008 election in the US, would re-consider the importance of fulfilling the US international obligations to the self-government of the territories, given the overwhelming support enjoyed by that candidate in the territory, even as the territories have no voting rights in US elections. This democratic deficiency is a feature of the dependency status. It should be noted that political promises were made by both US Democratic Party candidates Barack Obama and Hilliary Clinton in advance of the democratic primary in Puerto Rico to address the political status dilemma in that territory. No such promises of support for political status development in the US Virgin Islands have been reported by any of the US political candidates - perhaps because no such political status dilemma is recognised.

The Difference between States and Territories

As the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the US Virgin Islands proceeds to draft a document for review by Washington, an important point to be taken into account is that a constitution for a dependent territory, is not the same as a constitution for an integrated state of the US. This is simply because a territory is not a state. A territorial constitution may be structured as a state with governors, legislatures, state directors and state plans. There is a territorial government office in the Hall of the States in Washington, for example. All this, of course, does not make for a state, but it does feed the mis-perception that the territory is a sort of “virtual state.”

The reality is quite to the contrary, since a dependent territory does not have the political power of a state through voting rights in the US House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate. Persons in the US Virgin Islands, or in any of the other four US-administered territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico do not have voting rights for the US President. Perhaps as a means of confirmation of their international personality, territories do have “sports autonomy,” and send athletic teams to international competition such as the Olympic Games, the South Pacific Games, the Pan American Games and other international athletic competitions where countries are represented separately. Thus, the category of Non-Independent Countries (NICs) was created within the United Nations system at the beginning of the 1990s to distinguish these dependencies from integrated parts of other countries.

A fundamental difference between integrated states or departments, and the territories is that the dependencies are governed by the Territorial Clause of the US Constitution. States are not. The full US constitution applies only to states, whereas in territories, only the fundamental parts of the US constitution apply. In 1991, the US General Accounting Office produced an article-by-article analysis of which provisions of the US Constitution apply, and which do not - so that the limitations would be clear.

Thus, the system of US dependency governance is underpinned by the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution which gives the US Congress the power to legislate for the territories without their consent, and often above their objection. Unilateral changes in the economic development incentives programme in the US Virgin Islands is one of the most recent example of the use of this practice. Various United Nations reports in recent years have determined that as long as this unilateral authority exists, a territory could not be considered self-governing.

This contrasts, for example, with the autonomy enjoyed by other territories. Greenland and its relationship with Denmark, for example, provides a clear distinction between a sufficient measure of self-government and political dependency. Greenland has the authority to determine, with a few exceptions, which Danish laws and treaties apply to it, while at the same time sharing Danish citizenship and sending voting members to the Danish Parliament. Such a mutual consent provision was included in the US Virgin Islands proposed commonwealth arrangement which was one of the political status options before the voters in 1993. The option provided the opportunity for in-depth discussion on the elements of autonomy, but was cut short due to internal political considerations favouring the status quo.

The Autonomous Alternative

It is rather disappointing that the “strict interpretationists” of the US Constitution generally dismiss as “out of hand” for the US-administered territories anything approaching the level of autonomy enjoyed by Greenland, the Netherlands Antilles or other autonomous territories. Guam found this out the hard way in the 1990s with the US rejection of its autonomous commonwealth status proposal after years of expensive negotiations.

The Northern Mariana Islands is also experiencing this in 2008 as it is attempting to adjust to a significant reversal of what was once considered a model autonomous relationship. Legislation has even been introduced in the Marianas Legislature to review the present political arrangement, although the level of support for the measure is not clear, especially given that the new arrangement will provide for a “non-voting delegate” like the other four territories. Substantial political interest in the new elected position of non-voting delegate, however, has diverted attention from the projected negative economic implications of the “reverse delegation” of power. For its part, the Northern Marianas Government is considering whether to file a legal complaint against the US Government over this reversal of autonomy, specifically as related to the removal of the territory’s power to control its labour laws.

To their credit, members of the US Virgin Islands Constitutional Convention are seeking to introduce varying degrees of creative autonomy in the draft constitution, within the very real limitations of the enabling federal legislation which requires that the constitution must be under the sovereignty of the U.S. This approach may serve to define the parameters of territorial status in 2008, as far as the level of autonomy that can be achieved as an unincorporated territory. It would be a strategic move to extend the time of the Fifth Constitutional Convention to allow sufficient time for a draft constitution to be submitted to a possible Democratic Party Justice Department, which may be a bit more flexible on these issues than the present Bush Administration. Then again, any new government in Washington could simply rely on the pre-existing interpretations of the federal bureaucracy which have prevailed for the last several decades. Indeed, it was the Republican – led US Congress which had shielded the Marianas from a Democratic Party-led political assault on its autonomy. The shield was dissolved when the US Congress changed hands.

One thing is certain. There is little consistency in the parameters setting the level of autonomy permitted in an unincorporated territory. An autonomous power obtained in the 1980s by the Northern Marianas to control immigration and enact their own labor laws through exemptions from federal law might not be necessarily permitted, if requested by other territories in 2008.

References in the Puerto Rico Constitution adopted in 1952 on issues such as Puerto Rican citizenship, the Spanish language and residency requirements for holding office, were endorsed by the US Congress of that time, but this was achieved in a different era. Would they be achievable in 2008 – especially in view of the findings of the two Bush White House Reports on Puerto Rico in 2005 and 2007 which served to re-define Puerto Rico’s status as less autonomous than originally perceived ? The governor of Puerto Rico spoke on the ramifications of these issues at the United Nations Decolonisation Committee earlier this year.

Autonomous provisions related to land ownership and native rights in the Northern Mariana Islands Commonwealth Covenant with the US might prove unattainable in other territories today – even as an important issue continues to be the loss of land by the native population in the US Virgin Islands amid rising land values fueled by external investment and land speculation.

The US Virgin Islands Fifth Constitutional Convention is also seeking to address the very essence of self-definition which is a necessary prerequisite to self-government. One proposal identifies a native Virgin Islander as a descendent of those specifically mentioned in the Treaty of Cession of 1917 as the inhabitants of the territory at that time. A reference to this group of original Virgin Islanders, in the Preamble of the draft constitution, would be appropriate as an acknowledgement of the origins of a people who were overwhelmingly of African descent, and who had been recognised at the time of the transfer from Denmark to US jurisdiction. The recognition of the cultural identity of a people should not be confused with the citizenship conferred upon them. It is to be recalled that US citizenship was not granted to the native Virgin Islander immediately at the transfer, but only following ten years of statelessness.

Political Status Modernization

In any case, the US Virgin Islands will have to organize a mechanism sooner, rather than later, to modernize its political status after the completion of its fifth internal constitutional exercise. Prior to that, there had been several political status initiatives consistent with a 1979 policy of US President Jimmy Carter. These initiatives included a Status Commission headed by the former Senator Earle B. Ottley in the early 1980s, followed by a Committee of the Legislature chaired by former Senator Lorraine L. Berry in the mid 1980s. Neither of these two bodies succeeded in conducting a referendum, but did create an important body of research.

The latest Status Commission, created in 1988 by Gov. Alexander A. Farrelly, succeeded in facilitating the only referendum in US Virgin Islands history on political status options in 1993. However, the vote failed to receive the required 50 % of those registered, and the result was declared null and void. The territory, therefore, reverted to the status quo political option, by default. The people did not vote in favour of it, as it is often erroneously projected.

The deep emotions generated in the public during the status discussions, which were often fueled by mis-information on the ramifications of the options, created a serious vacuum of dialogue on issues of political development for over a decade. No legislation was introduced, and no public discussions were held during that period. There is also a serious question as to whether any of the recent history of the referendum process has been adequately and accurately reflected in the historical record.

Thus, it wasn’t until 2004, or some eleven year after the political status referendum, that a bill was adopted to create a Fifth Constitutional Convention – not to deal again with the overriding political status question, but rather to try to draft a constitution based on the present dependency status.

Looking Forward

This is the state of play in 2008, as the territory moves with all deliberate speed towards the centennial – 2017. Will the US Virgin Islands remain as an un-incorporated dependency, albeit with a constitution? Will there be renewed emphasis on addressing the political status options, and will there be a final status determined? Or will we consider a dependency constitution the end of the political development – notwithstanding the continued applicability of the Territorial Clause of the US Constitution?

In a broader sense, are the minimum requirements of democratic legitimacy met by a political system of governance which maintains unilateral authority over a territory by a government in which the territory has no voting rights?

Do the people have a problem with being equated with “territory or other property,” and referred to in legislation as offshore possessions, insular areas, and similar terms which many consider insensitive given the historical legacy of slavery?

These are a few questions fundamental to the future political development of the US Virgin Islands. Is the society comfortable with the present arrangement as an unincorporated territory whose government, according to a federal court ruling, exists only by the “legislative grace of Congress?” If so, then there should be no surprise when laws, regulations and other decisions continue to be unilaterally applied, without the consent of the governed, and often against their wishes with unknown economic repercussions. I

But if an awareness is developed among the people and its leadership that the dependency status has become anachronistic, then much work lies ahead. In the first instance, there would have to be a process formulated to sensitize the society of the existing democratic deficiencies inherent in the prevailing dependency status. This would be followed by the development of a viable, democratic model of a full measure of self-government for the 21st Century based on internationally recognised standards of full political equality and democratic governance.

By the year 2017, the world should know whether the people would have chosen action or acquiescence.

National Geographic Magazine Reviews 'Last Colonies'

The prestigious National Geographic in its June 2008 edition published an article on the remaining sixteen non self-governing territories worldwide. The article entitled “Last Colonies” was written by National Geographic columnist Karen E. Lange and provides a succinct description of the state-of-play in the decolonisation process as the world approaches the 50th anniversary since the adoption of the landmark Decolonisation Declaration of 1960.

The article also provides factual historical, demographic and political information on each of the sixteen territories with references from the World Factbook of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, the New York Times,our own Overseas Territories Report, the United Nations and the New Zealand Herald.

The article can be accessed at:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geopedia/Last_Colonies

UN Member States Call for UN System to Implement Decolonisation Activities

The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation concluded its 2008 session with strong calls for a major re-vamping of the Committee’s methods of work, and the implementation by the United Nations system of the activities it has been directed by the General Assembly to carry out over the last two decades, but have inexplicably been permitted by the member states to ignore. The following excerpts from the United Nations press release provide some insight on the closing session. These excerpts are followed by the verbatim closing statement of the Representative of St. Lucia.

A political analysis of the results of the 2008 session including an assessment of the Pacific Regional Seminar held in Indonesia, and of the main resolutions adopted by the Special Committee is forthcoming.


Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Special Committee on Decolonization
11th Meeting (AM)

Excerpts from United Nations Press Release

CONCLUDING SESSION, SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION APPROVES TWO TEXTS

ON NEW CALEDONIA, TOKELAU; HEARS APPEALS TO HEED CRITICISM OF ITS WORK

At the conclusion of the meeting, several speakers noted that the Special Committee had heard a number of criticisms from representatives and petitioners from Non-Self-Governing Territories. The representative of the Congo warned that the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001–2010) would end without any substantial progress and that, while decolonization had been one of the Organization’s great success stories, the situation of the 16 remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories could become the Achilles heel of that success.

The 2008 session had been an important wake-up call, Saint Lucia’s representative said, cautioning that the critics of the Committee’s work should be seriously taken into account. Unless the criticism was addressed in earnest, the very future of the decolonization process would be in jeopardy, and that was unacceptable.

In his closing remarks, Committee Chairman Marty M. Natalegawa of Indonesia said that the Special Committee’s work in the area of decolonization must focus on tangible results for the benefit of the Non-Self-Governing Territories. Various constructive feedback and even concerns expressed by many stakeholders should also be taken into account. Only two and a half years remained of the Second International Decade. That highlighted the urgency of giving all possible help to the Non-Self-Governing Territories in establishing conditions that would enable them to demonstrate their will on the issue of their respective status through a valid, internationally recognized act of self-determination.

If there was one conclusion one could draw from the session, he said, it was surely that the Special Committee had to strive to find new, more proactive ways of going about its important work -– through improved cooperation with administering Powers and in full recognition of the aspirations and interests of the people and Governments of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, on a case-by-case basis.

LUC JOSPEH OKIO (Congo) said he had been following the Committee’s work for some six years and had participated in seminars and visiting missions, during which he had had the chance to listen to and learn of the pain and despair of the people in non-self-governing territories, their expectations of the Committee and the United Nations, and sometimes their disappointment. For some time now, he had started to wonder about his responsibility, his country’s and the Committee’s, especially as representatives and petitioners from non-self-governing territories had stepped up their criticism of the Committee.

He said that the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001–2010) would end without any substantial progress. While decolonization had been one of the great success stories, the situation of the 16 remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories could become the Achilles heel of that success. He had not lost hope that the Special Committee, together with the administering Powers, would be able to come up with the necessary resources to fulfil its mandate. As long as the right to self-determination was considered a basic human right, colonialism would be considered an anachronism.

MICHELLE JOSEPH ( Saint Lucia) welcomed the achievements in Tokelau and expressed appreciation for the support of the administering Power. Her delegation was aware of the complexities of the Special Committee’s role and the difficulties it encountered, however, it appeared that the 2008 session had been an important wake-up call. The Committee had heard a number of criticisms over the lack of implementation of the decolonization mandate. Recognizing that the Committee could not do it alone, she had to say that there were specific activities that it had not carried out sufficiently since the First Decade to Eradicate Colonialism, which had begun in 1992. The critics of the Committee’s work should be seriously taken into account. Unless the criticism was addressed in earnest, the very future of the decolonization process would be in jeopardy, and that was unacceptable.

She said that the plan of the implementation of the decolonization mandate had been recognized by the General Assembly as an important legislative authority for the attainment of self-determination by the Non-Self-Governing Territories by 2010. However, the plan had gone largely ignored. Further, development of the case-by-case plan for each Territory had not been initiated. There was also a provision for special procedures through independent expertise to undertake analytical work, but based on the budgetary considerations, that work had also not been undertaken. Special procedures might be accommodated through existing resources, but no programme budget implication had been undertaken in that regard.

The present mechanism could not lead to implementation of the decolonization mandate and it appeared to be too inflexible, she said. The Special Committee needed to seriously examine that situation, with the aim of changing it. Decolonization was now at a critical stage, two short years before the end of the Second Decade. The time had come for the Committee to regroup along the lines that the General Assembly had provided.

Concluding the 2008 session, Chairman of the Special Committee, MARTY M. NATALEGAWA ( Indonesia), underlined his firm belief that the Special Committee’s work in the area of decolonization must focus on tangible results for the benefit of the Non-Self-Governing Territories. The Committee had a responsibility to do everything possible, with a view to achieving real progress towards complete eradication of colonialism in application of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, subsequent General Assembly resolutions and the principles and provisions of the Charter. Various constructive feedback, and the concerns expressed by many stakeholders, should also be taken into account. Only two and a half years remained of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. That highlighted the urgency of giving all possible help to Non-Self-Governing Territories in establishing conditions that would enable them to demonstrate their will on the issue of their respective status through a valid, internationally recognized act of self-determination.

The Special Committee, for its part, through the so-called “omnibus” resolution dealing with 11 of the 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories, had asked the Secretary-General to report to the Assembly’s sixty-fourth session on the implementation of the decolonization resolutions adopted in connection with the First and Second Decades for the Eradication of Colonialism. In contributing to that report, Member States would have the occasion to take stock of the support given to Non-Self-Governing Territories in their quest for decolonization. That exercise would afford the opportunity to review those efforts and chart the way forward. In that connection, he also noted the efforts by the Special Committee in its work on the omnibus resolution this year, which had been crafted to encourage an action-oriented approach on each of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, with a view to facilitating a comparative understanding of where each of the Territories stood on the path to decolonization. Additionally, throughout the session, the Committee had endorsed 10 other resolutions, three reports and would submit all relevant information and documents to the Assembly for its consideration through the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization).

Much preparatory work had laid the foundation for the Committee’s 2008 substantive session, he added. He would particularly like to express the Committee’s gratitude for the working papers prepared by the Secretariat, as well as the efforts that had gone into the Pacific regional seminar in Bandung, Indonesia, in May. If there was one conclusion one could draw from the session, it would surely be that the Special Committee had to strive to find new, more proactive ways of going about its important work -– through improved cooperation with administering Powers and in full recognition of the aspirations and interests of the people and Governments of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, on a case-by-case basis.


___________________________________________________________________________________


The Statement of the Representative of St. Lucia summed up the concerns which had been increasingly expressed for a number of years by territorial governments, several member states and non governmental organisations over the lack of implementation of the decolonisation mandate of the United Nations. The St. Lucia statement is re-printed below:

SAINT LUCIA

Statement at the Closing of the 2008 Session
of the Special Committee on Decolonisation

June 2008


Mr. Chairman,

I wish to express my delegation’s appreciation for your efforts during this 2008 session of the Special Committee on Decolonization. As former chairman of this committee on two separate occasions, my delegation is well acquainted with the complexities of the Committee’s role in decolonization process, and the difficulties routinely encountered in agreeing to proactive solutions to the matters before us.

In this connection, it appears that the 2008 session has provided us with an important “wake up call.” We have heard detailed critiques of our method of work made by a number of territorial governmental and non-governmental representatives which have repeated long-held criticisms over the lack of implementation of the decolonization mandate. While we recognize that this committee cannot do it all alone, it nevertheless has very specific activities given it by the General Assembly which it has not carried out sufficiently since the first International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism which began in 1992.

The distinguished representative of the Congo made the point that the critiques of the work of this committee should seriously be taken into account in our future work. St. Lucia would argue further that unless these criticisms are actually addressed, in earnest, the very future of the decolonization process is in jeopardy. As a member state which itself emerged from colonialism, this is unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman,

At the Organizational Session of this Committee last February, my delegation recalled that the Plan of Implementation for the Decolonisation Mandate introduced several years ago was recognised by the General Assembly as “an important legislative authority for the attainment of self-government for the territories by the end of 2010.” We pointed out, however, that this Plan had gone largely ignored, especially the studies and analyses on the evolution of self-government in each territory.

Further, the development of the case-by-case work plan for each territory has not been initiated, whilst we still await the backlog of reports on the implementation of decolonisation resolutions mandated by the General Assembly each year.

The POI also made provision for the use of special procedures through independent expertise to undertake the analytical work which had been neglected for over a decade. These special procedures were not undertaken, reportedly based on budgetary considerations. As in the case of many new proposals in the UN system, however, special procedures may be accommodated within existing resources. But since no PBI was requested, the true budgetary implications, if any, were never determined, and the proposal died.

Mr. Chairman,

We wish to be clear. Time has shown that the present mechanisms servicing this committee cannot implement the decolonisation mandate, and appear too in-flexible to engage internal and external assistance. Thus, this committee needs to seriously re-examine these mechanisms, and give effect to the required changes contained in the Plan of Implementation and the other innovative measures which have been introduced, and in some cases, adopted by the General Assembly.

We are at a critical stage in the process, two short years before the end of the Second Decade on the Eradication of Colonialism. We no longer have the luxury of time and delay. The repetition of process has not yielded significant results. It is time for this committee to re-group along the lines which the General Assembly has provided it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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.


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