In a powerful presentation to the United Nations Special Political and Decolonisation (Fourth) Committee on behalf of the fourteen UN member states of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Dominica Ambassador H.E. Crispen Gregoire forcefully called for the UN system to carry out its responsibilities to implement the longstanding decolonisation mandate.
The analytical assessment by CARICOM on the extent of UN performance in fulfilling its decolonisation obligations brought to light the significant deficiencies in implementation of the resolutions adopted annually by UN member states. The CARICOM statement comes seven years into the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. OTR will publish an analysis of the Fourth Committee session upon its conclusion. Meanwhile, the complete text of the CARICOM presentation, reprinted below, is is essential reading.
Statement by H.E. Mr. Crispin S. Gregoire
Permanent Representative of Dominica to the United Nations
on behalf of The Caribbean Community (CARICOM)
to the Special Political and Decolonisation Committee (Fourth Committee)
on the Implementation of the Decolonisation Declaration
63rd Session
United Nations General Assembly
New York
9 October 2008
Mr. Chairman,
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the member States of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and wish to congratulate you and the other members of the Bureau, on your election to lead the work of this Committee for the 63rd Session.
Mr. Chairman,
CARICOM states remain seized on promoting efforts to resolve the stalemate in the decolonisation process. This is especially the case for the small island territories in the Caribbean, as well as in the Pacific. It is disappointing that as we enter the final two years of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, we appear no closer to finding a comprehensive solution to this dilemma. The completion of the “unfinished business” of decolonisation continues to elude us thus far into the 21st Century.
It has been written that “justice delayed, is justice denied.” Yet, there is a clear and inordinate delay in the self-determination process for the people of the small territories who rely on the United Nations Charter, human rights conventions and customary international law as the underpinning for their achievement of a status with full political equality. To this end, annual statements of support are delivered annually in this Committee, and in other U.N. bodies, confirming the applicability of the principles of self-determination and decolonisation to these remaining territories, consistent with the United Nations Charter. It is, however, the lack of implementation of measures adopted by the General Assembly to give substance to these principles that remains the most fundamental impediment to the realisation of decolonisation.
Mr. Chairman,
A number of proposals have been made over the last two decades designed to invigorate the decolonisation process. If they had been implemented, we would be having a very different discussion on this issue today. Such proposals, originating from member States and from the territories themselves, were meant to address the critical need for innovative measures to give effect to decolonisation, as contained in resolutions emerging from this Fourth Committee. A few of these proposed activities are noteworthy:
• A proposal was adopted in decolonisation regional seminars as far back as the 1990s, and into the first half of this decade, for the establishment of an expert group to examine the conditions in the territories. This was not seriously considered.
• The plan of action of the First and Second International Decades for the Eradication of Colonialism required analytical studies on political and constitutional developments on the ground in the territories. This research has been stubbornly resisted for almost two decades, and only basic statistical and other general information is provided to member states upon which to deliberate.
• The General Assembly adopted in Resolution 61/130 a Plan of Implementation of the Decolonisation Mandate (A/60/853) which organized all of the actions already endorsed by the General Assembly to be undertaken by the wider U.N. system. The plan was also to establish Special Mechanisms designed to monitor U.N. system and member State compliance with the decolonisation mandate. Further, it was to present expert analysis on the small territories through an interactive format similar to the procedure used in the Third Committee on human rights issues. The Plan of Implementation was curiously resisted on budgetary grounds even as a PBI was never requested.
• A case-by-case analysis of each territory was adopted by the General Assembly, but has never been full operationalised.
Mr. Chairman,
These are but a sampling of innovative measures proposed over the years but never implemented, either because of lack of cooperation by administering powers or resistance from the United Nations Secretariat. Is it not surprising that the ability of member States to effect real decolonisation is limited to these annual expressions of support for decolonisation principles? This cannot be our only action, and adoption of repetitive resolutions without regard for whether they have been implemented merely serves to give credence to the perception of powerlessness.
In this regard, CARICOM reiterates its endorsement of Special Mechanisms, as contained in the Plan of Implementation, as suitable means to undertake important elements of the substantive work on decolonisation which has gone ignored far too long. We request that the potential budgetary implications of this aspect of the Plan of Implementation, already adopted by the General Assembly, be accurately assessed and the necessary adjustments made accordingly.
CARICOM also endorses the decisions of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at its Seventh Session last May which recommended that an expert seminar be held to examine the impact of the United Nations decolonisation process on indigenous peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories with participation by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Special Committee on Decolonisation and relevant special rapporteurs.
The Permanent Forum also called for the United Nations Human Rights Council to designate a Special Rapporteur on the situation of indigenous peoples of the territories.
Mr. Chairman,
The intensity with which CARICOM regards this issue is precisely because the Caribbean territories are integral to our own wider regional integration process. Six of the seven non self-governing territories in the Caribbean are either associate or full members of CARICOM, and three are similarly a part of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS). They all participate in institutions such as the Caribbean Development Bank, the University of the West Indies (UWI) and the Caribbean Disaster Preparedness Response Agency (CDERA), among others. Several territories also share the Eastern Caribbean currency with independent states of the region. The people of these territories are in and of the Caribbean, and our interest in their political, economic and constitutional evolution is a logical consequence.
Accordingly, CARICOM has always sought to encourage the economic and social advancement of these territories as they proceed through the growing pains of colonial reform to the realisation of real self-government through absolute political equality. To this end, CARICOM has always sought to give substance to their concerns on the pace and nature of their political advancement, as they have expressed at the Special Committee on Decolonisation, the regional decolonisation seminars, the human rights bodies in Geneva and before this Fourth Committee. We take seriously their continued apprehension over the persistence of significant ‘democratic deficiencies’ which characterize the political dependency arrangements impeding them from exercising full self-government, and their concerns regarding the inconsistency of United Nations implementation of the mandates designed to foster their decolonisation.
In this connection, the Twenty-Ninth Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of CARICOM held in Antigua and Barbuda last August “expressed their deep disappointment” for the denial of the request of the Government of Montserrat for an entrustment from its administering power, the United Kingdom, which would enable the territory to participate in the CARICOM Single Market and Economy, and called for reconsideration of that denial.
CARICOM also takes note of the consideration of the Authority of the Organisation Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) which met in St. Lucia last May which considered an expert recommendation that “the most effective solution to the constitutional challenges facing the (Caribbean territories) 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 administering power.
CARICOM further takes into account the 46th Meeting of the Authority of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) held in my own country, Dominica, last January which “welcomed the information that approval has now been granted by the United States authorities for the establishment of the OECS Representation Office in Puerto Rico” that will help to advance cooperation in trade and investment, agriculture and fisheries, health, education, sports, tourism, information technology, security, disaster management and the environment.
Mr. Chairman,
Most of the Caribbean and Pacific territories are associate members of the regional economic commissions of the United Nations, and have participated in selected U.N. world conferences and special sessions of the General Assembly. This is a natural evolution of the self-determination process, and serves as a fundamental preparatory process for the attainment of full self-government. To this end, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) have welcomed initiatives to review possible inclusion of these territories in relevant technical programmes of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). CARICOM reiterates its endorsement of this approach, and welcomes the work already undertaken by a regional expert for the Caribbean Subregional Headquarters of ECLAC in identifying the areas of potential participation for these territories in the wider United Nations system.
CARICOM continues to commend the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for its inclusion of most of the Caribbean territories in UNDP regional programmes, and in having providing regional experts to special U.N. missions to several Caribbean territories.
Mr. Chairman,
CARICOM continues to reaffirm its support for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara, which we believe is the only answer for the resolution of the situation in this last colonial territory on the African continent. We are concerned about the growing violations of human rights perpetrated against the Saharawi people and urge the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights(OHCHR) to publish its findings on these human rights violations against the Saharawi people as soon as possible.
CARICOM acknowledges the work of the Secretary General and his Personal Envoy in bringing Morocco and Frente Polisario together for substantive dialogue on the outstanding issues with the aim of finding a just and final settlement. CARICOM strongly supports the Manhasset negotiation process consistent with Security Council Resolution 1754 (2007) and encourages the Secretary-General to continue his efforts to advance the process leading to a political solution which guarantees the right of self-determination for the people of Western Sahara consistent with relevant United Nations resolutions and legal opinions of the International Court of Justice.
In closing, Mr. Chairman,
The Fourth Committee must redouble its efforts to ensure that the United Nations system carries out its responsibilities to implement the decolonisation mandate adopted by the General Assembly to ensure that the fundamental human right of self-determination, and subsequent decolonisation of the remaining territories is expeditiously achieved. The full measure of self-government, continually reaffirmed by the General Assembly as political independence, free association with an independent state, or integration with an independent state, is achievable and verifiable, but only if the political will of this body is carried out in earnest.
This unfinished business of the United Nations has been allowed to stagnate for far too long.
I thank you.
07 October 2008
UN General Assembly Begins Review of Territories - An Analysis
On 6th October 2008, the United Nations (UN) Special Political and Decolonisation Committee - a committee of the whole of the UN General Assembly - began its annual consideration of the political, socio-economic and constitutional developments in the remaining non self-governing territories on 6th October 2008.
The discussions center on the sixteen remaining territories formally listed by the UN as non self-governing. These include the Caribbean and Pacific small island territories of Bermuda, Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, British Virgin Islands, Anguilla and the US Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico is not formally listed, but the Special Committee of 24 on Decolonisation conducts several days of hearings each summer on the decolonisation of Puerto Rico and adopts a resolution related to its self-determination process. Since 2007, the Committee of 24 has requested that the General Assembly itself consider the decolonisation of Puerto Rico.
The General Assembly also is reviewing the listed Pacific territories of American Samoa, Guam, New Caledonia, Tokelau and Pitcairn, as well as St. Helena. Other territories under consideration are those which are the subject of sovereignty disputes, namely the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Gibraltar, and Western Sahara.
The Fourth Committee had earlier held its first organisational session on 2nd October under the leadership of its chairman Jorge Arguello (Argentina), and introduced the other members of the bureau: Vice Chairs Amr Elsherbini (Egypt), Alexandru Cujbi (Moldova), Elmer Cato (Philippines), and Committee Rapporteur Paula Parviainen (Finland).
Participation of Territories in UN Debate
It was announced at the organisational session that some 71 requests had been received thus far from representatives of non-governmental organisations and individuals to address the Fourth Committee on developments in Gibraltar, Guam, New Caledonia, the US Virgin Islands and Western Sahara. It was also announced that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar would make a statement, the only government representative from any of the territories expected to appear.
Increasing the participation of the territorial governments, in particular, at the Fourth Committee has always been a formidable challenge. First, the UN does not advise the territorial governments when the meetings are being held, and many are not aware of the provisions for territorial governments to address the relevant UN committees regarding the nature, scope and extent (if any) of their own process of political development. In some cases over the years, some territories have been sternly dissuaded by their administering powers from appearing at UN Headquarters to address the relevant UN bodies. But who best to provide first-hand information than the representatives of the territories themselves? The UN has provided the political space for their input, but this can only have meaning if their participation is facilitated. In reply to a question as to whether territorial governments should be permitted to address the UN or not, one former Caribbean territorial minister replied, “If not us, then who?”
US-administered territories
Since the 1970s, successive governments of the US Virgin Islands had led the way in sending a representative, at ministerial level, to address both the Committee of 24 and the Fourth Committee, and from 1990 through 2006, at to provide information to the annual UN regional decolonisation seminars. This involvement appears to have ended with the last presentation to the UN by that territory delivered to the Fourth Committee in October, 2006. In the 1990s successive governments of Guam also presented information before the relevant UN committees and UN decolonisation seminars, providing first hand knowledge of the developments in that territory. The participation of the Guam government, however, also appears to have ceased as no governmental statement has been presented for a number of years.
The earlier substantive participation of these two territorial governments is reflected in the depth of the resolutions which were adopted on these territories during that period. But without this direct information and perspective from these governments, the UN resolutions specifically related to these territories have become repetitive, and often outdated. Additionally, important recommendations have been quietly deleted from the resolutions, even as the UN member States are not advised as to whether the actions called for have been carried out. Territorial governments are usually unaware of such sleight-of-hand maneuverings.
Meanwhile, civil society organisations have stepped up to fill the void by making presentations to the UN. The United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands has consistently participated in the regional seminars and at the UN hearings in New York, most recently at the Special Committee in 2008. Representatives of the Chamoru Nation, the Guahan Indigenous Collective and the Guam Famoksaiyan Collective are scheduled to address the Fourth Committee on 7th October on the question of Guam. This steady Guam civil society participation adds to the groundbreaking role played for decades by the Organisation of People for Indigenous Rights (OPIR) which had consistently presented critical information to the world body at UN headquarters, and continues to provide important information at the decolonisation seminars.
UK – Administered Territories
In the case of the British-administered territories, the elected governments generally have not participated in the UN review process at UN headquarters, with the notable exception of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar whose statements to the world body have focused on justifying the dependency relationship, while simultaneously lambasting the UN for what he considers its outdated definition of what constitutes colonialism. The Gibraltar Opposition leader also addresses the UN, and provides balance to what some consider an extremist government position. Other territories, however, are not as comfortable as the Gibraltar government appears to be in relation to the unilateral authority which characterizes the dependency models. It does not appear that they necessarily subscribe to the "colonialism by consent" arguments, as they seek to gain as much autonomy as possible within the confines of the present dependency arrangements, especially given that substantive autonomy is “not on offer.” Their absence from the UN proceedings, often because of misperceptions of the role of the UN in their decolonisation process, fuels the argument that they are pleased with the status quo dependency arrangements. The UN, in turn, is deprived of a real discussion on the nuances of the contemporary colonial dynamic.
Quite apart from the absence of engagement by the territorial governments at the UN decolonisation review in New York, the British-administered territories have participated more consistently in the decolonisation regional seminars. This was highlighted by the high level presence at the 2003 Caribbean Regional Seminar on Decolonisation which convened in Anguilla. During that session, discussions were held between with the elected heads of government of Anguilla, the Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands and Montserrat, along with high level officials of the other territories in the region. A most significant expert presentation at that seminar was on the legitimacy of the political status of free association as an alternative to continued dependency and immediate independence. The association models of Cook Islands and Niue with New Zealand; the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau with the United States; and the earlier West Indies Associated state model with the United Kingdom were outlined and discussed at length.
At that seminar, the applicability of free association as a viable political model was confirmed by all of the conference participants, including the representatives of the administering powers in attendance. Upon reflection, however, the British later announced that they no longer offered free association to the territories under its administration, nor did they offer political integration. Thus, present discussions between the territories and the UK on constitutional reform are confined to the extent to which some powers can be delegated from an un-elected governor to the elected government and a move towards democratic governance.
Conclusion
These are but some of the salient issues on the ground affecting the political future of the people of the territories. The method of work of the UN bodies dealing with decolonisation, however, continues to impede even a cursory examination of these issues. The annual routine employed by the UN in addressing the complexities of contemporary decolonisation is in dire need of re-structuring, with the aim of providing for a real dialogue and expert examination of the democratic deficiencies which characterise the prevailing dependency arrangements, and the legitimate political options that the international community has agreed are to be made available to the territories.
In short, the dialogue must be on the extent of implementation of those things which the UN has long agreed to do, but has not yet mustered the political will toensure that they are completed. When it comes to decolonisation, it seems that the attention span of the UN system is limited to the adoption of resolutions without regard for whether they are carried out. The resolutions require an annual report on implementation - a report which has never been seen. A real “Report on the implementation of decolonisation resolutions since the first International Decade of Colonialism” would be a good place to start.
The discussions center on the sixteen remaining territories formally listed by the UN as non self-governing. These include the Caribbean and Pacific small island territories of Bermuda, Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, British Virgin Islands, Anguilla and the US Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico is not formally listed, but the Special Committee of 24 on Decolonisation conducts several days of hearings each summer on the decolonisation of Puerto Rico and adopts a resolution related to its self-determination process. Since 2007, the Committee of 24 has requested that the General Assembly itself consider the decolonisation of Puerto Rico.
The General Assembly also is reviewing the listed Pacific territories of American Samoa, Guam, New Caledonia, Tokelau and Pitcairn, as well as St. Helena. Other territories under consideration are those which are the subject of sovereignty disputes, namely the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Gibraltar, and Western Sahara.
The Fourth Committee had earlier held its first organisational session on 2nd October under the leadership of its chairman Jorge Arguello (Argentina), and introduced the other members of the bureau: Vice Chairs Amr Elsherbini (Egypt), Alexandru Cujbi (Moldova), Elmer Cato (Philippines), and Committee Rapporteur Paula Parviainen (Finland).
Participation of Territories in UN Debate
It was announced at the organisational session that some 71 requests had been received thus far from representatives of non-governmental organisations and individuals to address the Fourth Committee on developments in Gibraltar, Guam, New Caledonia, the US Virgin Islands and Western Sahara. It was also announced that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar would make a statement, the only government representative from any of the territories expected to appear.
Increasing the participation of the territorial governments, in particular, at the Fourth Committee has always been a formidable challenge. First, the UN does not advise the territorial governments when the meetings are being held, and many are not aware of the provisions for territorial governments to address the relevant UN committees regarding the nature, scope and extent (if any) of their own process of political development. In some cases over the years, some territories have been sternly dissuaded by their administering powers from appearing at UN Headquarters to address the relevant UN bodies. But who best to provide first-hand information than the representatives of the territories themselves? The UN has provided the political space for their input, but this can only have meaning if their participation is facilitated. In reply to a question as to whether territorial governments should be permitted to address the UN or not, one former Caribbean territorial minister replied, “If not us, then who?”
US-administered territories
Since the 1970s, successive governments of the US Virgin Islands had led the way in sending a representative, at ministerial level, to address both the Committee of 24 and the Fourth Committee, and from 1990 through 2006, at to provide information to the annual UN regional decolonisation seminars. This involvement appears to have ended with the last presentation to the UN by that territory delivered to the Fourth Committee in October, 2006. In the 1990s successive governments of Guam also presented information before the relevant UN committees and UN decolonisation seminars, providing first hand knowledge of the developments in that territory. The participation of the Guam government, however, also appears to have ceased as no governmental statement has been presented for a number of years.
The earlier substantive participation of these two territorial governments is reflected in the depth of the resolutions which were adopted on these territories during that period. But without this direct information and perspective from these governments, the UN resolutions specifically related to these territories have become repetitive, and often outdated. Additionally, important recommendations have been quietly deleted from the resolutions, even as the UN member States are not advised as to whether the actions called for have been carried out. Territorial governments are usually unaware of such sleight-of-hand maneuverings.
Meanwhile, civil society organisations have stepped up to fill the void by making presentations to the UN. The United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands has consistently participated in the regional seminars and at the UN hearings in New York, most recently at the Special Committee in 2008. Representatives of the Chamoru Nation, the Guahan Indigenous Collective and the Guam Famoksaiyan Collective are scheduled to address the Fourth Committee on 7th October on the question of Guam. This steady Guam civil society participation adds to the groundbreaking role played for decades by the Organisation of People for Indigenous Rights (OPIR) which had consistently presented critical information to the world body at UN headquarters, and continues to provide important information at the decolonisation seminars.
UK – Administered Territories
In the case of the British-administered territories, the elected governments generally have not participated in the UN review process at UN headquarters, with the notable exception of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar whose statements to the world body have focused on justifying the dependency relationship, while simultaneously lambasting the UN for what he considers its outdated definition of what constitutes colonialism. The Gibraltar Opposition leader also addresses the UN, and provides balance to what some consider an extremist government position. Other territories, however, are not as comfortable as the Gibraltar government appears to be in relation to the unilateral authority which characterizes the dependency models. It does not appear that they necessarily subscribe to the "colonialism by consent" arguments, as they seek to gain as much autonomy as possible within the confines of the present dependency arrangements, especially given that substantive autonomy is “not on offer.” Their absence from the UN proceedings, often because of misperceptions of the role of the UN in their decolonisation process, fuels the argument that they are pleased with the status quo dependency arrangements. The UN, in turn, is deprived of a real discussion on the nuances of the contemporary colonial dynamic.
Quite apart from the absence of engagement by the territorial governments at the UN decolonisation review in New York, the British-administered territories have participated more consistently in the decolonisation regional seminars. This was highlighted by the high level presence at the 2003 Caribbean Regional Seminar on Decolonisation which convened in Anguilla. During that session, discussions were held between with the elected heads of government of Anguilla, the Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands and Montserrat, along with high level officials of the other territories in the region. A most significant expert presentation at that seminar was on the legitimacy of the political status of free association as an alternative to continued dependency and immediate independence. The association models of Cook Islands and Niue with New Zealand; the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau with the United States; and the earlier West Indies Associated state model with the United Kingdom were outlined and discussed at length.
At that seminar, the applicability of free association as a viable political model was confirmed by all of the conference participants, including the representatives of the administering powers in attendance. Upon reflection, however, the British later announced that they no longer offered free association to the territories under its administration, nor did they offer political integration. Thus, present discussions between the territories and the UK on constitutional reform are confined to the extent to which some powers can be delegated from an un-elected governor to the elected government and a move towards democratic governance.
Conclusion
These are but some of the salient issues on the ground affecting the political future of the people of the territories. The method of work of the UN bodies dealing with decolonisation, however, continues to impede even a cursory examination of these issues. The annual routine employed by the UN in addressing the complexities of contemporary decolonisation is in dire need of re-structuring, with the aim of providing for a real dialogue and expert examination of the democratic deficiencies which characterise the prevailing dependency arrangements, and the legitimate political options that the international community has agreed are to be made available to the territories.
In short, the dialogue must be on the extent of implementation of those things which the UN has long agreed to do, but has not yet mustered the political will toensure that they are completed. When it comes to decolonisation, it seems that the attention span of the UN system is limited to the adoption of resolutions without regard for whether they are carried out. The resolutions require an annual report on implementation - a report which has never been seen. A real “Report on the implementation of decolonisation resolutions since the first International Decade of Colonialism” would be a good place to start.
11 September 2008
Denmark's Statement on its Slave History
On 3rd July 2008, the 160th anniversary of the abolition of slavery was commemorated in the former Danish West Indies (now the US Virgin Islands). Activities were held on the islands of St. John and St. Thomas, with the main events conducted in Frederiksted, St. Croix consistent with established practice.
Simultaneously, the Government of Denmark released a statement marking the historic day which was welcomed, but which also fell short of the 'apology' sought by many in the territory. Below is the unofficial translation of the statement:
Declaration by the Government of Denmark at the 160 anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the former Danish West Indies (now US Virgin Islands)
On 3 July 2008 160 years have passed since slavery was abolished in the former Danish West Indies (now US Virgin Islands), thus closing a dark chapter in Denmark’s role as colonial power on the Islands.
The use of slaves was then legal. Fortunately the international society has moved a long way since then. Slavery is rightfully recognized as a crime against humanity, including by the UN World Conference Against Racism in 2001, and is today one of the crimes under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
The period of slavery was a grim period, but it remains regrettably a fact, which we – like other countries – need to acknowledge as a part of the past and our common historical heritage. Therefore it is not a period to be forgotten. Thus a major outcome of the UN World Conference Against Racism in Durban in 2001 was the decision that we have a collective responsibility to remember the atrocities of slavery and its victims and to seek reconciliation and healing with the descendants of the slaves.
The Government has therefore supported and will continue to support activities, which aim to gather information about the period of slavery and provide information about it, including through UNESCO.
In relation to the Virgin Islands the Danish Ministry of Culture initiated in 1999 a framework for cooperation with the Islands on archives and museum activities with the purpose to explore the common past during the slavery period and to develop cultural cooperation. The Government recognizes civil society’s interest for the common history and is examining if it is possible to strengthen further the cooperation in the fields of culture and history.
The Government is very much aware, that even in our days there are people, who live under forms of modern slavery or similar conditions, including as victims of trafficking in women and children, child labour and recruitment of child soldiers. The Government strongly condemns these practices. Therefore Denmark actively participates in cooperation at regional and international levels to fight these modern forms of slavery.
Copenhagen 3 July 2008
____________________________________________________________________________
One year prior, The United Nations General Assembly by its Resolution 61/19 decided to designate 25 March 2007 as the International Day for the Commemoration of the Two-hundredth Anniversary of the Abolition of the Transatlantic Slave Trade. The Assembly also "urged Member States that had not already done so to develop educational programmes, including through school curricula, designed to educate and inculcate in future generations an understanding of the lessons, history and consequences of slavery and the slave trade."
The resolution also requested governments to submit a report on initiatives taken
to implement paragraphs 101 and 102 of the Durban Declaration of the World
Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related
Intolerance aimed at countering the legacy of slavery and contributing to the
restoration of the dignity of the victims of slavery and the slave trade.
Below is the report submited by the Government of Denmark to the Secretary General of the United Nations:
Denmark
[Original: English]
1. Denmark is deeply concerned with the legacy of slavery and the restoration of
the dignity of the victims of slavery and the slave trade, and thus wholeheartedly
supported the adoption of General Assembly resolution 61/19.
2. At the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia
and Related Intolerance in 2001, the European Union was pleased to join
international consensus in acknowledging that slavery and the slave trade are a
crime against humanity and should always have been so.
3. On 25 March 2007, the day designated by the General Assembly as the
International Day for the Commemoration of the Two-hundredth Anniversary of the
Abolition of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, the European Union issued a statement
reiterating the position that the barbarism of transatlantic slave trade constitutes one of the darkest chapters of our history, in terms of its magnitude, its organized nature and particularly its negation of the human dignity of the victims.
4. The statement also underlined the commitment of the European Union member
States to fight various forms of modern slavery, such as bonded labour and human
trafficking.
5. In May 2007, Denmark pledged a contribution of $10,000 towards the
proposed permanent memorial to the victims of the transatlantic slave trade and
slavery, which would be placed in the halls of the United Nations, an initiative led
by member States of the Caribbean Community.
6. On 3 July 1848, slavery was abolished in the Danish West Indies (today the
United States Virgin Islands). The Danish Government is currently considering an
appropriate way to commemorate the 160-year anniversary in 2008, taking into
account the sentiments of the descendants of the slaves living today in the United
States Virgin Islands and Ghana, from where the majority of slaves originated.
7. It should also be mentioned that the Danish National Museum on 8 October
2007 will be opening the main building at the former slave-plantation
“Frederiksgave” in Ghana to a public audience, following the renovation of the
plantation. This project is part of the National Museum’s ongoing research into the
Danish slave trade and other activities related to the Danish colonies in Africa and
the West Indies. The Danish Minister for Cultural Affairs will be participating in the opening. The renovated museum at “Frederiksgave” will provide audiences with
information about the cultural background and history of the slave trade, including
about the transatlantic slave trade and the use of slaves in the Danish colonies in the West Indies.
8. Furthermore, a total of 19 Danish schools under the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Associated School Project will
commemorate the two-hundredth anniversary of the abolition of the transatlantic
slave trade on 23 August 2007, as part of the transatlantic slave trade education
project.
Simultaneously, the Government of Denmark released a statement marking the historic day which was welcomed, but which also fell short of the 'apology' sought by many in the territory. Below is the unofficial translation of the statement:
Declaration by the Government of Denmark at the 160 anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the former Danish West Indies (now US Virgin Islands)
On 3 July 2008 160 years have passed since slavery was abolished in the former Danish West Indies (now US Virgin Islands), thus closing a dark chapter in Denmark’s role as colonial power on the Islands.
The use of slaves was then legal. Fortunately the international society has moved a long way since then. Slavery is rightfully recognized as a crime against humanity, including by the UN World Conference Against Racism in 2001, and is today one of the crimes under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
The period of slavery was a grim period, but it remains regrettably a fact, which we – like other countries – need to acknowledge as a part of the past and our common historical heritage. Therefore it is not a period to be forgotten. Thus a major outcome of the UN World Conference Against Racism in Durban in 2001 was the decision that we have a collective responsibility to remember the atrocities of slavery and its victims and to seek reconciliation and healing with the descendants of the slaves.
The Government has therefore supported and will continue to support activities, which aim to gather information about the period of slavery and provide information about it, including through UNESCO.
In relation to the Virgin Islands the Danish Ministry of Culture initiated in 1999 a framework for cooperation with the Islands on archives and museum activities with the purpose to explore the common past during the slavery period and to develop cultural cooperation. The Government recognizes civil society’s interest for the common history and is examining if it is possible to strengthen further the cooperation in the fields of culture and history.
The Government is very much aware, that even in our days there are people, who live under forms of modern slavery or similar conditions, including as victims of trafficking in women and children, child labour and recruitment of child soldiers. The Government strongly condemns these practices. Therefore Denmark actively participates in cooperation at regional and international levels to fight these modern forms of slavery.
Copenhagen 3 July 2008
____________________________________________________________________________
One year prior, The United Nations General Assembly by its Resolution 61/19 decided to designate 25 March 2007 as the International Day for the Commemoration of the Two-hundredth Anniversary of the Abolition of the Transatlantic Slave Trade. The Assembly also "urged Member States that had not already done so to develop educational programmes, including through school curricula, designed to educate and inculcate in future generations an understanding of the lessons, history and consequences of slavery and the slave trade."
The resolution also requested governments to submit a report on initiatives taken
to implement paragraphs 101 and 102 of the Durban Declaration of the World
Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related
Intolerance aimed at countering the legacy of slavery and contributing to the
restoration of the dignity of the victims of slavery and the slave trade.
Below is the report submited by the Government of Denmark to the Secretary General of the United Nations:
Denmark
[Original: English]
1. Denmark is deeply concerned with the legacy of slavery and the restoration of
the dignity of the victims of slavery and the slave trade, and thus wholeheartedly
supported the adoption of General Assembly resolution 61/19.
2. At the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia
and Related Intolerance in 2001, the European Union was pleased to join
international consensus in acknowledging that slavery and the slave trade are a
crime against humanity and should always have been so.
3. On 25 March 2007, the day designated by the General Assembly as the
International Day for the Commemoration of the Two-hundredth Anniversary of the
Abolition of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, the European Union issued a statement
reiterating the position that the barbarism of transatlantic slave trade constitutes one of the darkest chapters of our history, in terms of its magnitude, its organized nature and particularly its negation of the human dignity of the victims.
4. The statement also underlined the commitment of the European Union member
States to fight various forms of modern slavery, such as bonded labour and human
trafficking.
5. In May 2007, Denmark pledged a contribution of $10,000 towards the
proposed permanent memorial to the victims of the transatlantic slave trade and
slavery, which would be placed in the halls of the United Nations, an initiative led
by member States of the Caribbean Community.
6. On 3 July 1848, slavery was abolished in the Danish West Indies (today the
United States Virgin Islands). The Danish Government is currently considering an
appropriate way to commemorate the 160-year anniversary in 2008, taking into
account the sentiments of the descendants of the slaves living today in the United
States Virgin Islands and Ghana, from where the majority of slaves originated.
7. It should also be mentioned that the Danish National Museum on 8 October
2007 will be opening the main building at the former slave-plantation
“Frederiksgave” in Ghana to a public audience, following the renovation of the
plantation. This project is part of the National Museum’s ongoing research into the
Danish slave trade and other activities related to the Danish colonies in Africa and
the West Indies. The Danish Minister for Cultural Affairs will be participating in the opening. The renovated museum at “Frederiksgave” will provide audiences with
information about the cultural background and history of the slave trade, including
about the transatlantic slave trade and the use of slaves in the Danish colonies in the West Indies.
8. Furthermore, a total of 19 Danish schools under the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Associated School Project will
commemorate the two-hundredth anniversary of the abolition of the transatlantic
slave trade on 23 August 2007, as part of the transatlantic slave trade education
project.
18 August 2008
Non Aligned Movement Adopts 2008 Recommendations on Self-Determination
Some 118 Ministers of state or government of the Non Aligned Movement, at its 15th Ministerial Conference held in Tehran from 27-30 July 2008, adopted a final communiqué with specific portions directly relevant to overseas countries and territories, including indigenous peoples in those territories. In this connection, the relevant provisions are excerpted:
________________________________________________________________________________
Relevant Decisions of 2008 Non Aligned Movement
Self-Determination and Decolonisation
38. The Ministers reaffirmed and underscored the validity and relevance of the Movement's principled positions concerning the right to self-determination of peoples under foreign occupation and colonial or alien domination, as follows:
38.1 The Movement stressed the fundamental and inalienable right of all peoples, including all non-self governing territories, as well as those territories under foreign occupation and colonial or alien domination, to self determination, the exercise of which, in the case of peoples under foreign occupation and colonial or alien domination, remains valid and essential to ensure the eradication of all these situations and to guarantee universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms;
38.2 The Movement reaffirmed the right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination and independence on the basis of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), and expressed its unwavering support to the resolutions on Puerto Rico adopted by the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation; and called for their immediate implementation.
38.3 The Movement remained concerned at the loss, destruction, removal, theft, pillage, illicit movement or misappropriation of and any acts of vandalism or damage, directed against cultural property in areas of armed conflict and territories that are occupied.
39. Consistent with and guided by the afore-mentioned principled positions and affirming the need to preserve, defend and promote these positions, the Ministers agreed to undertake the following measures, among others:
39.1 Strongly support the work and activities of the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation, and again urge the Administering Powers to grant their full support to the activities of the Committee and fully cooperate with this UN body;
39.2 Request the colonialist countries to pay full compensation for the economic, social and cultural consequences of their occupation, bearing in mind the right of all people who were or are still subjected to colonial rule or occupation to receive fair compensation for the human and material losses they suffered as a result of colonial rule or occupation;
39.3 Strongly condemn the ongoing brutal suppression of the legitimate aspirations to self-determination of peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation in various regions of the world;
39.4 Urge UN Member States to fully implement the decisions and resolutions of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) concerning the return of cultural properties to the peoples who were or still under colonial rule or occupation, and in this regard, further urge UNESCO to identify the stolen or illegally exported cultural properties in accordance with the relevant conventions on the subject, and also urge the process of returning these properties to their countries of origin, in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, be expedited, bearing in mind the right of the Non-Aligned Countries to maintain and conserve their national heritage as it constitutes the foundation of their cultural identity;
39.5 Renew its call to UN Member States to speed up the process of decolonisation towards the complete elimination of colonialism, and including by supporting the effective implementation of the Plan of Action of the Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001-2010);
39.6 Work towards the full implementation of the principle of self-determination with respect to the remaining territories within the framework of the Programme of Action of the Special Committee on Decolonisation, in accordance with the wishes of the people consistent with the UN Charter and the relevant UN resolutions; 13
39.7 Oppose any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a State, which is incompatible with the UN Charter; and
39.8 Call on the Government of the United States to assume its responsibility to expedite a process that will allow the Puerto Rican people to fully exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence, and urges the Government of the United States to return the occupied land and installations on Vieques Island and at the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station to the Puerto Rican people, who constitute a Latin American and Caribbean nation.
39.9 Work actively to have the U.N. General Assembly to consider in its 63rd Session the question of Puerto Rico in all its aspects;
Democracy
154. The Ministers reiterated that democracy is a universal value based on the freely expressed will of the people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives. They reaffirmed that while all democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy, that it does not belong to any country or region, and further reaffirmed the necessity of due respect for sovereignty and the right to self-determination. They expressed their conviction that international co-operation for the promotion of democracy, on the basis of respect for the principles enshrined in the UN Charter as well as those of transparency, impartiality, nonselectivity and inclusiveness, could contribute to the attainment of the goal of democracy consolidation at national and international levels.
155. The Ministers reaffirmed that democracy, development and respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. The international community should support the strengthening and promotion of democracy, development and respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the entire world, in compliance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
Chagos Archipelago
196. The Ministers reaffirmed that Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, is an integral part of the sovereign territory of the Republic of Mauritius. In this regard, they called on once again the former colonial power to pursue constructive dialogue expeditiously with Mauritius with a view to enable Mauritius to exercise its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago.
Western Sahara
208. The Ministers reaffirmed the previous positions of the Non-Aligned Movement on the question of Western Sahara.
209. The Ministers reaffirmed all resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council on Western Sahara. They reaffirmed UN General Assembly resolution 62/116, adopted without a vote, and reiterated that, in accordance with the said resolution, they continued to support strongly the efforts of the Secretary General and his Personal Envoy to achieve a mutually acceptable political solution which will provide self-determination for the people of Western Sahara in the context of arrangements consistent with the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 and other relevant resolutions. The Ministers recognized that all available options for self-determination are valid as long as they are in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned and in conformity with the clearly defined principles contained in General Assembly Resolutions.
210. Bearing in mind the above, the Ministers welcomed the four rounds of negotiation held under the auspices of the Secretary General and welcomed the commitment of the parties to continue to show political will and work in an atmosphere propitious for dialogue, in order to enter into a more intensive phase of negotiations, thus ensuring implementation of Security Council resolutions 1754, 1783 and 1813 and the success of negotiations. They took note of efforts and developments since 2006.
211. They called upon the parties and the States in the region to cooperate fully with the Secretary General and his Personal Envoy, and with each other, and reaffirmed the responsibility of the United Nations towards the people of Western Sahara. They further welcomed the commitment of the parties to continue the process of negotiations through United Nations sponsored talks.
Indigenous Peoples
361. The Ministers took note with deep appreciation of the adoption of the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples by the General Assembly. Likewise, they reiterated their support for the need to promote the economic, political and cultural rights of the indigenous peoples and their commitment to give special attention to the efforts made at the national and multilateral levels in order to improve their living conditions through civil participation. Likewise, in face of undue appropriation and use of the traditional indigenous knowledge, they agreed to promote the defence of the bio-cultural collective heritage to allow indigenous peoples to have appropriate legal instruments on intellectual property so that their
traditional knowledge is protected against unauthorized or inappropriate use by third
parties.
362. The Ministers also supported the need to promote within the UN system, in particular its agencies, funds and programmes, the rights of indigenous peoples, through a series of policies and programmes for the improvement of indigenous peoples’ well-being around the world and, where applicable, through the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
363. The Ministers took note with appreciation of the adoption of the Human Rights Council resolution 6/36 of 14 December 2007, that established the expert mechanism on
the rights of indigenous peoples to provide the Council with thematic expertise on the rights of indigenous peoples.
________________________________________________________________________________
Relevant Decisions of 2008 Non Aligned Movement
Self-Determination and Decolonisation
38. The Ministers reaffirmed and underscored the validity and relevance of the Movement's principled positions concerning the right to self-determination of peoples under foreign occupation and colonial or alien domination, as follows:
38.1 The Movement stressed the fundamental and inalienable right of all peoples, including all non-self governing territories, as well as those territories under foreign occupation and colonial or alien domination, to self determination, the exercise of which, in the case of peoples under foreign occupation and colonial or alien domination, remains valid and essential to ensure the eradication of all these situations and to guarantee universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms;
38.2 The Movement reaffirmed the right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination and independence on the basis of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), and expressed its unwavering support to the resolutions on Puerto Rico adopted by the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation; and called for their immediate implementation.
38.3 The Movement remained concerned at the loss, destruction, removal, theft, pillage, illicit movement or misappropriation of and any acts of vandalism or damage, directed against cultural property in areas of armed conflict and territories that are occupied.
39. Consistent with and guided by the afore-mentioned principled positions and affirming the need to preserve, defend and promote these positions, the Ministers agreed to undertake the following measures, among others:
39.1 Strongly support the work and activities of the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation, and again urge the Administering Powers to grant their full support to the activities of the Committee and fully cooperate with this UN body;
39.2 Request the colonialist countries to pay full compensation for the economic, social and cultural consequences of their occupation, bearing in mind the right of all people who were or are still subjected to colonial rule or occupation to receive fair compensation for the human and material losses they suffered as a result of colonial rule or occupation;
39.3 Strongly condemn the ongoing brutal suppression of the legitimate aspirations to self-determination of peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation in various regions of the world;
39.4 Urge UN Member States to fully implement the decisions and resolutions of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) concerning the return of cultural properties to the peoples who were or still under colonial rule or occupation, and in this regard, further urge UNESCO to identify the stolen or illegally exported cultural properties in accordance with the relevant conventions on the subject, and also urge the process of returning these properties to their countries of origin, in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, be expedited, bearing in mind the right of the Non-Aligned Countries to maintain and conserve their national heritage as it constitutes the foundation of their cultural identity;
39.5 Renew its call to UN Member States to speed up the process of decolonisation towards the complete elimination of colonialism, and including by supporting the effective implementation of the Plan of Action of the Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001-2010);
39.6 Work towards the full implementation of the principle of self-determination with respect to the remaining territories within the framework of the Programme of Action of the Special Committee on Decolonisation, in accordance with the wishes of the people consistent with the UN Charter and the relevant UN resolutions; 13
39.7 Oppose any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a State, which is incompatible with the UN Charter; and
39.8 Call on the Government of the United States to assume its responsibility to expedite a process that will allow the Puerto Rican people to fully exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence, and urges the Government of the United States to return the occupied land and installations on Vieques Island and at the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station to the Puerto Rican people, who constitute a Latin American and Caribbean nation.
39.9 Work actively to have the U.N. General Assembly to consider in its 63rd Session the question of Puerto Rico in all its aspects;
Democracy
154. The Ministers reiterated that democracy is a universal value based on the freely expressed will of the people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives. They reaffirmed that while all democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy, that it does not belong to any country or region, and further reaffirmed the necessity of due respect for sovereignty and the right to self-determination. They expressed their conviction that international co-operation for the promotion of democracy, on the basis of respect for the principles enshrined in the UN Charter as well as those of transparency, impartiality, nonselectivity and inclusiveness, could contribute to the attainment of the goal of democracy consolidation at national and international levels.
155. The Ministers reaffirmed that democracy, development and respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. The international community should support the strengthening and promotion of democracy, development and respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the entire world, in compliance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
Chagos Archipelago
196. The Ministers reaffirmed that Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, is an integral part of the sovereign territory of the Republic of Mauritius. In this regard, they called on once again the former colonial power to pursue constructive dialogue expeditiously with Mauritius with a view to enable Mauritius to exercise its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago.
Western Sahara
208. The Ministers reaffirmed the previous positions of the Non-Aligned Movement on the question of Western Sahara.
209. The Ministers reaffirmed all resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council on Western Sahara. They reaffirmed UN General Assembly resolution 62/116, adopted without a vote, and reiterated that, in accordance with the said resolution, they continued to support strongly the efforts of the Secretary General and his Personal Envoy to achieve a mutually acceptable political solution which will provide self-determination for the people of Western Sahara in the context of arrangements consistent with the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 and other relevant resolutions. The Ministers recognized that all available options for self-determination are valid as long as they are in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned and in conformity with the clearly defined principles contained in General Assembly Resolutions.
210. Bearing in mind the above, the Ministers welcomed the four rounds of negotiation held under the auspices of the Secretary General and welcomed the commitment of the parties to continue to show political will and work in an atmosphere propitious for dialogue, in order to enter into a more intensive phase of negotiations, thus ensuring implementation of Security Council resolutions 1754, 1783 and 1813 and the success of negotiations. They took note of efforts and developments since 2006.
211. They called upon the parties and the States in the region to cooperate fully with the Secretary General and his Personal Envoy, and with each other, and reaffirmed the responsibility of the United Nations towards the people of Western Sahara. They further welcomed the commitment of the parties to continue the process of negotiations through United Nations sponsored talks.
Indigenous Peoples
361. The Ministers took note with deep appreciation of the adoption of the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples by the General Assembly. Likewise, they reiterated their support for the need to promote the economic, political and cultural rights of the indigenous peoples and their commitment to give special attention to the efforts made at the national and multilateral levels in order to improve their living conditions through civil participation. Likewise, in face of undue appropriation and use of the traditional indigenous knowledge, they agreed to promote the defence of the bio-cultural collective heritage to allow indigenous peoples to have appropriate legal instruments on intellectual property so that their
traditional knowledge is protected against unauthorized or inappropriate use by third
parties.
362. The Ministers also supported the need to promote within the UN system, in particular its agencies, funds and programmes, the rights of indigenous peoples, through a series of policies and programmes for the improvement of indigenous peoples’ well-being around the world and, where applicable, through the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
363. The Ministers took note with appreciation of the adoption of the Human Rights Council resolution 6/36 of 14 December 2007, that established the expert mechanism on
the rights of indigenous peoples to provide the Council with thematic expertise on the rights of indigenous peoples.
11 August 2008
UN Releases Report on Territories
The United Nations (UN) Special Committee on Decolonisation has issued its 2008 report following its two-week session to review the decolonisation process held last June. The report differs little in most sections from years past. It includes the decisions taken on a variety of subjects including dissemination of information on decolonisation, information transmitted to the UN on the territories by the administering powers, and the matter of sending UN missions to the territories to assess the situation first hand.
The report also includes decisions taken on Puerto Rico and the eleven Caribbean and Pacific small island territories, along with separate decisions on Tokelau, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Gibraltar, New Caledonia and Western Sahara. Also included are the text of committee resolutions on UN assistance to the territories, economic and other activities affecting the territories, and implementation of the Decolonisation Declaration.(Note: The resolution on military activities that might impede the decolonisation declaration was phased out years ago as an eventual casuality of the thawing of the Cold War - even as the issue still applies in places like Guam, for example).
The 2008 Special Committee Report also makes reference to a number of procedural decisions of the committee including the confirmation of holding meetings away from UN Headquarters, limitation of documentation, cooperation of administering powers (only New Zealand, presently) with the UN’s decolonisation work, along with the mandate of the participation of the territorial governments in the work of the Special Committee. On the latter, only a few of the 16 remaining non self-governing territories participated in the work of the committee in 2008, including Gibraltar which ironically takes the most critical of positions on the legitimacy of the UN in regards to the decolonisation process.
Tokelau was the only territorial government to participate in the Pacific regional seminar held in Indonesia last May, along with a representative of Western Sahara. The findings of that regional seminar are annexed to the 2008 Special Committee report.
A longstanding impediment to the committee’s work is the failure to inform the territorial Governments in the Caribbean and Pacific as to when the committee is holding its sessions,and the fact that financial resources are in the committee budget for the travel of one government representative to the committee meeting. Perhaps if they knew when the meetings were being held, they might consider coming. As the thinking goes within an overly-cautious Special Committee bureacracy,however, the UN supposedly has no authority to communicate to the territories directly. Meanwhile, most territories are associate members in the UN regional economic commissions, and receive information from those secretariats. Many territories are associate members or observers to UN specialised agencies and receive direct information from those secretariats, as well. The territories receive direct invitations from the UN Secretary-General himself to participate as observers in UN world conferences and special sessions of the General Assembly to which they are often invited. These precedents do not appear to be sufficiently convincing.
The Special Committee Report of 2008 also makes reference to its “relations with UN bodies, intergovernmental and non governmental organisations.” Such “relations,” however, do not rise to the level of actual engagement with these other UN bodies in furtherance of the decolonisation process, even as the General Assembly in annual resolutions has directed the committee, to no avail, to develop cooperation with specific UN bodies.
One interesting committee recommendation is that the General Assembly “continue to invite the administering power to allow representatives of the Territories concerned to participate in the discussions in the (UN Fourth Committee) and in the Special Committee on the items related to their territory.”This is a rather disturbing contention since the right of the territories to participate in the work of the UN Decolonisation process has never been seen to be dependent on the good graces of a given administering power. The territorial participation in the work of the UN in decolonisation is by “acquired right,” under which several territories have participated in the committee’s work for over three decades. There have been several attempts by various administering powers over the years to prevent the views of the territorial government from being expressed, most recently at the Fourth Committee in 2006. Such censorship has always been rejected by the member States which have always recognised the "acquired right." This troubling inclusion of language in the report appearing to circumvent the right of the government of a territory to address the UN on its own decolonisation should have neven been allowed in the text, and should be removed.
The Report of the Decolonisation Committee which will be taken up by the UN Special Political and Decolonisation (Fourth) Committee in October is available in PDF format from Overseas Territories Review, and should be posted on the UN Decolonisation website in due course.
The report also includes decisions taken on Puerto Rico and the eleven Caribbean and Pacific small island territories, along with separate decisions on Tokelau, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Gibraltar, New Caledonia and Western Sahara. Also included are the text of committee resolutions on UN assistance to the territories, economic and other activities affecting the territories, and implementation of the Decolonisation Declaration.(Note: The resolution on military activities that might impede the decolonisation declaration was phased out years ago as an eventual casuality of the thawing of the Cold War - even as the issue still applies in places like Guam, for example).
The 2008 Special Committee Report also makes reference to a number of procedural decisions of the committee including the confirmation of holding meetings away from UN Headquarters, limitation of documentation, cooperation of administering powers (only New Zealand, presently) with the UN’s decolonisation work, along with the mandate of the participation of the territorial governments in the work of the Special Committee. On the latter, only a few of the 16 remaining non self-governing territories participated in the work of the committee in 2008, including Gibraltar which ironically takes the most critical of positions on the legitimacy of the UN in regards to the decolonisation process.
Tokelau was the only territorial government to participate in the Pacific regional seminar held in Indonesia last May, along with a representative of Western Sahara. The findings of that regional seminar are annexed to the 2008 Special Committee report.
A longstanding impediment to the committee’s work is the failure to inform the territorial Governments in the Caribbean and Pacific as to when the committee is holding its sessions,and the fact that financial resources are in the committee budget for the travel of one government representative to the committee meeting. Perhaps if they knew when the meetings were being held, they might consider coming. As the thinking goes within an overly-cautious Special Committee bureacracy,however, the UN supposedly has no authority to communicate to the territories directly. Meanwhile, most territories are associate members in the UN regional economic commissions, and receive information from those secretariats. Many territories are associate members or observers to UN specialised agencies and receive direct information from those secretariats, as well. The territories receive direct invitations from the UN Secretary-General himself to participate as observers in UN world conferences and special sessions of the General Assembly to which they are often invited. These precedents do not appear to be sufficiently convincing.
The Special Committee Report of 2008 also makes reference to its “relations with UN bodies, intergovernmental and non governmental organisations.” Such “relations,” however, do not rise to the level of actual engagement with these other UN bodies in furtherance of the decolonisation process, even as the General Assembly in annual resolutions has directed the committee, to no avail, to develop cooperation with specific UN bodies.
One interesting committee recommendation is that the General Assembly “continue to invite the administering power to allow representatives of the Territories concerned to participate in the discussions in the (UN Fourth Committee) and in the Special Committee on the items related to their territory.”This is a rather disturbing contention since the right of the territories to participate in the work of the UN Decolonisation process has never been seen to be dependent on the good graces of a given administering power. The territorial participation in the work of the UN in decolonisation is by “acquired right,” under which several territories have participated in the committee’s work for over three decades. There have been several attempts by various administering powers over the years to prevent the views of the territorial government from being expressed, most recently at the Fourth Committee in 2006. Such censorship has always been rejected by the member States which have always recognised the "acquired right." This troubling inclusion of language in the report appearing to circumvent the right of the government of a territory to address the UN on its own decolonisation should have neven been allowed in the text, and should be removed.
The Report of the Decolonisation Committee which will be taken up by the UN Special Political and Decolonisation (Fourth) Committee in October is available in PDF format from Overseas Territories Review, and should be posted on the UN Decolonisation website in due course.
10 August 2008
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.
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.
07 August 2008
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.
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.
21 July 2008
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.
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.
16 July 2008
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.
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.
07 July 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)