Statement by Gerard Luz Amwur James II
President
Fifth Constitutional Convention of the U.S. Virgin Islands
to the
United Nations General Assembly
Fourth Committee
United Nations Headquarters
New York, N.Y.
October 6, 2009
Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
My name is Gerard Luz Anwur James II, and I am the President of the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the US Virgin Islands, elected by the people of the territory from all four islands. I have the honor to address this Committee on the adoption last May by our Convention of a draft constitution for consideration by the administering power.
This was the fifth attempt by the US Virgin Islands to draft a locally written constitution to replace the Revised Organic Act of 1954, written for the territory by the administering power, and which continues to be amended incrementally. The present draft constitution was submitted on May 31st of this year to the elected governor, who was to have forwarded said document to the administering power for review, with the authority to modify it or amend it, “in whole or in part.” The document would then be returned to the
territory for a referendum, similar to the process in 1980 where the final document was not approved by the voters at that time.
It is important to advise this august body that the present process has been short-circuited when the governor of the territory took the unilateral decision not to transmit the draft constitution to the administering power, according to the law, based on the contention that some of the provisions might not be consistent with how the US Constitution is
applied to the territory. The Fifth Constitutional Convention has filed suit in the Superior Court of the territory to mandate that the governor transfer the document, as specified by law. We must await the decision of the court before the resumption of the constitutional
process.
It should be emphasized that the local constitutional process is not designed to alter the present non self-governing territorial status, but merely to “organize its internal governance arrangements” as accurately stated in General Assembly Resolution 63/108 of 5 December 2008. Thus, if our constitution is subsequently adopted in referendum, this does not serve as the basis for removing the territory from the UN list of non selfgoverning territories, since the status of the territory would not have changed.
The provisions in the draft constitution, including those which the governor has found objectionable, are best reviewed for US constitutional consistency by the administering power based on its determination of what is allowable under the present dependency status. The elected members of the Convention have placed in the document a structure of governance to which it is the responsibility of the administering power to review, and to respond. We look forward to this engagement.
In this connection, I wish to emphasize that the entering into force of a new constitution based on the present status, in the language of our draft constitution, “shall not preclude or prejudice the further exercise by the people of the (US) Virgin Islands of the right to self-determination regarding the attainment of a permanent political status.”
In this regard, several attempts were made between the 1980 and 1993 to decide on a permanent political status through successive governmental commissions and committees. Our only referendum on political status was held in 1993, but as indicated in relevant General Assembly resolutions, an insufficient percentage of voters participated for the result to be valid. The present non self-governing status, therefore, remained – and remains - unchanged.
Mr. Chairman,
It is important to reveal that the work of the present Constitutional Convention has been impeded by a lack of resources. This has caused several inordinate delays in the drafting process, as well as in the initiation of the critical public education phase of our work. A similar resource deficit existed for the 1993 political status referendum process, as explained to the Decolonization Seminar in St. Kitts last May by the international
political advisor to our Convention.
As this committee is aware, a 2008 request by our Constitutional Convention for assistance from the administering power was denied. In this connection, we welcomed the adoption of Resolution 63/108 last December which requested the administering power and relevant UN organizations to assist the territory’s public education program, consistent with Article 73(b) of the United Nations Charter which mandates such assistance. We trust that the commitment made in the resolution, which is also included
in the present draft resolution under your consideration, would be expeditiously implemented since the educational component is critical to the process. If the administering power is not forthcoming with the requested assistance in support of our constitutional evolution, we ask them to facilitate our access to United Nations electoral
assistance similar to that provided to other territories such as Tokelau, Sint Maarten the former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and others.
In any case, assistance from any quarter is vital given the degree of mis-interpretation in public discussion based on incomplete and sometimes misleading reports. The lack of
resources for our Convention prohibits us from mounting the required public education program to counter the mis-information. In this regard, the relevant provisions of the
draft constitution include:
• A bill of rights
• A structure of the various branches of internal government.
• The mandate for establishment of decentralization of government.
• Free and compulsory education, which “preserves the African history, culture and traditions of the people,” and which creates eligibility criteria for free tertiary education.
• The control of the natural resources by the people of the territory,including the marine resources and submerged lands, as well as the protection of the environment, pursuant to longstanding United Nations resolutions.
• The preservation of culture.
• A mechanism to make recommendations on the future political status of the territory based on the legitimate political status options of integration, free association and independence, consistent with General Assembly Resolution 1541.
Mr. Chairman,
A major area of public discussion on the draft constitution relates to the definition of a Virgin Islander. According to the 1917 treaty, through which the territory was purchased
by the United States from Denmark, the political rights and citizenship of the inhabitants of the territory at the time of transfer would be determined by the US Congress. The
citizenship of these persons at the time of the transfer who were mainly, but not exclusively, comprised of former enslaved Africans and their descendents, was not
determined until ten years later.
Thus, the provisions of the draft constitution defining Ancestral Native Virgin Islander was based on the laws of the administering power emerging from that period (See Section 306 INA (8 U.S.C. 1406). It is also consistent with the definition of native populations in the constitutions of other non self-governing territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific.
A second section of the draft constitution provides a broader definition of a Native Virgin Islander as having been born in the territory, or a descendent of a native born person. The importance of the reference to Native Virgin Islanders in the constitution is highlighted by the fact that the native-born population in the territory is on the decline, with the percentage in 2005 at about 51.3 % according to a 2007 University of the Virgin Islands
study. This decline has significant implications for the self-identity of the people.
The draft constitution also provides that only Ancestral or Native Virgin Islanders be eligible to serve as governor and lieutenant governor, and as members of a future political
status advisory commission. Additionally, a provision to exempt Ancestral Virgin Islanders from paying property tax has been inserted. This is due to the fact that significant externally motivated land speculation continues to result in the major loss of property by the native population. This provision of the draft constitution is consistent
with relevant General resolutions, most recently operative paragraph 9 of General Assembly Resolution 63/108, which calls for all necessary steps to be taken to protect the property rights of the peoples of the territories.
It is these and related provisions which appear to be objectionable to certain interests, but similar native rights' provisions are part of constitutions of other US-administered territories, such as American Samoa and the Northern Marianas, both of which have the
same unincorporated political status as the U.S. Virgin Islands. We would wish to know why such provisions would be applicable to some territories, but not to others.
To conclude, Mr. Chairman,
We are confident that, notwithstanding the present delay, the draft constitution will be ultimately forwarded to the administering power for assessment, as in the case of other
draft constitutions before it. In the end, we recognize that under our present political status the administering power alone will determine the final content of the document
based on its unilateral applicability of laws to our territory. Thus, the delay in the process is especially troubling, and prevents the people of the US Virgin Islands from gaining a better understanding of the parameters of the dependency status as defined in the 21st Century.
We are confident, however, that the political obstacles will be cleared from our path so that we can take this next step along the path towards a full measure of self-government.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
12 October 2009
07 October 2009
CARICOM Appeals for UN Restructuring of Decolonisation Approach
The fourteen members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) have called for a total restructuring of United Nations working methods in decolonisation in the wake of the chronic lack of implementation of the General Assembly mandate over almost two decades.
In a clear and forward-thinking statement on the contemporary decolonisation dilemma facing the international community including the Caribbean, St. Kitts and Nevis Ambassador Delano Bart QC, speaking on behalf of the fourteen independent State CARICOM members, indicated that "it is evident that the present working methods do not lend themselves to implementation of the General Assembly mandate on decolonisation (and) need to be fundamentally revamped."
To accomplish the restructuring, CARICOM, in its statement, called for the relevant sections of the UN budget to be carefully revised to include special mechanisms to bring to bear necessary expert assistance to analyse the contemporary colonial dynamic, and to review the present dependency arrangements in place against the international standards of democratic governance. Such restructuring would have to be accomplished during the ongoing review of the proposed budget for the biennium 2010-11 presently before the UN busgetary committees.
So whilst CARICOM presented an extraordinarily insightful analysis of the state-of-play in UN consideration of the decolonisation process, action must be taken in the UN budgetary process to give effect to this political analysis.
The full CARICOM statement follows:
Statement of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)
to the Fourth Committee of the Unitd Nations
delivred by
H.E. Delano Bart QC
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
Prmanent Mission of St. Kitts and Nevis
to the United Nations
5th October 2009
Mr. Chairman,
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the fourteen members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). We congratulate you and your colleague members of the bureau on your election to lead the work of this committee. CARICOM offers you our full support as we deal collectively with the myriad of special political questions before us.
Mr. Chairman,
Our particular focus is to review the implementation of the decolonisation mandate, and to ascertain any progress made since the 63rd Session. Each year, the General Assembly adopts resolutions on the recommendations of this Committee, which contain concrete measures for advancing the decolonisation process, adding to the lengthy legislative authority already in place.
CARICOM wishes to reiterate its deep concern, that whilst certain internal reforms have been enacted in several territories, precious little progress has been made in actual decolonization, consistent with the recognised legitimate political status options of independence, free association and integration. In the absence of progress, CARICOM is concerned that decolonisation continues to slip further down on the list of United Nations priorities.
This is evidenced in the content of key United Nations reports. The annual Report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organisation, for example, has not made reference to decolonisation for a number of years. The first and only report on implementation of decolonisation resolutions that was to cover the period 1992 to the present (A/64/70) totals a mere five pages, and relies solely on replies from a few member states, whilst containing no information on United Nations system implementation. This is contrasted with detailed reports on other issues which seemingly have a higher priority.
Mr. Chairman,
Since the beginning of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, CARICOM has consistently brought this to the attention of this Committee:
• In 2001, we pointed out that “the information deficit on decolonisation was made far worse by the lack of real, basic analysis…on the constitutional, political and economic situation in the territories,” even as such analyses have been called for in the plan of action throughout the first and second International Decades. Most elements of the plan of action have yet to be carried out.
• In 2006, a mid-term review of the second international decade, conducted by an eminent decolonisation expert, revealed little progress in implementation. Similar conclusions were drawn by representatives of the territories in the various United Nations decolonisation seminars. CARICOM noted in its 2006 statement that “the level of political and constitutional advancement in the non self-governing territories remained insufficient.” It is still insufficient.
• In 2007, CARICOM pointed to a report of the UN Office of Internal Oversight which had concluded that UN consideration of decolonisation had effectively “stalled.” We noted the disregard for the plan of implementation, even as it was endorsed by the General Assembly in 2006 that had identified eight action areas to be undertaken, consistent with system-wide coherence. We further noted the lack of progress in carrying out the mandated case-by-case analyses on each territory, and other achievable actions contained in General Assembly resolutions.
• In 2008, CARICOM emphasized that it was “the very lack of implementation of measures adopted by the General Assembly, which remains the most fundamental impediment to the realisation of decolonisation.” We noted that any innovative measures to re-start the process, such as the use of special mechanisms successfully utilised by other UN bodies, were “curiously resisted on budgetary grounds” even as no budgetary implications were identified.
This is the scenario in 2009, one year before the end of the second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. In this connection, CARICOM concurs with the view expressed by President of the 64rd Session of the General Assembly Dr. Ali Treki who recognised in his inaugural address that the work of the United Nations continues to be hampered by the “obstacle of being unable to implement or enforce its resolutions.”
This is consistent with our concerns, which have always been expressed in the true spirit of constructiveness, that the United Nations work on contemporary decolonisation process, remains in a state of virtual inertia. Unless fundamental action is taken, this world body is complicit in stymieing the legitimate aspirations of Peoples whose fullest human rights it was created to protect and foster.
The United Nations must also be a consistent and accountable check and balance for the Administrators of Territories which have not yet fully achieved decolonisation.’ Decolonisation has moved from the ‘unfinished agenda’ of the United Nations to the ‘un-attended agenda.’ The repetition of resolutions and process year after year, and the publication of reports satisfying bureaucratic deadlines but lacking in sufficient analysis, are not helpful.
Mr. Chairman,
Emerging from the vacuum created by this political environment is an attempt to redefine the non self-governing status as that of self-government. The aim appears to be the hurried removal of these territories from the United Nations list - even as they remain non self-governing. The international community cannot countenance such acts. The verifiable attainment of a full measure of self-government, based on the longstanding United Nations criteria which continues to be relevant today, is what determines whether a territory has achieved self-government and subject to removal from United Nations oversight. The present stalled decolonisation process, however, provides fertile ground for attempts at such “colonial legitimization.”
The United Nations has, thus, arrived at an historical crossroads. We as Member States consistently reaffirm support for the principles of self-determination and decolonisation in our statements, and in our resolutions. But these endorsements are not sufficient if the corresponding mandates are not operationalised. We must decide if we are going to remain true to the relevant provisions of the United Nations Charter governing self-determination and decolonization. If so, we have to re-start the dormant decolonisation process. If not, then we can capitulate to the dubious arguments that would give justification and political cover for the legitimization of contemporary colonialism, and simply declare decolonisation to be complete. In the process, of course, we would have abandoned the very people of the territories whose interests it is our Charter responsibility as Member States to protect.
Six of these territories are in the Caribbean, and are full or associate members of CARICOM and its affiliated institutions. The issue, therefore, is of special importance to us as this dormancy impedes regional integration. It was not so long ago that each of the fourteen CARICOM Member States, and numerous other states around this table, were listed as non self-governing. Many of us only achieved decolonisation through the active support and vigilance of the United Nations. This active support and vigilance has significantly declined, and it is evident that the present working methods do not lend themselves to implementation of the General Assembly mandate on decolonisation. These need to be fundamentally revamped. This restructuring should include the use of special mechanisms, as a matter of urgency, to undertake for the first time a comprehensive examination of the implementation of the decolonisation mandate in order to present a full picture of the present level of progress. It is only then that we may better ensure that the decolonisation mandate can be implemented in a third decade which will be clearly necessary, given the present state-of-play. To this end, the Strategic Framework on Decolonisation, and the proposed programme budget for 2010-2011 should be carefully revised with the aim of achieving real and concrete results.
CARICOM also is willing to work with interested delegations in the modernization of the decolonisation agenda as a whole, beginning with the simplification of the lengthy formal name of the Committee of 24, and the relevant agenda item on assistance to the territories from the United Nations system.
Mr. Chairman,
With respect to the political crisis in the Turks and Caicos Islands, CARICOM has expressed its “profound concern and deep disappointment over the decision of the administering power to dissolve the Government and legislature of the territory, as well as to suspend the right to trial by jury, and to replace the elected government with direct rule by the administering power. We reiterate our position that “the imposition of direct rule is a regrettable forced step backward” for the territory which is an associate member of CARICOM, and that the democratic process cannot be strengthened by removing representative democracy. We remain convinced that it would have been far more beneficial, and the results more sustainable, to involve the people of the territory through their elected representatives in the efforts required to strengthen good governance. Accordingly, CARICOM aligns itself with the position adopted at the 15th Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Non Aligned Movement last July which “called for the urgent restoration of the constitutional government” of the territory.
Mr. Chairman,
CARICOM maintains its longstanding support for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. We take note of the appointment of a new Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General who has visited the region, and who has held consultations with the parties, neighbouring states and other interested countries, on ways to move the process of negotiations forward. CARICOM welcomes the humanitarian efforts of the United Nations Office of High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the World Food Programme (WFP), particularly in providing food aid in the refugee camps, but expresses our concern over the findings of the 2008 assessment that malnutrition remained a major problem. CARICOM concurs with Security Council Resolution 1871 in support of a “just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution which will provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara in the context of arrangements consistent with the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations.” In this connection, we concur with the recommendation of the Extraordinary Summit of the African Union last August which called for the intensification of efforts towards the holding of a referendum to enable the people of the Territory to choose between the option of independence and that of integration into the Kingdom of Morocco.
In closing, Mr. Chairman,
It is often the case that the price of staying the same is far greater than the price of change. We cannot afford to continue to pay the price of delirious repetition without concrete results when it comes to the decolonisation process. Critical change in approach and working methods is vital if the decolonisation mandate is to be realized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In a clear and forward-thinking statement on the contemporary decolonisation dilemma facing the international community including the Caribbean, St. Kitts and Nevis Ambassador Delano Bart QC, speaking on behalf of the fourteen independent State CARICOM members, indicated that "it is evident that the present working methods do not lend themselves to implementation of the General Assembly mandate on decolonisation (and) need to be fundamentally revamped."
To accomplish the restructuring, CARICOM, in its statement, called for the relevant sections of the UN budget to be carefully revised to include special mechanisms to bring to bear necessary expert assistance to analyse the contemporary colonial dynamic, and to review the present dependency arrangements in place against the international standards of democratic governance. Such restructuring would have to be accomplished during the ongoing review of the proposed budget for the biennium 2010-11 presently before the UN busgetary committees.
So whilst CARICOM presented an extraordinarily insightful analysis of the state-of-play in UN consideration of the decolonisation process, action must be taken in the UN budgetary process to give effect to this political analysis.
The full CARICOM statement follows:
Statement of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)
to the Fourth Committee of the Unitd Nations
delivred by
H.E. Delano Bart QC
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
Prmanent Mission of St. Kitts and Nevis
to the United Nations
5th October 2009
Mr. Chairman,
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the fourteen members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). We congratulate you and your colleague members of the bureau on your election to lead the work of this committee. CARICOM offers you our full support as we deal collectively with the myriad of special political questions before us.
Mr. Chairman,
Our particular focus is to review the implementation of the decolonisation mandate, and to ascertain any progress made since the 63rd Session. Each year, the General Assembly adopts resolutions on the recommendations of this Committee, which contain concrete measures for advancing the decolonisation process, adding to the lengthy legislative authority already in place.
CARICOM wishes to reiterate its deep concern, that whilst certain internal reforms have been enacted in several territories, precious little progress has been made in actual decolonization, consistent with the recognised legitimate political status options of independence, free association and integration. In the absence of progress, CARICOM is concerned that decolonisation continues to slip further down on the list of United Nations priorities.
This is evidenced in the content of key United Nations reports. The annual Report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organisation, for example, has not made reference to decolonisation for a number of years. The first and only report on implementation of decolonisation resolutions that was to cover the period 1992 to the present (A/64/70) totals a mere five pages, and relies solely on replies from a few member states, whilst containing no information on United Nations system implementation. This is contrasted with detailed reports on other issues which seemingly have a higher priority.
Mr. Chairman,
Since the beginning of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, CARICOM has consistently brought this to the attention of this Committee:
• In 2001, we pointed out that “the information deficit on decolonisation was made far worse by the lack of real, basic analysis…on the constitutional, political and economic situation in the territories,” even as such analyses have been called for in the plan of action throughout the first and second International Decades. Most elements of the plan of action have yet to be carried out.
• In 2006, a mid-term review of the second international decade, conducted by an eminent decolonisation expert, revealed little progress in implementation. Similar conclusions were drawn by representatives of the territories in the various United Nations decolonisation seminars. CARICOM noted in its 2006 statement that “the level of political and constitutional advancement in the non self-governing territories remained insufficient.” It is still insufficient.
• In 2007, CARICOM pointed to a report of the UN Office of Internal Oversight which had concluded that UN consideration of decolonisation had effectively “stalled.” We noted the disregard for the plan of implementation, even as it was endorsed by the General Assembly in 2006 that had identified eight action areas to be undertaken, consistent with system-wide coherence. We further noted the lack of progress in carrying out the mandated case-by-case analyses on each territory, and other achievable actions contained in General Assembly resolutions.
• In 2008, CARICOM emphasized that it was “the very lack of implementation of measures adopted by the General Assembly, which remains the most fundamental impediment to the realisation of decolonisation.” We noted that any innovative measures to re-start the process, such as the use of special mechanisms successfully utilised by other UN bodies, were “curiously resisted on budgetary grounds” even as no budgetary implications were identified.
This is the scenario in 2009, one year before the end of the second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. In this connection, CARICOM concurs with the view expressed by President of the 64rd Session of the General Assembly Dr. Ali Treki who recognised in his inaugural address that the work of the United Nations continues to be hampered by the “obstacle of being unable to implement or enforce its resolutions.”
This is consistent with our concerns, which have always been expressed in the true spirit of constructiveness, that the United Nations work on contemporary decolonisation process, remains in a state of virtual inertia. Unless fundamental action is taken, this world body is complicit in stymieing the legitimate aspirations of Peoples whose fullest human rights it was created to protect and foster.
The United Nations must also be a consistent and accountable check and balance for the Administrators of Territories which have not yet fully achieved decolonisation.’ Decolonisation has moved from the ‘unfinished agenda’ of the United Nations to the ‘un-attended agenda.’ The repetition of resolutions and process year after year, and the publication of reports satisfying bureaucratic deadlines but lacking in sufficient analysis, are not helpful.
Mr. Chairman,
Emerging from the vacuum created by this political environment is an attempt to redefine the non self-governing status as that of self-government. The aim appears to be the hurried removal of these territories from the United Nations list - even as they remain non self-governing. The international community cannot countenance such acts. The verifiable attainment of a full measure of self-government, based on the longstanding United Nations criteria which continues to be relevant today, is what determines whether a territory has achieved self-government and subject to removal from United Nations oversight. The present stalled decolonisation process, however, provides fertile ground for attempts at such “colonial legitimization.”
The United Nations has, thus, arrived at an historical crossroads. We as Member States consistently reaffirm support for the principles of self-determination and decolonisation in our statements, and in our resolutions. But these endorsements are not sufficient if the corresponding mandates are not operationalised. We must decide if we are going to remain true to the relevant provisions of the United Nations Charter governing self-determination and decolonization. If so, we have to re-start the dormant decolonisation process. If not, then we can capitulate to the dubious arguments that would give justification and political cover for the legitimization of contemporary colonialism, and simply declare decolonisation to be complete. In the process, of course, we would have abandoned the very people of the territories whose interests it is our Charter responsibility as Member States to protect.
Six of these territories are in the Caribbean, and are full or associate members of CARICOM and its affiliated institutions. The issue, therefore, is of special importance to us as this dormancy impedes regional integration. It was not so long ago that each of the fourteen CARICOM Member States, and numerous other states around this table, were listed as non self-governing. Many of us only achieved decolonisation through the active support and vigilance of the United Nations. This active support and vigilance has significantly declined, and it is evident that the present working methods do not lend themselves to implementation of the General Assembly mandate on decolonisation. These need to be fundamentally revamped. This restructuring should include the use of special mechanisms, as a matter of urgency, to undertake for the first time a comprehensive examination of the implementation of the decolonisation mandate in order to present a full picture of the present level of progress. It is only then that we may better ensure that the decolonisation mandate can be implemented in a third decade which will be clearly necessary, given the present state-of-play. To this end, the Strategic Framework on Decolonisation, and the proposed programme budget for 2010-2011 should be carefully revised with the aim of achieving real and concrete results.
CARICOM also is willing to work with interested delegations in the modernization of the decolonisation agenda as a whole, beginning with the simplification of the lengthy formal name of the Committee of 24, and the relevant agenda item on assistance to the territories from the United Nations system.
Mr. Chairman,
With respect to the political crisis in the Turks and Caicos Islands, CARICOM has expressed its “profound concern and deep disappointment over the decision of the administering power to dissolve the Government and legislature of the territory, as well as to suspend the right to trial by jury, and to replace the elected government with direct rule by the administering power. We reiterate our position that “the imposition of direct rule is a regrettable forced step backward” for the territory which is an associate member of CARICOM, and that the democratic process cannot be strengthened by removing representative democracy. We remain convinced that it would have been far more beneficial, and the results more sustainable, to involve the people of the territory through their elected representatives in the efforts required to strengthen good governance. Accordingly, CARICOM aligns itself with the position adopted at the 15th Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Non Aligned Movement last July which “called for the urgent restoration of the constitutional government” of the territory.
Mr. Chairman,
CARICOM maintains its longstanding support for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. We take note of the appointment of a new Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General who has visited the region, and who has held consultations with the parties, neighbouring states and other interested countries, on ways to move the process of negotiations forward. CARICOM welcomes the humanitarian efforts of the United Nations Office of High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the World Food Programme (WFP), particularly in providing food aid in the refugee camps, but expresses our concern over the findings of the 2008 assessment that malnutrition remained a major problem. CARICOM concurs with Security Council Resolution 1871 in support of a “just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution which will provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara in the context of arrangements consistent with the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations.” In this connection, we concur with the recommendation of the Extraordinary Summit of the African Union last August which called for the intensification of efforts towards the holding of a referendum to enable the people of the Territory to choose between the option of independence and that of integration into the Kingdom of Morocco.
In closing, Mr. Chairman,
It is often the case that the price of staying the same is far greater than the price of change. We cannot afford to continue to pay the price of delirious repetition without concrete results when it comes to the decolonisation process. Critical change in approach and working methods is vital if the decolonisation mandate is to be realized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
05 October 2009
UN Fourth Committee Meets on Decolonization
The United Nations (UN) Fourth Committee convened its 2009 session in New York on 5th October. Decolonization is its first item on the agenda of the Committee which is comprised of all 192 UN member states. At the first meeting, statements were made by various member states in their national capacity and on behalf of the respective regional groups.
Various perspectives on the self-determination and decolonization process were to expressed. Non governmental organizations, officials, experts, indigenous peoples groups and private citizens will address the Committee on 6-7 October. Unfortunately, territorial government officials – especially the small island territories - have been all too often absent from the process in recent years, either because of lack of awareness that the UN is meeting to discuss them, or because they are dissuaded from participating by mis-information that the UN is not relevant to their political development process. Either way, their perspective is sorely missed, and gives the impression that the territories are not concerned about their political development. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.
Representatives of many of the UN member states will also present statements in their national capacity or on behalf of their respective regional groups. Most of the statements from member states reiterate support for the principles of self-determination and decolonization, and call on the UN and the administering powers – those nations which administer territories – to carry out their obligations to decolonize the territories based on the UN Charter and relevant UN resolutions.
On the other hand, the tact taken at the Fourth Committee by the administering powers has been to either attempt to justify their colonial stewardship in their statements (as in the case of the United Kingdom), or pretend that the agenda item does not exist and make no statement at all (as in the case of France and United States).
By the end of the debate at week’s end, the eight resolutions forwarded to the 192-member Fourth Committee by the Special Committee of 24 will be ultimately adopted based on a familiar voting pattern. There are upwards of 90 non UN-member speakers, the overwhelming majority on the issue of Western Sahara, along with several on the US Virgin Islands, Guam and New Caledonia. Since the content of the resolutions before the Fourth Committee are hopelessly repetitious, it is unsurprising that the voting pattern would be the same.
The draft resolutions before the Fourth Committee, as in years past, focus on a range of issues affecting the decolonization process including implementation of the Decolonization Declaration, economic and other activities affecting the interests of the people of the territories, dissemination of information on decolonization, information from non self-governing territories and assistance to the territories from the wider UN system. Separate resolutions adopted by the Committee of 24 on individual territories will also be reviewed and adopted by the Fourth Committee covering New Caledonia, Tokelau and Falkland Islands (Malvinas).
The Committee of 24 also annually addresses the territories of Gibraltar and Western Sahara, making no recommendations on them, leaving the task to the Fourth Committee to consider, and to adopt respective resolutions The opposition leader of Gibraltar is scheduled to speak. The real question is whether it is self-determination of the people in the territory, or the sovereignty dispute between the respective parties, that takes precedence. This is applicable to territories such as Gibraltar, Western Sahara and Falkland Islands (Malvinas).
Of course, there is the question of who constitutes ‘the people.’ Is the indigenous population who may have been forcibly relocated from their homeland considered ‘the people,’ or does this also (or instead) apply to the settlers and their descendants who may have replaced the indigenous population, or diluted their numbers? This is one of the arguments in relation to Falklands Islands/Malvinas, and an issue which has also complicated the situation in Western Sahara in relation to the inability to register ‘eligible’ voters for the long-postponed referendum, even as the International Court of Justice made a ruling on the issue in 1975.
An important resolution before the Fourth Committee is the ‘consolidated’ text which groups eleven small territories into one long resolution. This is contrasted with the eleven separate shorter resolutions which prevailed until the beginning of the 1990s in the immediate post - Cold War United Nations reform when decolonization was almost ‘reformed’ totally off the UN agenda. The consolidated resolution, thus, covers American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, St. Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and the US Virgin Islands. It has long since been forgotten as to why these particular territories are grouped together in one resolution while others have their own separate resolutions.
The Committee of 24 also adopts a resolution on Puerto Rico each year. That territory is not formally on the UN list, but its non self-governing nature demands that it be discussed at the Committee of 24. It helps that Puerto Rico has some 4 million people with a politically astute populace, and vocal and highly organized political parties where options on political status are the basis of partisan affiliation. Inexplicably, the resolution adopted on Puerto Rico by the Committee of 24 is not forwarded to the Fourth Committee for adoption – even as the resolution itself “requests the General Assembly to consider the question of Puerto Rico in all its aspects.”
On the other hand, the ‘consolidated resolution’ of non self-governing territories that is forwarded to the Fourth Committee includes a general section with recommendations applicable to all the eleven territories. This is followed by individual sections on each territory. Both the general and individual sections are carefully drafted to refrain from the inclusion of any information to which the administering powers might object – after all, it is consensus adoption (without a vote) that is the most important result of this process, as opposed to the sufficiency of substance or the implementation of any of the recommendations.
There are also resolutions which routinely are voted upon, and it is unclear why some countries habitually vote against such issues as assistance to the territories from the UN system, or economic activities which might impede the decolonization process.
Theoretically, amendments can be offered to some resolutions in order to provide updates on new developments, but this is rarely done, and only if all member states agree beforehand, resulting in weak amendments. The resolutions in the Committee of 24 are dutifully adopted with little or no discussion from year to year, with the only change being that of the dates in the text (this serves to ‘update’ the resolution). This mind-numbing process reflects the over-emphasis on achieving consensus, almost at any cost – that is, the lowest common denominator. Thus, if the text of the resolution is adopted one year, it is easier to adopt the same text the next year (and the next year, and the next, and on, and on, and… like that…). Implementation of any of the resolutions, from year to year, doesn’t appear to be a consideration.
It is all reminiscent of the film “Groundhog Day” where each day is repeated, ad infinitum. In this case, the session ends with the adoption of the resolutions by the UN General Assembly in December, and the following January represents a new beginning as an exact repetition of the previous year (sort of a Star Trek Next Generation time loop). So it goes.
As the President of the 63rd Session of the UN General Assembly Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann said in his final statement in September, “the time of reform of the UN has passed,” and the institution needs to be “re-invented.” OTR fully endorses this view, especially as it relates to decolonization, and we have consistently expanded on this perspective over the last decade. Readers can research our archives under ‘decolonisation’ or ‘decolonization’ (depending on your preferred grammatical usage).
Since the UN process remains the same, any OTR analysis already included in our archives would explain the situation. Pick a year. We certainly do not wish to repeat ourselves.
As it has been written in regards to other issues in the international arena, how the United Nations deals with decolonization has become “a sterile exercise, a game of pretense played to avoid what is meant to be achieved." Nevertheless, OTR will cover the 2009 session of the Fourth Committee, not because we harbor any illusions that the process will change, but rather because our readership demands to be kept abreast.
Various perspectives on the self-determination and decolonization process were to expressed. Non governmental organizations, officials, experts, indigenous peoples groups and private citizens will address the Committee on 6-7 October. Unfortunately, territorial government officials – especially the small island territories - have been all too often absent from the process in recent years, either because of lack of awareness that the UN is meeting to discuss them, or because they are dissuaded from participating by mis-information that the UN is not relevant to their political development process. Either way, their perspective is sorely missed, and gives the impression that the territories are not concerned about their political development. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.
Representatives of many of the UN member states will also present statements in their national capacity or on behalf of their respective regional groups. Most of the statements from member states reiterate support for the principles of self-determination and decolonization, and call on the UN and the administering powers – those nations which administer territories – to carry out their obligations to decolonize the territories based on the UN Charter and relevant UN resolutions.
On the other hand, the tact taken at the Fourth Committee by the administering powers has been to either attempt to justify their colonial stewardship in their statements (as in the case of the United Kingdom), or pretend that the agenda item does not exist and make no statement at all (as in the case of France and United States).
By the end of the debate at week’s end, the eight resolutions forwarded to the 192-member Fourth Committee by the Special Committee of 24 will be ultimately adopted based on a familiar voting pattern. There are upwards of 90 non UN-member speakers, the overwhelming majority on the issue of Western Sahara, along with several on the US Virgin Islands, Guam and New Caledonia. Since the content of the resolutions before the Fourth Committee are hopelessly repetitious, it is unsurprising that the voting pattern would be the same.
The draft resolutions before the Fourth Committee, as in years past, focus on a range of issues affecting the decolonization process including implementation of the Decolonization Declaration, economic and other activities affecting the interests of the people of the territories, dissemination of information on decolonization, information from non self-governing territories and assistance to the territories from the wider UN system. Separate resolutions adopted by the Committee of 24 on individual territories will also be reviewed and adopted by the Fourth Committee covering New Caledonia, Tokelau and Falkland Islands (Malvinas).
The Committee of 24 also annually addresses the territories of Gibraltar and Western Sahara, making no recommendations on them, leaving the task to the Fourth Committee to consider, and to adopt respective resolutions The opposition leader of Gibraltar is scheduled to speak. The real question is whether it is self-determination of the people in the territory, or the sovereignty dispute between the respective parties, that takes precedence. This is applicable to territories such as Gibraltar, Western Sahara and Falkland Islands (Malvinas).
Of course, there is the question of who constitutes ‘the people.’ Is the indigenous population who may have been forcibly relocated from their homeland considered ‘the people,’ or does this also (or instead) apply to the settlers and their descendants who may have replaced the indigenous population, or diluted their numbers? This is one of the arguments in relation to Falklands Islands/Malvinas, and an issue which has also complicated the situation in Western Sahara in relation to the inability to register ‘eligible’ voters for the long-postponed referendum, even as the International Court of Justice made a ruling on the issue in 1975.
An important resolution before the Fourth Committee is the ‘consolidated’ text which groups eleven small territories into one long resolution. This is contrasted with the eleven separate shorter resolutions which prevailed until the beginning of the 1990s in the immediate post - Cold War United Nations reform when decolonization was almost ‘reformed’ totally off the UN agenda. The consolidated resolution, thus, covers American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, St. Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and the US Virgin Islands. It has long since been forgotten as to why these particular territories are grouped together in one resolution while others have their own separate resolutions.
The Committee of 24 also adopts a resolution on Puerto Rico each year. That territory is not formally on the UN list, but its non self-governing nature demands that it be discussed at the Committee of 24. It helps that Puerto Rico has some 4 million people with a politically astute populace, and vocal and highly organized political parties where options on political status are the basis of partisan affiliation. Inexplicably, the resolution adopted on Puerto Rico by the Committee of 24 is not forwarded to the Fourth Committee for adoption – even as the resolution itself “requests the General Assembly to consider the question of Puerto Rico in all its aspects.”
On the other hand, the ‘consolidated resolution’ of non self-governing territories that is forwarded to the Fourth Committee includes a general section with recommendations applicable to all the eleven territories. This is followed by individual sections on each territory. Both the general and individual sections are carefully drafted to refrain from the inclusion of any information to which the administering powers might object – after all, it is consensus adoption (without a vote) that is the most important result of this process, as opposed to the sufficiency of substance or the implementation of any of the recommendations.
There are also resolutions which routinely are voted upon, and it is unclear why some countries habitually vote against such issues as assistance to the territories from the UN system, or economic activities which might impede the decolonization process.
Theoretically, amendments can be offered to some resolutions in order to provide updates on new developments, but this is rarely done, and only if all member states agree beforehand, resulting in weak amendments. The resolutions in the Committee of 24 are dutifully adopted with little or no discussion from year to year, with the only change being that of the dates in the text (this serves to ‘update’ the resolution). This mind-numbing process reflects the over-emphasis on achieving consensus, almost at any cost – that is, the lowest common denominator. Thus, if the text of the resolution is adopted one year, it is easier to adopt the same text the next year (and the next year, and the next, and on, and on, and… like that…). Implementation of any of the resolutions, from year to year, doesn’t appear to be a consideration.
It is all reminiscent of the film “Groundhog Day” where each day is repeated, ad infinitum. In this case, the session ends with the adoption of the resolutions by the UN General Assembly in December, and the following January represents a new beginning as an exact repetition of the previous year (sort of a Star Trek Next Generation time loop). So it goes.
As the President of the 63rd Session of the UN General Assembly Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann said in his final statement in September, “the time of reform of the UN has passed,” and the institution needs to be “re-invented.” OTR fully endorses this view, especially as it relates to decolonization, and we have consistently expanded on this perspective over the last decade. Readers can research our archives under ‘decolonisation’ or ‘decolonization’ (depending on your preferred grammatical usage).
Since the UN process remains the same, any OTR analysis already included in our archives would explain the situation. Pick a year. We certainly do not wish to repeat ourselves.
As it has been written in regards to other issues in the international arena, how the United Nations deals with decolonization has become “a sterile exercise, a game of pretense played to avoid what is meant to be achieved." Nevertheless, OTR will cover the 2009 session of the Fourth Committee, not because we harbor any illusions that the process will change, but rather because our readership demands to be kept abreast.
02 October 2009
Caribbean - Puerto Rico Economic Relations Explored
CAGUAS, PUERTO RICO, OCTOBER 1ST 2009 (CUOPM) – St. Kitts and Nevis Prime Minister Hon. Dr. Denzil L. Douglas says a three-day exhibition and trade fair in the Puerto Rican city of Caguas signifies a new level of interaction that United States commonwealth and the member countries of the Eastern Caribbean states.
Addressing the` cream if the Caguas business community at a dinner in his honour Wednesday night at the Performing Arts Center, Prime Minister Douglas said the participation of the OECS in ExpoCaguas 2009, represents new efforts to develop practical and mutual relations between Puerto Rico and the Eastern Caribbean countries.
“I believe that in the short to medium terms such relations would facilitate enhanced trade, tourism and general business between our countries. Such has important implications for the further strengthening of the Caribbean, and specifically for Puerto Rico and the Eastern Caribbean states. ExpoCaguas 2009 can be perceived as the latest spark in the new building processes between us. Moreover, it gives reality to earlier and significant initiatives that were undertaken between Puerto Rico and the OECS including the establishment in 2006 of an OECS Office with consular attributes, here in Puerto Rico,” said Prime Minister Douglas, who earlier in the day attended the opening ceremony and visited the booths including several from St. Kitts and Nevis and OECS states.
Dr. Douglas, who is also the current Chairman of the OECS Authority, said Caguas and its many industries and services are an ideal point of contact for Eastern Caribbean business interests.
“It is potentially a point of contact for the mutual cooperation and exploration of a wide array of products, services, tourism and investment. Through events as ExpoCaguas, and other initiatives, we can safely say that we have begun a process that can only lead to the further improvement in the quality of life for people in our various countries. Our Caribbean islands have had a common historical background that was anchored in agricultural commodities such as sugar, bananas, coffee, cotton, tobacco and rum. Our trading relations in the late 20th Century reflected those bonds between the Caribbean, Europe and the United States,” he said.
He noted that the traditional economic ties today are being broken in an environment of trade liberalization and globalization. and small island economies, is both a potential benefit as well as a real challenge.
Prime Minister Douglas is of the view that the Caribbean can no longer afford to be inward looking but must solidly become an effective player on the global stage by maximizing advantages and effectively presenting them to the world.
Addressing the` cream if the Caguas business community at a dinner in his honour Wednesday night at the Performing Arts Center, Prime Minister Douglas said the participation of the OECS in ExpoCaguas 2009, represents new efforts to develop practical and mutual relations between Puerto Rico and the Eastern Caribbean countries.
“I believe that in the short to medium terms such relations would facilitate enhanced trade, tourism and general business between our countries. Such has important implications for the further strengthening of the Caribbean, and specifically for Puerto Rico and the Eastern Caribbean states. ExpoCaguas 2009 can be perceived as the latest spark in the new building processes between us. Moreover, it gives reality to earlier and significant initiatives that were undertaken between Puerto Rico and the OECS including the establishment in 2006 of an OECS Office with consular attributes, here in Puerto Rico,” said Prime Minister Douglas, who earlier in the day attended the opening ceremony and visited the booths including several from St. Kitts and Nevis and OECS states.
Dr. Douglas, who is also the current Chairman of the OECS Authority, said Caguas and its many industries and services are an ideal point of contact for Eastern Caribbean business interests.
“It is potentially a point of contact for the mutual cooperation and exploration of a wide array of products, services, tourism and investment. Through events as ExpoCaguas, and other initiatives, we can safely say that we have begun a process that can only lead to the further improvement in the quality of life for people in our various countries. Our Caribbean islands have had a common historical background that was anchored in agricultural commodities such as sugar, bananas, coffee, cotton, tobacco and rum. Our trading relations in the late 20th Century reflected those bonds between the Caribbean, Europe and the United States,” he said.
He noted that the traditional economic ties today are being broken in an environment of trade liberalization and globalization. and small island economies, is both a potential benefit as well as a real challenge.
Prime Minister Douglas is of the view that the Caribbean can no longer afford to be inward looking but must solidly become an effective player on the global stage by maximizing advantages and effectively presenting them to the world.
22 September 2009
American Samoa Constitutional Review Begins
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR – AMERICAN SAMOA
PRESS RELEASE
(UTULEI) – Governor Togiola T.A.Tulafono today officially opened the American Samoa Constitutional Convention Review Office at the Lumana’i Building in Fagatogo.
In a brief ceremony attended by Lieutenant Governor Faoa A. Sunia, Senate President Gaoteote Palaie Tofau, House Speaker Savali Talavou Ale, Eastern District Governor Gaoteote Tapatonu, Manua’a District Governor Misaalefua J. Hudson, cabinet members and traditional leaders, Governor Togiola said the opening of the American Samoa Constitutional Convention review Office is a momentous occasion for the people of the Territory it is the start of “the work that will determine our road to the future.”
The following is the official text of Governor Togiola’s speech at the opening:
OPENING OF AMERICAN SAMOA
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
REVIEW OFFICE
September 17, 2009
Lumana’i Building, Fagatogo
In this year, in the opening of this office, to guide the way for us as we progress towards the convention hearing and the deliberations over our constitution, this is a momentous day and a momentous occasion for our people and our country because today we are beginning the work that will determine our road to the future.
What are we to do from this point forward? Our forefathers handed to us a government that we have lived under for 109 years, in comfort and in good relations, since 1947 when we were allowed the first legislation to determine the laws that guide our government and our people and through 1977, when we inaugurated our first governor and lieutenant governor.
The way was paved towards self determination and more independence for our own people. Since 1977 the deterioration of self determination has begun, as more and more of the authority that was given to us is once again taken away bit by bit, piece by piece and there is more to come.
We’ve been told that it’s coming. Now the decision as we go forward to this constitutional deliberation is: What are we to do?
Do we abandon our lives as Samoans and go as full citizenship of the US, and live as US citizens, with the freedom that is accorded to that blessing or do we maintain the lives as Samoans in our culture, language, and people? It’s not going to be an easy decision; it’s going to be one of the most difficult things we have to do, for this decision is going to be the road map for the future generations of our people.
So for those of you who will be working here, and all of you who will be delegates in this Constitutional Convention, I want everyone to think very hard about what’s coming to us. It’s not going to be easy. It will be the most significant step that we will have to take since we first adopted our constitution in the 1960s.
Ladies and gentleman,
It’s my pleasure to open this office today and to begin the work towards our self determination in the constitutional convention that will be coming in the later months of the year.
I want to thank the Lieutenant Governor, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and all the directors and all of you who are here, the District Governors and everyone who has given time to participate this morning, in the opening of this office.
I want to thank the “tapuaiga” in our territory today, and I hope that it is only a matter of time when I will continue to call this place a territory, and we will call it something more significant than just a territory of another nation.
PRESS RELEASE
(UTULEI) – Governor Togiola T.A.Tulafono today officially opened the American Samoa Constitutional Convention Review Office at the Lumana’i Building in Fagatogo.
In a brief ceremony attended by Lieutenant Governor Faoa A. Sunia, Senate President Gaoteote Palaie Tofau, House Speaker Savali Talavou Ale, Eastern District Governor Gaoteote Tapatonu, Manua’a District Governor Misaalefua J. Hudson, cabinet members and traditional leaders, Governor Togiola said the opening of the American Samoa Constitutional Convention review Office is a momentous occasion for the people of the Territory it is the start of “the work that will determine our road to the future.”
The following is the official text of Governor Togiola’s speech at the opening:
OPENING OF AMERICAN SAMOA
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
REVIEW OFFICE
September 17, 2009
Lumana’i Building, Fagatogo
In this year, in the opening of this office, to guide the way for us as we progress towards the convention hearing and the deliberations over our constitution, this is a momentous day and a momentous occasion for our people and our country because today we are beginning the work that will determine our road to the future.
What are we to do from this point forward? Our forefathers handed to us a government that we have lived under for 109 years, in comfort and in good relations, since 1947 when we were allowed the first legislation to determine the laws that guide our government and our people and through 1977, when we inaugurated our first governor and lieutenant governor.
The way was paved towards self determination and more independence for our own people. Since 1977 the deterioration of self determination has begun, as more and more of the authority that was given to us is once again taken away bit by bit, piece by piece and there is more to come.
We’ve been told that it’s coming. Now the decision as we go forward to this constitutional deliberation is: What are we to do?
Do we abandon our lives as Samoans and go as full citizenship of the US, and live as US citizens, with the freedom that is accorded to that blessing or do we maintain the lives as Samoans in our culture, language, and people? It’s not going to be an easy decision; it’s going to be one of the most difficult things we have to do, for this decision is going to be the road map for the future generations of our people.
So for those of you who will be working here, and all of you who will be delegates in this Constitutional Convention, I want everyone to think very hard about what’s coming to us. It’s not going to be easy. It will be the most significant step that we will have to take since we first adopted our constitution in the 1960s.
Ladies and gentleman,
It’s my pleasure to open this office today and to begin the work towards our self determination in the constitutional convention that will be coming in the later months of the year.
I want to thank the Lieutenant Governor, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and all the directors and all of you who are here, the District Governors and everyone who has given time to participate this morning, in the opening of this office.
I want to thank the “tapuaiga” in our territory today, and I hope that it is only a matter of time when I will continue to call this place a territory, and we will call it something more significant than just a territory of another nation.
16 September 2009
Dutch Caribbean-Scandanavian Tax Agreements
The Nordic countries today signed information-exchange treaties on taxation with Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles. The new agreements are part of a campaign led by the Nordic Council of Ministers to encourage greater efforts to prevent international tax evasion. The information was released by Norden, the official co-operation organisation in the Nordic region.
The treaties provide the tax authorities with access to all information about citizens who try to avoid paying tax on income and capital investments and who have undeclared assets in their home countries. The information covered includes details of the real ownership of companies, i.e. throughout the entire ownership chain, details of the founders, trustees and beneficiaries of trusts and information held by banks and financial institutions.
The treaties were signed at ceremonies today at the Danish (Aruba) and Finnish (Netherlands Antilles) embassies in Paris. They are part of a major ongoing project by the Council of Ministers and similar deals have already been struck with the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands.
Denmark has recently signed agreements with Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Gibraltar, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, and the Turks and Caicos Islands. Other Nordic countries are scheduled to sign agreements with these states soon. The Faroe Islands also signed a treaty with San Marino today. Negotiations continue with many other states.
Such agreements with the Nordic countries are part of the ongoing efforts by Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles to implement the OECD’s standards for transparency and information exchange on tax issues. Aruba has completed 12 such agreements and the Netherlands Antilles 15. As a result, both states are now effectively considered to be compliant with OECD requirements.
The treaties provide the tax authorities with access to all information about citizens who try to avoid paying tax on income and capital investments and who have undeclared assets in their home countries. The information covered includes details of the real ownership of companies, i.e. throughout the entire ownership chain, details of the founders, trustees and beneficiaries of trusts and information held by banks and financial institutions.
The treaties were signed at ceremonies today at the Danish (Aruba) and Finnish (Netherlands Antilles) embassies in Paris. They are part of a major ongoing project by the Council of Ministers and similar deals have already been struck with the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands.
Denmark has recently signed agreements with Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Gibraltar, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, and the Turks and Caicos Islands. Other Nordic countries are scheduled to sign agreements with these states soon. The Faroe Islands also signed a treaty with San Marino today. Negotiations continue with many other states.
Such agreements with the Nordic countries are part of the ongoing efforts by Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles to implement the OECD’s standards for transparency and information exchange on tax issues. Aruba has completed 12 such agreements and the Netherlands Antilles 15. As a result, both states are now effectively considered to be compliant with OECD requirements.
25 August 2009
Re-Colonising the Colony
Direct British Rule in the Turks & Caicos Islands
The international community is coming to grips with the “colonial coup d’ état” perpetuated by the United Kingdom in the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI), one of six British-administered colonies in the Atlantic/ Caribbean. The United Kingdom Order in Council, issued in March and brought into force in August, suspends parts of the constitution of the territory for two years. But what is being termed a ‘partial suspension’ actually abolishes the Cabinet and House of Assembly, as well as trial by jury, and transfers a range of other areas of authority to the UK Government through its un-elected governor who now has unbridled power to govern at will. There is hardly anything left of substance that has not been “suspended.”
The introduction of an advisory council to ‘advise’ the British governor hardly serves as a substitute for democratic governance, since the governor does not have to accept the advice. Still, some seek to project this scenario as a palatable and necessary alternative. Ironically, the very fact that constitutional order can be abolished in this manner by reverting to one-man, unelected rule should thoroughly negate any suggestion by colonial apologists and accommodationists that the territories should be considered self-governing, and therefore removed from the United Nations list of non self-governing territories.
The key lesson to be learned in all of this, perhaps, lies in the broader picture. Colonial governance, even by delegation of authority to an elected legislature, remains colonialism nevertheless. Thus, the evolution of elected government in a dependency can always be reversed – for whatever reason - as evidenced by what has taken place in the TCI, even as alleged financial transgressions are just cause for scrutiny. The point to be made is that elected dependency governance still provides for the overriding authority of an administering power acting through its un-elected governor to disallow any legislation adopted by the elected legislative body. This only serves to confirm the colonial nature of the arrangement. The veto power of the un-elected Governor renders the dependency political arrangement anything but democratic, and the removal of the governance structures in the Turks and Caicos, e.g. House of Assembly, Cabinet, etc. simply exposes the colonial arrangement for all to witness.
The reaction to these events has been steady. Following the announcement of the order in council last March, former Premier Michael Misick expressed that “it is wrong in the 21st Century to have an entire population re-colonised in this fashion…” and called on “both political parties to put all political differences aside and come together to protect the rights, interest and aspirations of all of our people.” Apparently, the opposition didn’t support this approach, and continued to blame the ruling party for the political crisis. A government of national unity could have been a constitutional way out. Misick made the point that the people’s right to self-determination under international law were being violated, and waged a battle in the UK High Court of Justice on this point citing the European Convention on Human Rights which the UK has made applicable to the TCI. The UK subsequently informed the High Court that it would soon issue a reservation to the Convention removing its applicability to the TCI. Amazing. (They can do that? wow… and they call it a democracy?) The matter may well end up in the European Court of Human Rights, or another international human rights review body.
Misick’s successor Premier Galmo Williams also called for political unity between the two political parties, but was also rebuffed by the opposition. His Cockburn Town Declaration on ongoing and proposed initiatives to address the issues raised in the Report of the UK Commission of Inquiry (funded from the TCI treasury) was subsequently rejected by the UK. Williams later explained the ongoing crisis to the United Nations Caribbean Regional Seminar on Decolonisation which convened in St. Kitts in May where he announced his call for new elections, and where he asked the UN to continue monitor the situation. Shortly thereafter, Williams formally requested the British governor to dissolve the House of Assembly pursuant to the constitution, and set new elections for October. In the swiftest of replies, the Governor summarily rejected the Premier’s request to resolve the issues through democratic means. On the eve of the suspension of elected government, Williams observed that the action “puts (the UK) on the wrong side of history…and was not done because it was the right thing to do nor because it was necessary, but rather it is being taken because they are able to do such things in a country of our size and status.”
International Response
Response to the action from Caribbean leaders and the regional media was immediate. The Jamaica Gleaner in a March editorial opined that the “overthrow” of the TCI constitution “represents the most regressive constitutional action by the British in the Caribbean since their 1968 intervention in Anguilla…” The Stabroek News of Guyana in an August editorial following the takeover commented that the UK “should have consulted with CARICOM governments on ways acceptable, not simply to the British and North Atlantic governments, but also to the citizens and governments of the region itself…” For its part, the Economist of London published an August article on the issue under the headline “A Very British Coup.”
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham of The Bahamas, a close neighbor of the TCI, proposed in a session of his country’s parliament that separate Caribbean country representations be made to the British Government.” The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) in a statement last March expressed concern that the proposed actions “threaten(ed) the democratic process in the TCI…in effect, thwarting the will of the people.” The March CARICOM statement went on to emphasise that “…good governance, the rule of law and representative democracy can(not) be ensured or strengthened by constitutional suspension in the TCI and a return to direct rule by the colonial power through its governor.” Following the coup, CARICOM issued a second statement in August expressing that “the imposition of direct rule by the Governor is a regrettable forced step backwards,” and that “it would have been far more beneficial, and the results more sustainable, to involve the people of the territory through their elected representatives, in the efforts required to strengthen the good governance and public administrative processes of the Turks and Caicos Islands, which is the stated ultimate goal of the British Government.”
Some Caribbean scholars have suggested an immediate suspension of the territory’s associate membership in CARICOM until democracy is restored, a la the suspension of Honduras from the Organisation of American States following the suspension of democracy in that country. Such a move would be in the best interest of the territory, as well as CARICOM, since the spectre of a representative of the un-elected ‘government’ in the TCI seeking entry into meetings of the CARICOM ministerial council should be actively avoided.
Meanwhile, former Bahamian Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell took the tack that “Britain as the colonial power in the Turks and Caicos Islands has the responsibility not only for the economic development and well being of the territory, but also its political development,” and that the situation “speaks not only to the failure of the internal mechanisms of governance, but also to failures on the part of the colonial power.” He noted that even the UK itself had recently seen a crisis in governance as a result of corruption, but this did not require the suspension of democracy.
Response from other UK-administered territories was also forthcoming. Chief Minister Lowell Lewis of Montserrat said that the TCI “did not deserve to have their democratic rights suspended.” Bermuda Premier Ewart Brown was the first to comment on the initial order in council last March expressing deep disappointment with the situation. Bermuda Senator C. Walton Brown most recently described the UK action as “clearly excessive,” and a huge overreaction which has taken away the democratic rights of the TCI.
Emerging United Nations Response
All of this places the United Nations in an interesting position, especially given the adoption on 30th June by the United Nations General Assembly of a unanimous resolution on the “Situation in Honduras: democracy in breakdown.” The resolution expressed “grave concern” for the “breakdown in the constitutional and democratic order and the legitimate exercise of power in Honduras.” The resolution went on to “condemn the coup d’état in the Republic of Honduras that has interrupted the democratic and constitutional order of the legitimate exercise of power…,” and demand(ed) the immediate and unconstitutional restoration of the legitimate and constitutional government…and of the legally constituted authority…”
It was always understood that these principles of democratic governance are supposed to apply to non self-governing territories that do not exercise sovereignty, as well as to sovereign countries. In fact, such principles are even more critical to those territories which ‘govern’ only on the basis of a reversible delegation of power from an administering authority thousands of miles away. Whether there will be a UN resolution on the suspension of democracy in the TCI at the 64th Session of the General Assembly in September similar to the resolution on Honduras remains to be seen. Yet, the Ministerial Meeting of the Non Aligned Movement Coordinating Bureau at its 2009 meeting in Havana last April provided the clearest position on the matter in calling for “the urgent restoration of the constitutional government in the TCI.” Shall we expect a draft resolution introduced by NAM to the General Assembly in September calling for constitutional restoration in the TCI?
Thus far, the United Nations has had several opportunities to make their views known on the political crisis in the TCI - a territory squarely under its purview. Thus far, however, the silence has been deafening, leaving the UK with a politically free hand to act with impunity. In the meantime, the emerging political crisis in the TCI has saddened advocates of contemporary decolonisation for the remaining non self-governing including Bermuda, Cayman Islands, the British and United States Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Anguilla in the Caribbean; along with Guam, American Samoa and New Caledonia in the Pacific. All exist under similar democratically deficient arrangements as the Turks and Caicos Islands, and are all subject to the same unilateral authority by an “administering power.”
At the 2009 UN Regional Seminar in St. Kitts and Nevis last May, TCI Premier Williams took great pains to explain the crisis and the proposed remedies of his elected government. Yet, the final report of the session made no mention of the crisis in the territory nor the position of the elected Premier. One month later in June, the Special Committee on Decolonisation apparently entertained the inclusion of language in its resolution on the TCI which referred to the UK decision to replace the democratic process, the position of the Premier as expressed in the Caribbean regional seminar of the same committee, and the positions of CARICOM and the Non Aligned Movement, while ultimately calling for the reversal of the decision to abolish the territorial government. This would, of course, have reflected the objective reality in a territory where the promotion of self-government is supposed toi be the primary role of the UN committee. However, the proposed language was not included in the resolution, and what remained was a mere restatement of previous resolutions on the TCI – as if nothing was going on there (amazing).
The UK, thus, had sufficient ‘political cover’ to act in the manner it did knowing that the UN response from the Decolonisation Committee would be weak. Decades ago, the announcement of the impending suspension of constitutional order in a non self-governing under the watchful eyes of the Decolonisation Committee would have elicited an immediate emergency meeting of the Committee with a strong resolution on the issue. In the present day, what is seen is a form of reverse decolonisation via committee efforts to prevent such a proactive approach whilst seeking to legitimise colonialism and remove the territories from UN review. No wonder only one territory has achieved self-government over the last several decades. Perhaps it is left to the General Assembly to speak loudly on the issue given the cautious timidity of its Decolonisation Committee. The 64th Session could be most interesting on this matter, but only if the governments make the issue a priority.
United Nations Charter
Chapter XI:
Declaration regarding Non Self-Governing Territories
Article 73:
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognise the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:
.....
b. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Entered into force: 23 March 1976
Part I, Article 1.
1. All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
The international community is coming to grips with the “colonial coup d’ état” perpetuated by the United Kingdom in the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI), one of six British-administered colonies in the Atlantic/ Caribbean. The United Kingdom Order in Council, issued in March and brought into force in August, suspends parts of the constitution of the territory for two years. But what is being termed a ‘partial suspension’ actually abolishes the Cabinet and House of Assembly, as well as trial by jury, and transfers a range of other areas of authority to the UK Government through its un-elected governor who now has unbridled power to govern at will. There is hardly anything left of substance that has not been “suspended.”
The introduction of an advisory council to ‘advise’ the British governor hardly serves as a substitute for democratic governance, since the governor does not have to accept the advice. Still, some seek to project this scenario as a palatable and necessary alternative. Ironically, the very fact that constitutional order can be abolished in this manner by reverting to one-man, unelected rule should thoroughly negate any suggestion by colonial apologists and accommodationists that the territories should be considered self-governing, and therefore removed from the United Nations list of non self-governing territories.
The key lesson to be learned in all of this, perhaps, lies in the broader picture. Colonial governance, even by delegation of authority to an elected legislature, remains colonialism nevertheless. Thus, the evolution of elected government in a dependency can always be reversed – for whatever reason - as evidenced by what has taken place in the TCI, even as alleged financial transgressions are just cause for scrutiny. The point to be made is that elected dependency governance still provides for the overriding authority of an administering power acting through its un-elected governor to disallow any legislation adopted by the elected legislative body. This only serves to confirm the colonial nature of the arrangement. The veto power of the un-elected Governor renders the dependency political arrangement anything but democratic, and the removal of the governance structures in the Turks and Caicos, e.g. House of Assembly, Cabinet, etc. simply exposes the colonial arrangement for all to witness.
The reaction to these events has been steady. Following the announcement of the order in council last March, former Premier Michael Misick expressed that “it is wrong in the 21st Century to have an entire population re-colonised in this fashion…” and called on “both political parties to put all political differences aside and come together to protect the rights, interest and aspirations of all of our people.” Apparently, the opposition didn’t support this approach, and continued to blame the ruling party for the political crisis. A government of national unity could have been a constitutional way out. Misick made the point that the people’s right to self-determination under international law were being violated, and waged a battle in the UK High Court of Justice on this point citing the European Convention on Human Rights which the UK has made applicable to the TCI. The UK subsequently informed the High Court that it would soon issue a reservation to the Convention removing its applicability to the TCI. Amazing. (They can do that? wow… and they call it a democracy?) The matter may well end up in the European Court of Human Rights, or another international human rights review body.
Misick’s successor Premier Galmo Williams also called for political unity between the two political parties, but was also rebuffed by the opposition. His Cockburn Town Declaration on ongoing and proposed initiatives to address the issues raised in the Report of the UK Commission of Inquiry (funded from the TCI treasury) was subsequently rejected by the UK. Williams later explained the ongoing crisis to the United Nations Caribbean Regional Seminar on Decolonisation which convened in St. Kitts in May where he announced his call for new elections, and where he asked the UN to continue monitor the situation. Shortly thereafter, Williams formally requested the British governor to dissolve the House of Assembly pursuant to the constitution, and set new elections for October. In the swiftest of replies, the Governor summarily rejected the Premier’s request to resolve the issues through democratic means. On the eve of the suspension of elected government, Williams observed that the action “puts (the UK) on the wrong side of history…and was not done because it was the right thing to do nor because it was necessary, but rather it is being taken because they are able to do such things in a country of our size and status.”
International Response
Response to the action from Caribbean leaders and the regional media was immediate. The Jamaica Gleaner in a March editorial opined that the “overthrow” of the TCI constitution “represents the most regressive constitutional action by the British in the Caribbean since their 1968 intervention in Anguilla…” The Stabroek News of Guyana in an August editorial following the takeover commented that the UK “should have consulted with CARICOM governments on ways acceptable, not simply to the British and North Atlantic governments, but also to the citizens and governments of the region itself…” For its part, the Economist of London published an August article on the issue under the headline “A Very British Coup.”
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham of The Bahamas, a close neighbor of the TCI, proposed in a session of his country’s parliament that separate Caribbean country representations be made to the British Government.” The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) in a statement last March expressed concern that the proposed actions “threaten(ed) the democratic process in the TCI…in effect, thwarting the will of the people.” The March CARICOM statement went on to emphasise that “…good governance, the rule of law and representative democracy can(not) be ensured or strengthened by constitutional suspension in the TCI and a return to direct rule by the colonial power through its governor.” Following the coup, CARICOM issued a second statement in August expressing that “the imposition of direct rule by the Governor is a regrettable forced step backwards,” and that “it would have been far more beneficial, and the results more sustainable, to involve the people of the territory through their elected representatives, in the efforts required to strengthen the good governance and public administrative processes of the Turks and Caicos Islands, which is the stated ultimate goal of the British Government.”
Some Caribbean scholars have suggested an immediate suspension of the territory’s associate membership in CARICOM until democracy is restored, a la the suspension of Honduras from the Organisation of American States following the suspension of democracy in that country. Such a move would be in the best interest of the territory, as well as CARICOM, since the spectre of a representative of the un-elected ‘government’ in the TCI seeking entry into meetings of the CARICOM ministerial council should be actively avoided.
Meanwhile, former Bahamian Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell took the tack that “Britain as the colonial power in the Turks and Caicos Islands has the responsibility not only for the economic development and well being of the territory, but also its political development,” and that the situation “speaks not only to the failure of the internal mechanisms of governance, but also to failures on the part of the colonial power.” He noted that even the UK itself had recently seen a crisis in governance as a result of corruption, but this did not require the suspension of democracy.
Response from other UK-administered territories was also forthcoming. Chief Minister Lowell Lewis of Montserrat said that the TCI “did not deserve to have their democratic rights suspended.” Bermuda Premier Ewart Brown was the first to comment on the initial order in council last March expressing deep disappointment with the situation. Bermuda Senator C. Walton Brown most recently described the UK action as “clearly excessive,” and a huge overreaction which has taken away the democratic rights of the TCI.
Emerging United Nations Response
All of this places the United Nations in an interesting position, especially given the adoption on 30th June by the United Nations General Assembly of a unanimous resolution on the “Situation in Honduras: democracy in breakdown.” The resolution expressed “grave concern” for the “breakdown in the constitutional and democratic order and the legitimate exercise of power in Honduras.” The resolution went on to “condemn the coup d’état in the Republic of Honduras that has interrupted the democratic and constitutional order of the legitimate exercise of power…,” and demand(ed) the immediate and unconstitutional restoration of the legitimate and constitutional government…and of the legally constituted authority…”
It was always understood that these principles of democratic governance are supposed to apply to non self-governing territories that do not exercise sovereignty, as well as to sovereign countries. In fact, such principles are even more critical to those territories which ‘govern’ only on the basis of a reversible delegation of power from an administering authority thousands of miles away. Whether there will be a UN resolution on the suspension of democracy in the TCI at the 64th Session of the General Assembly in September similar to the resolution on Honduras remains to be seen. Yet, the Ministerial Meeting of the Non Aligned Movement Coordinating Bureau at its 2009 meeting in Havana last April provided the clearest position on the matter in calling for “the urgent restoration of the constitutional government in the TCI.” Shall we expect a draft resolution introduced by NAM to the General Assembly in September calling for constitutional restoration in the TCI?
Thus far, the United Nations has had several opportunities to make their views known on the political crisis in the TCI - a territory squarely under its purview. Thus far, however, the silence has been deafening, leaving the UK with a politically free hand to act with impunity. In the meantime, the emerging political crisis in the TCI has saddened advocates of contemporary decolonisation for the remaining non self-governing including Bermuda, Cayman Islands, the British and United States Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Anguilla in the Caribbean; along with Guam, American Samoa and New Caledonia in the Pacific. All exist under similar democratically deficient arrangements as the Turks and Caicos Islands, and are all subject to the same unilateral authority by an “administering power.”
At the 2009 UN Regional Seminar in St. Kitts and Nevis last May, TCI Premier Williams took great pains to explain the crisis and the proposed remedies of his elected government. Yet, the final report of the session made no mention of the crisis in the territory nor the position of the elected Premier. One month later in June, the Special Committee on Decolonisation apparently entertained the inclusion of language in its resolution on the TCI which referred to the UK decision to replace the democratic process, the position of the Premier as expressed in the Caribbean regional seminar of the same committee, and the positions of CARICOM and the Non Aligned Movement, while ultimately calling for the reversal of the decision to abolish the territorial government. This would, of course, have reflected the objective reality in a territory where the promotion of self-government is supposed toi be the primary role of the UN committee. However, the proposed language was not included in the resolution, and what remained was a mere restatement of previous resolutions on the TCI – as if nothing was going on there (amazing).
The UK, thus, had sufficient ‘political cover’ to act in the manner it did knowing that the UN response from the Decolonisation Committee would be weak. Decades ago, the announcement of the impending suspension of constitutional order in a non self-governing under the watchful eyes of the Decolonisation Committee would have elicited an immediate emergency meeting of the Committee with a strong resolution on the issue. In the present day, what is seen is a form of reverse decolonisation via committee efforts to prevent such a proactive approach whilst seeking to legitimise colonialism and remove the territories from UN review. No wonder only one territory has achieved self-government over the last several decades. Perhaps it is left to the General Assembly to speak loudly on the issue given the cautious timidity of its Decolonisation Committee. The 64th Session could be most interesting on this matter, but only if the governments make the issue a priority.
United Nations Charter
Chapter XI:
Declaration regarding Non Self-Governing Territories
Article 73:
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognise the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:
.....
b. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Entered into force: 23 March 1976
Part I, Article 1.
1. All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
18 August 2009
Deposed Premier Addresses Colonial Coup in Turks & Caicos Islands
Deposed Premier Galmo Williams of the Turks and Caicos Islands made his final address to the people of the territory on 14th August 2009 in anticipation of the impending unilateral suspension of the constitution by the United Kingdom, the administering power of the territory. The announcement of the suspension of democratic governance was subsequently made on 16th August 2009. Overseas Territories Report, our sister publication, has released its analysis of the crisis of democracy in its article "Re-colonising the Colony," which is available from overseasreport@gmail.com. The statement of the deposed Premier follows:
PROVIDENCIALES, Turks and Caicos Islands; Friday, August 14th, 2009 – “My fellow Turks and Caicos Islanders, my days in office as your Premier and as the Representative in Parliament for all the people of Long Bay Hills are almost over, as I have every reason to believe that the much talked about coup that the Government of the United Kingdom has been planning for the Turks and Caicos Islands is about to be executed, but I assure you that my days of service to my country, will never be over.
In my life time I will never hold a position higher or take an oath more sacred than that of your Premier, but know too, that there is no title I will wear more proudly than that of citizen of these our Turks and Caicos Islands.
Let me at the outset publicly thank both my Cabinet and my Parliamentary colleagues(on both sides of the isle) and the hundreds of civil servants and political appointees and others with whom I have served over the last several years and in particular since I became your Premier last March, for the dedication and competence they have brought to the service of our country. But let me however express my deepest gratitude and thanks to the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands (particularly the people of Long Bay Hills), because it was you who gave me this great opportunity to serve.
During my time as Premier we have faced great challenges together, and we know that there will be greater challenges in our future, but I am convinced now more than ever that the Turks and Caicos Islands will successfully meet whatever challenge and uncertainty the future might bring, for as the grand children of slaves, left abandoned on these barren shores centuries ago, we, together with those who came later on, have turned these Islands into something that we can all be proud of, and indeed something that our once delinquent masters, have stated that they will do anything (“except a return to slavery”) to repossess.
Our government has brought more development to Turks and Caicos over the last six years than at any other time in our history. We have educated more of our people at university level than at any other time in our history. We have made more provisions for the health care and welfare of our people than at any other time in our history, and we have created for our country one of the most respected brands in the tourism industry the world over.
Despite these many accomplishments, however, this last year has been a challenging one for our country, one filled with set backs, but rather than cause me to loose heart, these setbacks over the last year has made me more certain than ever of the inner strength, the ingenuity and decency of our people, for, in this last year, we have watched our economy take tremendous body blows as the economy of the United States to which it is linked, and indeed the world economy was brought to its knees. As we all know, these economic challenges could not have come at a worst time for of country, coming as it did at a time when our country was hit by two back to back devastating hurricanes, Hanna and Ike, in less than one week and coupled with this, we have also had to simultaneously withstand the negative impacts of a commission of inquiry.
And now, today, our country is being invaded and re-colonized by the United Kingdom, dismantling a duly elected government and legislature and replacing it with a one man dictatorship, akin to that of the old Red China, all in the name of good governance.
As the legitimately and duly elected leader of this country, I strongly object to the recommendations outlined in the Report of the Commission that the Governor now seeks to bring into force. I do not support permitting non-Belongers the right to vote, and I wish to go on record as stating that I am opposed to the recommendation of trial by judge alone rather then a trial by a jury of your peers. My government and I also object to the removal of the House of Assembly, thereby leaving the people of these Islands voiceless and without representation.
But I am convinced that this coup d'état committed against the legitimate government of our Turks and Caicos Islands by the United Kingdom puts them on the wrong side of history, for I can assure you that this action which they have taken against us was not done because it is the right thing to do nor because it is necessary, but rather it is being taken because they are able to do such things in a country of our size and status.
We as a people however, should be comforted by the thought expressed by Abraham Lincoln when he said that government of the people, for the people and by the people shall never perish from this earth, for I am comforted in the knowledge that our little Turks and Caicos, under God, shall indeed have a new birth of freedom.
As a people we must reunite on the basis of democratic principles, so that it could be said of us both in dark nites and in bright days that we have found and have kept our faith.
To all those with whom I have worked over the last several years I say go forth in the knowledge that we have done a lot of good, and to those who will come behind us I say the work must go on, because the cause that drew so many before you to public service still endures and the dream must never be allowed to die.
I will continue to keep a watchful eye over our non-elected Governor and his non- elected cabinet as they go about their unknown agenda. I implore all Turks and Caicos Islanders to hold them accountable for their actions.
We must all play our part in our communities to move ahead together as one nation. Together we work and together we progress. I thank God for this opportunity to serve my country at this time. May God continue to bless you all and may he continue to bless our beautiful Turks and Caicos Islands.”
Hon. Galmo Williams
Premier and MP for Long Bay
PROVIDENCIALES, Turks and Caicos Islands; Friday, August 14th, 2009 – “My fellow Turks and Caicos Islanders, my days in office as your Premier and as the Representative in Parliament for all the people of Long Bay Hills are almost over, as I have every reason to believe that the much talked about coup that the Government of the United Kingdom has been planning for the Turks and Caicos Islands is about to be executed, but I assure you that my days of service to my country, will never be over.
In my life time I will never hold a position higher or take an oath more sacred than that of your Premier, but know too, that there is no title I will wear more proudly than that of citizen of these our Turks and Caicos Islands.
Let me at the outset publicly thank both my Cabinet and my Parliamentary colleagues(on both sides of the isle) and the hundreds of civil servants and political appointees and others with whom I have served over the last several years and in particular since I became your Premier last March, for the dedication and competence they have brought to the service of our country. But let me however express my deepest gratitude and thanks to the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands (particularly the people of Long Bay Hills), because it was you who gave me this great opportunity to serve.
During my time as Premier we have faced great challenges together, and we know that there will be greater challenges in our future, but I am convinced now more than ever that the Turks and Caicos Islands will successfully meet whatever challenge and uncertainty the future might bring, for as the grand children of slaves, left abandoned on these barren shores centuries ago, we, together with those who came later on, have turned these Islands into something that we can all be proud of, and indeed something that our once delinquent masters, have stated that they will do anything (“except a return to slavery”) to repossess.
Our government has brought more development to Turks and Caicos over the last six years than at any other time in our history. We have educated more of our people at university level than at any other time in our history. We have made more provisions for the health care and welfare of our people than at any other time in our history, and we have created for our country one of the most respected brands in the tourism industry the world over.
Despite these many accomplishments, however, this last year has been a challenging one for our country, one filled with set backs, but rather than cause me to loose heart, these setbacks over the last year has made me more certain than ever of the inner strength, the ingenuity and decency of our people, for, in this last year, we have watched our economy take tremendous body blows as the economy of the United States to which it is linked, and indeed the world economy was brought to its knees. As we all know, these economic challenges could not have come at a worst time for of country, coming as it did at a time when our country was hit by two back to back devastating hurricanes, Hanna and Ike, in less than one week and coupled with this, we have also had to simultaneously withstand the negative impacts of a commission of inquiry.
And now, today, our country is being invaded and re-colonized by the United Kingdom, dismantling a duly elected government and legislature and replacing it with a one man dictatorship, akin to that of the old Red China, all in the name of good governance.
As the legitimately and duly elected leader of this country, I strongly object to the recommendations outlined in the Report of the Commission that the Governor now seeks to bring into force. I do not support permitting non-Belongers the right to vote, and I wish to go on record as stating that I am opposed to the recommendation of trial by judge alone rather then a trial by a jury of your peers. My government and I also object to the removal of the House of Assembly, thereby leaving the people of these Islands voiceless and without representation.
But I am convinced that this coup d'état committed against the legitimate government of our Turks and Caicos Islands by the United Kingdom puts them on the wrong side of history, for I can assure you that this action which they have taken against us was not done because it is the right thing to do nor because it is necessary, but rather it is being taken because they are able to do such things in a country of our size and status.
We as a people however, should be comforted by the thought expressed by Abraham Lincoln when he said that government of the people, for the people and by the people shall never perish from this earth, for I am comforted in the knowledge that our little Turks and Caicos, under God, shall indeed have a new birth of freedom.
As a people we must reunite on the basis of democratic principles, so that it could be said of us both in dark nites and in bright days that we have found and have kept our faith.
To all those with whom I have worked over the last several years I say go forth in the knowledge that we have done a lot of good, and to those who will come behind us I say the work must go on, because the cause that drew so many before you to public service still endures and the dream must never be allowed to die.
I will continue to keep a watchful eye over our non-elected Governor and his non- elected cabinet as they go about their unknown agenda. I implore all Turks and Caicos Islanders to hold them accountable for their actions.
We must all play our part in our communities to move ahead together as one nation. Together we work and together we progress. I thank God for this opportunity to serve my country at this time. May God continue to bless you all and may he continue to bless our beautiful Turks and Caicos Islands.”
Hon. Galmo Williams
Premier and MP for Long Bay
13 August 2009
Former Turks & Caicos Premier Will Fight On
Turks and Caicos Sun
Thursday, Aug 13, 2009
Former Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands says he will continue to fight on to clear his name and to agitate for the human rights and human dignity of the the people. Responding to the dismissal of his case by the Court of Appeal in London on Wednesday, Hon. Misick said: “There was a miscarriage of justice that took place for the people of the Turks and Caicos in particular and all the people of remaining colonies in general.”
He noted that one of the Lordships that heard the appeal today in the Court of Appeal was the original judge that denied the appeal from the Divisional Court, namely Lord Justice Laws, adding that this can not be right or fair. He further noted that one of their Lordships stated that the British Government can do anything it wants to its Colonies regardless of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act other than re-introduce slavery.
“It is unfortunate that the thinking in London has not change in 200 years. As a result of today’s ruling and what I believe to be a rigged hearing by the English court and the FCO, it is evident that they intend to rig a criminal trial and conviction against me and my former Ministers,” the former Premier stated.
“In spite all of this, I intend to continue the fight to clear my name and to fight for the Human Rights and Human Dignity of all our people.”
Hon. Misick had challenged the legality of The Turks and Caicos Islands Constitution (Interim Amendment) Order 2009” [“the Order in Council”], which was laid before the UK Parliament on 25th March 2009.
The Order was made following the publication of Sir Robin Auld’s interim report relating to the Commission of Inquiry set up to inquire into possible corruption or other serious dishonesty in recent years of past and present elected members of the legislature. The Order in Council, when brought into force, will suspend parts of the Turks and Caicos Islands’ Constitution.
In summary, it will abolish the right to jury trial and it will suspend representative government by dissolving the House of Assembly and removing all elected officials, for a period of at least two years.
In the place of representative government will be a system of administration by the Governor, subject only to advice from an Advisory Council and to disallowance by the Secretary of State.
...
However, the former premier who has been credited with the unprecedented growth that the country experienced over the past five years before its sudden halt claimed that the move breaches human rights laws. According to Hon. Misick, if allowed to take place, the Order would essentially deny the people of the country of elected parliamentary representation, noting also that it would take away the rights of persons being tried in a court of law.
Such scrapping of fundamental rights, according to the ex-premier, is worthy of fighting for, and as a result has embarked on a legal campaign to block such move by the United Kingdom Government.
Hon. Misick, who catapulted to the head of the country’s leadership in 2003, after triumphing in two by-elections, evolved from Chief Minister status to Premier in 2006, after successfully arguing his United Kingdom counterparts for modernisation of the country’s constitutional periphery.
With the country’s constitutional advancement also came two additional electoral boundaries and the changing of the parliamentary title from the Legislative Council (Legco) to the House of Assembly.
He believes that should the United Kingdom gain full control once again of the Turks and Caicos Islands, those achievements would be eroded, and as a result, expressed his determination to fight the Order.
Thursday, Aug 13, 2009
Former Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands says he will continue to fight on to clear his name and to agitate for the human rights and human dignity of the the people. Responding to the dismissal of his case by the Court of Appeal in London on Wednesday, Hon. Misick said: “There was a miscarriage of justice that took place for the people of the Turks and Caicos in particular and all the people of remaining colonies in general.”
He noted that one of the Lordships that heard the appeal today in the Court of Appeal was the original judge that denied the appeal from the Divisional Court, namely Lord Justice Laws, adding that this can not be right or fair. He further noted that one of their Lordships stated that the British Government can do anything it wants to its Colonies regardless of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act other than re-introduce slavery.
“It is unfortunate that the thinking in London has not change in 200 years. As a result of today’s ruling and what I believe to be a rigged hearing by the English court and the FCO, it is evident that they intend to rig a criminal trial and conviction against me and my former Ministers,” the former Premier stated.
“In spite all of this, I intend to continue the fight to clear my name and to fight for the Human Rights and Human Dignity of all our people.”
Hon. Misick had challenged the legality of The Turks and Caicos Islands Constitution (Interim Amendment) Order 2009” [“the Order in Council”], which was laid before the UK Parliament on 25th March 2009.
The Order was made following the publication of Sir Robin Auld’s interim report relating to the Commission of Inquiry set up to inquire into possible corruption or other serious dishonesty in recent years of past and present elected members of the legislature. The Order in Council, when brought into force, will suspend parts of the Turks and Caicos Islands’ Constitution.
In summary, it will abolish the right to jury trial and it will suspend representative government by dissolving the House of Assembly and removing all elected officials, for a period of at least two years.
In the place of representative government will be a system of administration by the Governor, subject only to advice from an Advisory Council and to disallowance by the Secretary of State.
...
However, the former premier who has been credited with the unprecedented growth that the country experienced over the past five years before its sudden halt claimed that the move breaches human rights laws. According to Hon. Misick, if allowed to take place, the Order would essentially deny the people of the country of elected parliamentary representation, noting also that it would take away the rights of persons being tried in a court of law.
Such scrapping of fundamental rights, according to the ex-premier, is worthy of fighting for, and as a result has embarked on a legal campaign to block such move by the United Kingdom Government.
Hon. Misick, who catapulted to the head of the country’s leadership in 2003, after triumphing in two by-elections, evolved from Chief Minister status to Premier in 2006, after successfully arguing his United Kingdom counterparts for modernisation of the country’s constitutional periphery.
With the country’s constitutional advancement also came two additional electoral boundaries and the changing of the parliamentary title from the Legislative Council (Legco) to the House of Assembly.
He believes that should the United Kingdom gain full control once again of the Turks and Caicos Islands, those achievements would be eroded, and as a result, expressed his determination to fight the Order.
03 August 2009
St. Kitts and Nevis Leads UN Effort
St. Kitts and Nevis took the lead at the 2009 session of the United Nations Economic and Social Council by introducing the annual resolution on Support to the Non Self-Governing Territories from the United Nations System The session convened in Geneva and adopted a series of resolutions on various issues in the economic and social development sphere. St. Kitts and Nevis Representative Carlisle L. Richardson, who introduced the resolution, also spearheaded the consultations with the aim of future modernisation of the resolution.
St. Kitts and Nevis had previously hosted the UN 2009 Caribbean Regional Seminar last May where a range of political and socio-economic development issues were discussed by governments, representatives of civil society, experts and UN agency officials.
The statement in introduction of the resolution follows:
*********************************************************************************
Statement by Mr. Carlisle L. Richardson
Representative of the Delegation of Saint Kitts and Nevis
Introducing the draft resolution entitled “Support to Non-Self-Governing Territories by the specialized agencies and international institutions associated with the United Nations” (E/2009/L. 26)
Geneva, 28 July 2009
Mr. President,
Distinguished Delegates,
I have the honor to present to the distinguished members of ECOSOC a draft resolution entitled "Support to Non-Self-Governing Territories by the specialized agencies and international institutions associated with the United Nations" contained in document E/2009/L 26. In addition to the countries mentioned in the document, St. Lucia has joined the list of cosponsors.
Mr. President,
The United Nations mandate to provide support to Non Self-Governing territories in their development process is longstanding, and has been adopted in several Resolutions of ECOSOC and the General Assembly for decades. The authority for this support is contained in the work plan of many of the UN agencies.
Since ECOSOC is the main UN body devoted to economic and social matters, and as the resolution addresses economic and social assistance, we feel that this is the appropriate forum to address the issue.
The Special Committee is concerned primarily with providing assistance to Non Self Governing territories within the UN system and with the cooperation of the administering powers. This should be viewed therefore as a collaborative approach. The global financial crisis has shown the interconnectedness of the international community, and brought to the forefront the rationale for a partnership approach to development assistance.
Additionally, issues such as global health permeate all countries, all territories, and every facet of society. The UN’s role is to assist all people, working in consultation with the governments of those people, and in the case of the Non Self Governing territories, with the administering powers. This is what this Resolution aims to ensure.
Furthermore, Mr. President, these Non Self Governing territories are very vulnerable to natural disasters. The small island territories are exposed to the rigors of hurricanes, cyclones, sea level rising, and volcanic eruptions. The UN Specialized agencies are there to work alongside the administering powers in providing a helping hand to those displaced and impacted by these natural disasters.
Mr. President,
The draft resolution expresses appreciation to those specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system that have continued to implement the relevant resolutions of the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly related to the assistance to the Territories, and urges those specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system that have not yet provided assistance to Non-Self-Governing Territories to do so as soon as possible. In addition, the draft resolution requests that the United Nations information leaflet on assistance programmes available to the Non-Self-Governing Territories be disseminated as widely as possible.
The draft resolution also welcomes the continuing efforts made by the United Nations Development Programme in maintaining close liaison among the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system, including the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean and the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific; it requests the administering Powers concerned to facilitate the participation of Non-Self-Governing Territories in the relevant meetings and conferences of the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system, so that the Territories may benefit from the related activities of those agencies and organizations; and it recommends that all Governments intensify their efforts in the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system of which they are members to accord priority to the question of providing assistance to the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories.
Distinguished Delegates,
As in previous years, the draft resolution requests the President of the Council to continue to maintain close contact on these matters with the Chairman of the Special Committee on Decolonization and to report thereon to the Council, and requests the Secretary-General to follow up on the implementation of the present resolution.
These are but some of the issues that this resolution addresses, and it is why the cosponsors of this resolution feel it necessary to bring this matter before the Economic and Social Council.
I therefore invite all members of this august body to adopt the draft resolution before them, by consensus.
Thank you.
St. Kitts and Nevis had previously hosted the UN 2009 Caribbean Regional Seminar last May where a range of political and socio-economic development issues were discussed by governments, representatives of civil society, experts and UN agency officials.
The statement in introduction of the resolution follows:
*********************************************************************************
Statement by Mr. Carlisle L. Richardson
Representative of the Delegation of Saint Kitts and Nevis
Introducing the draft resolution entitled “Support to Non-Self-Governing Territories by the specialized agencies and international institutions associated with the United Nations” (E/2009/L. 26)
Geneva, 28 July 2009
Mr. President,
Distinguished Delegates,
I have the honor to present to the distinguished members of ECOSOC a draft resolution entitled "Support to Non-Self-Governing Territories by the specialized agencies and international institutions associated with the United Nations" contained in document E/2009/L 26. In addition to the countries mentioned in the document, St. Lucia has joined the list of cosponsors.
Mr. President,
The United Nations mandate to provide support to Non Self-Governing territories in their development process is longstanding, and has been adopted in several Resolutions of ECOSOC and the General Assembly for decades. The authority for this support is contained in the work plan of many of the UN agencies.
Since ECOSOC is the main UN body devoted to economic and social matters, and as the resolution addresses economic and social assistance, we feel that this is the appropriate forum to address the issue.
The Special Committee is concerned primarily with providing assistance to Non Self Governing territories within the UN system and with the cooperation of the administering powers. This should be viewed therefore as a collaborative approach. The global financial crisis has shown the interconnectedness of the international community, and brought to the forefront the rationale for a partnership approach to development assistance.
Additionally, issues such as global health permeate all countries, all territories, and every facet of society. The UN’s role is to assist all people, working in consultation with the governments of those people, and in the case of the Non Self Governing territories, with the administering powers. This is what this Resolution aims to ensure.
Furthermore, Mr. President, these Non Self Governing territories are very vulnerable to natural disasters. The small island territories are exposed to the rigors of hurricanes, cyclones, sea level rising, and volcanic eruptions. The UN Specialized agencies are there to work alongside the administering powers in providing a helping hand to those displaced and impacted by these natural disasters.
Mr. President,
The draft resolution expresses appreciation to those specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system that have continued to implement the relevant resolutions of the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly related to the assistance to the Territories, and urges those specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system that have not yet provided assistance to Non-Self-Governing Territories to do so as soon as possible. In addition, the draft resolution requests that the United Nations information leaflet on assistance programmes available to the Non-Self-Governing Territories be disseminated as widely as possible.
The draft resolution also welcomes the continuing efforts made by the United Nations Development Programme in maintaining close liaison among the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system, including the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean and the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific; it requests the administering Powers concerned to facilitate the participation of Non-Self-Governing Territories in the relevant meetings and conferences of the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system, so that the Territories may benefit from the related activities of those agencies and organizations; and it recommends that all Governments intensify their efforts in the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system of which they are members to accord priority to the question of providing assistance to the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories.
Distinguished Delegates,
As in previous years, the draft resolution requests the President of the Council to continue to maintain close contact on these matters with the Chairman of the Special Committee on Decolonization and to report thereon to the Council, and requests the Secretary-General to follow up on the implementation of the present resolution.
These are but some of the issues that this resolution addresses, and it is why the cosponsors of this resolution feel it necessary to bring this matter before the Economic and Social Council.
I therefore invite all members of this august body to adopt the draft resolution before them, by consensus.
Thank you.
Support to Territories from UN System
Action on Resolution on Support to Non-Self-Governing Territories by the specialised agencies and international institutions associated with the United Nations
Excerpts from UN Press Release
Geneva
1st August 2009
In a resolution on Support to Non-Self-Governing Territories by the specialized agencies and international institutions associated with the United Nations (E/2009/L.26), adopted by a vote of 25 in favour, none against, and 22 abstentions, the Council recommends that:
All States intensify their efforts within the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system of which they are members to ensure the full and effective implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), and other relevant resolutions of the United Nations;
Requests the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system and international and regional organizations to examine and review conditions in each Non-Self-Governing Territory so that they may take appropriate measures to accelerate progress in the economic and social sectors of those Territories;
Urges those specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system that have not yet provided assistance to Non-Self-Governing Territories to do so as soon as possible;
Requests the specialized agencies and other organizations and bodies of the United Nations system and regional organizations to strengthen existing measures of support and to formulate appropriate programmes of assistance to the remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories, within the framework of their respective mandates, in order to accelerate progress in the economic and social sectors of those Territories;
Requests the administering Powers concerned to facilitate, when appropriate, the participation of appointed and elected representatives of Non-Self-Governing Territories in the relevant meetings and conferences of the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system, in accordance with relevant United Nations resolutions and decisions, including the resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and the Special Committee, on specific Territories, so that they may benefit from the related activities of those agencies and organizations.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (25): Algeria, Barbados, Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, China, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Against (0):
Abstentions (22): Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malawi, Morocco, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States.
JOHN SAMMIS (United States) said with regard to the resolution before the Council, he said this was essentially the same one that had been considered several times in the past by the Council. Each time it had come up, the United States had called for a vote and abstained, as have a number of other countries. They would do so again today. They found themselves in this position despite agreeing in principle that the UN funds, programmes and specialized agencies could usefully provide support to territories that were not United Nations members, so long as the domestic laws and policies of a territory’s administering power allowed such UN support. It was the responsibility of the administering power to decide the nature of the participation in the United Nations, if any, of its territories. Under the Constitution of the United States, the federal Government had sole responsibility for the conduct of United States foreign relations, which included the foreign relations of United States territories. They were concerned that the proposed language of this resolution infringed upon these internal constitutional arrangements of the United States, and therefore could not support the resolution as it stood now.
JAKOB STROM (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union also called for a vote on resolution L.26. The United Nations system provided support to Non-Self-Governing Territories. Regrettably, the resolution was loaded with political content, and diverted attention from the noble objective. The European Union would abstain from the resolution, as it did not fall within the purview of the Council. Time had not allowed a collective reformulation of the resolution at this session, but the spirit of the meeting would inform consultations when time permitted.
TONY FAUTUA (New Zealand) said New Zealand had first hand experience with specialized agencies as related to non-self governing territories. New Zealand was pleased to recognize the Taukalow peoples, and the achievements made thus far, and in this regard they would support the draft resolution.
ALEXANDER PANKIN (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation would abstain on voting for this resolution. Russia had consistently supported deleting this agenda item on the granting of independence to colonial territories and peoples. Economic questions to do with helping vulnerable peoples should be considered in another context. Politicisation of the Council's work would not help with its main function, which was coordinating United Nations activities in economic and social spheres.
DONATUS ST AIMEE (Saint Lucia) said a couple of issues had been raised in the discussion, including sovereignty. Saint Lucia felt that self-determination did not imply independence. The question of whenever (Resolution) 1514 was mentioned did not in itself mean that the Council was advocating this, and this was the difficulty that some delegations had. The very title of the resolution probably gave the impression that independence was the focus of the resolution - and this was incorrect, the focus was encouraging administrative powers to collaborate with the United Nations, and to encourage the non-self-governing territories to ask for help from the United Nations system. Saint Lucia would vote in favour of the resolution. It was unfortunate that a vote was required, but hopefully this would be remedied next year.
************
Needed: Modernisation of Resolutions
Overseas Territories Review Commentary
The adoption by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the resolution on support to the non self-governing territories by the wider UN system is one of the most important areas of UN focus on the territories because it is intended to build their technical capacity as they evolve toward full self-government. The resolution in 2009 was introduced by the Representative of St. Kitts and Nevis, a member of ECOSOC.
If the territories are not prepared for self-government, it is less likely that they would be able to assume the powers necessary to run their own affairs, and more likely that they would remain in the political periphery of non self-governing status. A similar resolution is adopted by the General Assembly, with the voting pattern virtually identical. It is sad that these resolutions do not enjoy unanimity, and it remains puzzling why the member states have not been able to arrive at a consensus on the language.
It is clear that modernisation of the language of this resolution on support to the non self-governing territories from the UN system would go a long way in addressing the concerns of those member states which do not appear to object to the principle of UN support to the territories, but disagree with the political nature of some of the language in the text, causing them to abstain year after year.
An approach to modernising the resolution has been repeatedly recommended to the relevant UN committees and seminars by independent experts for well over a decade. These and other expert recommendations are welcomed by member states at the time they are made, but are subsequently overlooked behind closed doors when the text of the resolution is being prepared. Thus, the default position of retaining the previous year’s language, over and over again, with the same voting pattern, continues to prevail. Further, the actions called for in the resolution are effectively ignored by the very UN agencies who are to provide the relevant support.
This scenario is a classic example of bureaucratic reluctance to implement proposed solutions which could have solved this problem years ago. It is not surprising, and certainly should be embarrassing, that when ECOSOC takes up the issue, none of the specialised agencies and other UN institutions make presentations on such an agenda item which deals directly with their work. It is sad that, year after year, only a small fraction of the UN agencies respond to the request by the UN Secretary-General for information on their assistance programmes for the territories. Even agencies which provide assistance to the territories are reluctant to reply to the request for information because of the perceived political nature of the text.
The Need for Modernisation
The objections of the various member states to the resolution on assistance to the territories from the UN system are virtually identical to their objections for over a decade. Thus, the US representative continues to articulate to ECOSOC that any assistance to, or participation in, UN programmes for the non self-governing territories must be confirmed by the UN member State which controls the foreign relations of the territories concerned. This is a but a re-statement of the practice which is already in place, and has always been a requirement of the rules of procedure of any UN agency which provides for assistance or participation for these territories. The resolution, even in its present form, makes this clear.
A second objection by the US representative suggests that the resolution somehow “infringes upon” the internal constitutional arrangements of the United States. Yet, the longstanding US practice provides the delegation of authority to the territories, on a case by case basis, to participate in international organisations and activities.
In virtually all cases, it is only the state which controls the international relations of the territory which can make a request for the affiliation of the territory in any given UN body. If the delegation of authority is freely given by the administering power to the territory to participate in a given international organisation or activity, how can it be, at the same time, an infringement on the administering power’s control?
The arguments of the European Union and the Russian Federation have substantive merit as these states have always objected to the inclusion of language deemed political in nature in resolutions focused on economic and social development. Their respective positions could be similarly addressed in a proper consultation aimed at a consensus. This was called for by the St. Lucian Ambassador following the vote on the resolution, and it is hoped that the Caribbean and Pacific member states – the two regions to which the majority of the territories belong – would support this strategy at the upcoming session of the UN Fourth Committee where the same agenda item will be addressed.
It is recalled that this “repetition of process” which characterises UN consideration of support to the non self-governing territories was reviewed one year ago by OTR. The same conclusion applies now, as it did then: (http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html)
“…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.”
However, there may be grounds for some optimism. Several strategic recommendations emerging from the Caribbean Group may provide the necessary environment for consultation and compromise, and ultimate consensus on the resolution related to support to the non self-governing territories from the UN system.
OTR will continue to follow the issue during the next session of the UN General Assembly which convenes in September.
Excerpts from UN Press Release
Geneva
1st August 2009
In a resolution on Support to Non-Self-Governing Territories by the specialized agencies and international institutions associated with the United Nations (E/2009/L.26), adopted by a vote of 25 in favour, none against, and 22 abstentions, the Council recommends that:
All States intensify their efforts within the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system of which they are members to ensure the full and effective implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), and other relevant resolutions of the United Nations;
Requests the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system and international and regional organizations to examine and review conditions in each Non-Self-Governing Territory so that they may take appropriate measures to accelerate progress in the economic and social sectors of those Territories;
Urges those specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system that have not yet provided assistance to Non-Self-Governing Territories to do so as soon as possible;
Requests the specialized agencies and other organizations and bodies of the United Nations system and regional organizations to strengthen existing measures of support and to formulate appropriate programmes of assistance to the remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories, within the framework of their respective mandates, in order to accelerate progress in the economic and social sectors of those Territories;
Requests the administering Powers concerned to facilitate, when appropriate, the participation of appointed and elected representatives of Non-Self-Governing Territories in the relevant meetings and conferences of the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system, in accordance with relevant United Nations resolutions and decisions, including the resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and the Special Committee, on specific Territories, so that they may benefit from the related activities of those agencies and organizations.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (25): Algeria, Barbados, Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, China, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Against (0):
Abstentions (22): Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malawi, Morocco, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States.
JOHN SAMMIS (United States) said with regard to the resolution before the Council, he said this was essentially the same one that had been considered several times in the past by the Council. Each time it had come up, the United States had called for a vote and abstained, as have a number of other countries. They would do so again today. They found themselves in this position despite agreeing in principle that the UN funds, programmes and specialized agencies could usefully provide support to territories that were not United Nations members, so long as the domestic laws and policies of a territory’s administering power allowed such UN support. It was the responsibility of the administering power to decide the nature of the participation in the United Nations, if any, of its territories. Under the Constitution of the United States, the federal Government had sole responsibility for the conduct of United States foreign relations, which included the foreign relations of United States territories. They were concerned that the proposed language of this resolution infringed upon these internal constitutional arrangements of the United States, and therefore could not support the resolution as it stood now.
JAKOB STROM (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union also called for a vote on resolution L.26. The United Nations system provided support to Non-Self-Governing Territories. Regrettably, the resolution was loaded with political content, and diverted attention from the noble objective. The European Union would abstain from the resolution, as it did not fall within the purview of the Council. Time had not allowed a collective reformulation of the resolution at this session, but the spirit of the meeting would inform consultations when time permitted.
TONY FAUTUA (New Zealand) said New Zealand had first hand experience with specialized agencies as related to non-self governing territories. New Zealand was pleased to recognize the Taukalow peoples, and the achievements made thus far, and in this regard they would support the draft resolution.
ALEXANDER PANKIN (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation would abstain on voting for this resolution. Russia had consistently supported deleting this agenda item on the granting of independence to colonial territories and peoples. Economic questions to do with helping vulnerable peoples should be considered in another context. Politicisation of the Council's work would not help with its main function, which was coordinating United Nations activities in economic and social spheres.
DONATUS ST AIMEE (Saint Lucia) said a couple of issues had been raised in the discussion, including sovereignty. Saint Lucia felt that self-determination did not imply independence. The question of whenever (Resolution) 1514 was mentioned did not in itself mean that the Council was advocating this, and this was the difficulty that some delegations had. The very title of the resolution probably gave the impression that independence was the focus of the resolution - and this was incorrect, the focus was encouraging administrative powers to collaborate with the United Nations, and to encourage the non-self-governing territories to ask for help from the United Nations system. Saint Lucia would vote in favour of the resolution. It was unfortunate that a vote was required, but hopefully this would be remedied next year.
************
Needed: Modernisation of Resolutions
Overseas Territories Review Commentary
The adoption by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the resolution on support to the non self-governing territories by the wider UN system is one of the most important areas of UN focus on the territories because it is intended to build their technical capacity as they evolve toward full self-government. The resolution in 2009 was introduced by the Representative of St. Kitts and Nevis, a member of ECOSOC.
If the territories are not prepared for self-government, it is less likely that they would be able to assume the powers necessary to run their own affairs, and more likely that they would remain in the political periphery of non self-governing status. A similar resolution is adopted by the General Assembly, with the voting pattern virtually identical. It is sad that these resolutions do not enjoy unanimity, and it remains puzzling why the member states have not been able to arrive at a consensus on the language.
It is clear that modernisation of the language of this resolution on support to the non self-governing territories from the UN system would go a long way in addressing the concerns of those member states which do not appear to object to the principle of UN support to the territories, but disagree with the political nature of some of the language in the text, causing them to abstain year after year.
An approach to modernising the resolution has been repeatedly recommended to the relevant UN committees and seminars by independent experts for well over a decade. These and other expert recommendations are welcomed by member states at the time they are made, but are subsequently overlooked behind closed doors when the text of the resolution is being prepared. Thus, the default position of retaining the previous year’s language, over and over again, with the same voting pattern, continues to prevail. Further, the actions called for in the resolution are effectively ignored by the very UN agencies who are to provide the relevant support.
This scenario is a classic example of bureaucratic reluctance to implement proposed solutions which could have solved this problem years ago. It is not surprising, and certainly should be embarrassing, that when ECOSOC takes up the issue, none of the specialised agencies and other UN institutions make presentations on such an agenda item which deals directly with their work. It is sad that, year after year, only a small fraction of the UN agencies respond to the request by the UN Secretary-General for information on their assistance programmes for the territories. Even agencies which provide assistance to the territories are reluctant to reply to the request for information because of the perceived political nature of the text.
The Need for Modernisation
The objections of the various member states to the resolution on assistance to the territories from the UN system are virtually identical to their objections for over a decade. Thus, the US representative continues to articulate to ECOSOC that any assistance to, or participation in, UN programmes for the non self-governing territories must be confirmed by the UN member State which controls the foreign relations of the territories concerned. This is a but a re-statement of the practice which is already in place, and has always been a requirement of the rules of procedure of any UN agency which provides for assistance or participation for these territories. The resolution, even in its present form, makes this clear.
A second objection by the US representative suggests that the resolution somehow “infringes upon” the internal constitutional arrangements of the United States. Yet, the longstanding US practice provides the delegation of authority to the territories, on a case by case basis, to participate in international organisations and activities.
In virtually all cases, it is only the state which controls the international relations of the territory which can make a request for the affiliation of the territory in any given UN body. If the delegation of authority is freely given by the administering power to the territory to participate in a given international organisation or activity, how can it be, at the same time, an infringement on the administering power’s control?
The arguments of the European Union and the Russian Federation have substantive merit as these states have always objected to the inclusion of language deemed political in nature in resolutions focused on economic and social development. Their respective positions could be similarly addressed in a proper consultation aimed at a consensus. This was called for by the St. Lucian Ambassador following the vote on the resolution, and it is hoped that the Caribbean and Pacific member states – the two regions to which the majority of the territories belong – would support this strategy at the upcoming session of the UN Fourth Committee where the same agenda item will be addressed.
It is recalled that this “repetition of process” which characterises UN consideration of support to the non self-governing territories was reviewed one year ago by OTR. The same conclusion applies now, as it did then: (http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html)
“…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.”
However, there may be grounds for some optimism. Several strategic recommendations emerging from the Caribbean Group may provide the necessary environment for consultation and compromise, and ultimate consensus on the resolution related to support to the non self-governing territories from the UN system.
OTR will continue to follow the issue during the next session of the UN General Assembly which convenes in September.
31 July 2009
FNLKS Group Questions France Oceana Summit Venue
The France Oceana Summit was scheduled to convene in New Caledonia on 31st July 2009 under the chairmanship of French Foreign Affairs Minister Bernard Kouchner. The Nouméa meeting is being held at the headquarters of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). The session is to include senior-level participation from most of the countries of the Pacific Islands Forum.
The Union Caledonienne Elected Representatives of the FLNKS Group has expressed their objections to the convening of the meeting in their country which it views as inconsistent with the self-determination process of New Caledonia as a non self-governing territory. The position of the FNLKS Group is articulated below:
CONVEYING MESSAGE BY THE UNION CALEDONIENNE
ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FLNKS GROUP
(Wednesday 29th July 2009)
With recognition that New Caledonia is fully engaged in a real process of decolonization in accordance with the Noumea Accords which was signed the 5th of May 1998 between the French State, the FLNKS and the RPCR, we have witnessed for the past years that the French State has strategically positioned itself to recover power, with the main objective of pressing a brake on the emancipation of the country in order to jam her journey towards accession to complete sovereignty.
Thus since the appointment of the President of the Republic of France in 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy has put into place in a systematical approach, his plan for “l’outre mer” (French Overseas Departments and Territories) essentially destined to counter the aspirations towards Independence and it is with the old gaullienne rhetoric which expresses ‘the greatness of France’, that France articulates ‘three oceans’ of which ‘the sun never sets’.
The organization of “Etats généraux de l’outre mer” (General States of French Overseas Departments and Territories), the “Grenelle de la mer”, the creation of “Conseil interministériel outre mer” (The Inter-Ministerial council of French Overseas Departments and Territories) the many diplomatic visits of Ministers to the colonies, demonstrate the evidence of a takeover by the French State, guided by fierce opposition towards Independence of offshore countries. In relation to New Caledonia, during the last signatory committee on the 8th of December 2008 the President Nicolas Sarkozy gave a course of action to take, of which Harold Martin reminded at the Congress “If the point in time has come where the partners of the Noumea Accord wish to develop, progress and engage New Caledonia in new perspectives within the Republic of France, they must know now that they can count on my support and that I will never change my support to the most innovative solutions with relation to the legal plan in order to acknowledge and to guarantee the entity and the power of New Caledonia within France”.
The holding of the third France-Oceania Summit in New Caledonia this Friday the 31st of July 2009 takes this political viewpoint and which is also wanted by the President of the Republic. Furthermore as precisely stated by Madame Marie Luce Penchard, Secretary of State in charge of Offshore States on Tuesday the 28th of July in front of the Elected Representatives of the Congress of this country, the decision to set up New Caledonia as theconfirms .
With this mentality, New Caledonia has therefore become a platform to defend the superior interests of France within our Pacific region disguised under its many assistance to Island States and under the sustainable development alibi and the preservation of the marine biodiversity. Our country, with an emancipating voice is therefore instrumental by the supervisory authority that claims to support her regional integration as it is also an ability already offered by the Noumea Accord.
The Elected Representatives of the Union Calédonienne of the FLNKS group both at the Congress and at the Government of New Caledonia refuse to support this purpose that is not ours and stay strongly anchored in the irreversible processes of the Noumea Accords that drives to the complete sovereignty of the Kanak country. So as to highly and strongly reaffirm their attachment to the dynamic emancipation, the elected representatives of the Union Calédonienne of the FLNKS have decided to oppose the holding of the France-Oceania Summit in New Caledonia. They have moreover requested to the brother countries: Melanesian, Polynesian, Micronesian as well as Australia and New Zealand to not support the hegemonic strategy of France in our pacific region and to refrain from participating in this staged farce from Paris.
The Elected Representatives of the Union Calédonienne of the FLNKS group both at the Congress and at the Government finally remind that the United Nations had declared the year 2010 as the end of the international decade for the elimination of colonialism, it is therefore a good time for France to turn the page of colonial history by accompanying their territories towards a true step towards emancipation instead of continuing to shut them away with tricks, in the stitches of nets in the name of the greatness of an empire that never came into effect but alas it will always be in the minds of some nostalgic spirits. If France will take into account the will of the people’s right to self-determination she will come out great and dignified.
The Leader of the FLNKS group,
R. WAMYTAN
The Union Caledonienne Elected Representatives of the FLNKS Group has expressed their objections to the convening of the meeting in their country which it views as inconsistent with the self-determination process of New Caledonia as a non self-governing territory. The position of the FNLKS Group is articulated below:
CONVEYING MESSAGE BY THE UNION CALEDONIENNE
ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FLNKS GROUP
(Wednesday 29th July 2009)
With recognition that New Caledonia is fully engaged in a real process of decolonization in accordance with the Noumea Accords which was signed the 5th of May 1998 between the French State, the FLNKS and the RPCR, we have witnessed for the past years that the French State has strategically positioned itself to recover power, with the main objective of pressing a brake on the emancipation of the country in order to jam her journey towards accession to complete sovereignty.
Thus since the appointment of the President of the Republic of France in 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy has put into place in a systematical approach, his plan for “l’outre mer” (French Overseas Departments and Territories) essentially destined to counter the aspirations towards Independence and it is with the old gaullienne rhetoric which expresses ‘the greatness of France’, that France articulates ‘three oceans’ of which ‘the sun never sets’.
The organization of “Etats généraux de l’outre mer” (General States of French Overseas Departments and Territories), the “Grenelle de la mer”, the creation of “Conseil interministériel outre mer” (The Inter-Ministerial council of French Overseas Departments and Territories) the many diplomatic visits of Ministers to the colonies, demonstrate the evidence of a takeover by the French State, guided by fierce opposition towards Independence of offshore countries. In relation to New Caledonia, during the last signatory committee on the 8th of December 2008 the President Nicolas Sarkozy gave a course of action to take, of which Harold Martin reminded at the Congress “If the point in time has come where the partners of the Noumea Accord wish to develop, progress and engage New Caledonia in new perspectives within the Republic of France, they must know now that they can count on my support and that I will never change my support to the most innovative solutions with relation to the legal plan in order to acknowledge and to guarantee the entity and the power of New Caledonia within France”.
The holding of the third France-Oceania Summit in New Caledonia this Friday the 31st of July 2009 takes this political viewpoint and which is also wanted by the President of the Republic. Furthermore as precisely stated by Madame Marie Luce Penchard, Secretary of State in charge of Offshore States on Tuesday the 28th of July in front of the Elected Representatives of the Congress of this country, the decision to set up New Caledonia as the
With this mentality, New Caledonia has therefore become a platform to defend the superior interests of France within our Pacific region disguised under its many assistance to Island States and under the sustainable development alibi and the preservation of the marine biodiversity. Our country, with an emancipating voice is therefore instrumental by the supervisory authority that claims to support her regional integration as it is also an ability already offered by the Noumea Accord.
The Elected Representatives of the Union Calédonienne of the FLNKS group both at the Congress and at the Government of New Caledonia refuse to support this purpose that is not ours and stay strongly anchored in the irreversible processes of the Noumea Accords that drives to the complete sovereignty of the Kanak country. So as to highly and strongly reaffirm their attachment to the dynamic emancipation, the elected representatives of the Union Calédonienne of the FLNKS have decided to oppose the holding of the France-Oceania Summit in New Caledonia. They have moreover requested to the brother countries: Melanesian, Polynesian, Micronesian as well as Australia and New Zealand to not support the hegemonic strategy of France in our pacific region and to refrain from participating in this staged farce from Paris.
The Elected Representatives of the Union Calédonienne of the FLNKS group both at the Congress and at the Government finally remind that the United Nations had declared the year 2010 as the end of the international decade for the elimination of colonialism, it is therefore a good time for France to turn the page of colonial history by accompanying their territories towards a true step towards emancipation instead of continuing to shut them away with tricks, in the stitches of nets in the name of the greatness of an empire that never came into effect but alas it will always be in the minds of some nostalgic spirits. If France will take into account the will of the people’s right to self-determination she will come out great and dignified.
The Leader of the FLNKS group,
R. WAMYTAN
30 July 2009
Democratic Deficiencies in Puerto Rico
Should We celebrate ‘Commonwealth’ on July 25?
by CARLOS ROMERO BARCELÓ
Caribbean Business
July 30, 2009
Carlos Romero Barceló is a two-term former governor of Puerto Rico (1977-’84), a two-term former resident commissioner (1993-’00) and a two-term former mayor of San Juan (1969-’78). He was president of the New Progressive Party for 11 years.
What happened on July 25, 1952 that we should celebrate and honor with an official holiday? Nothing. On the contrary, instead of celebrating the adoption of our local constitution on that day as a giant step toward full local self-government, we should declare July 25 a day of shame and mourning for being the day when our people voted to become a “colony by consent.”
Until July 25, 1952, we were a colony by conquest in the Spanish-American War of 1898. At the time of the Spanish-American War in 1898, we had been a colony for more than 450 years. In the Treaty of Paris, signed at the end of the Spanish-American War, Spain gave up Puerto Rico to the U.S. and we became a colony of the U.S. by conquest.
During the first two decades of our colonial relationship with the nation, two very important acts of Congress established the colonial government in Puerto Rico. The Foraker Act in 1901 and the Jones Act of 1917 determined and defined the Republican form of government established in Puerto Rico. As established in the Jones Act, the Puerto Rico Senate and House of Representatives were organized, and all people born in Puerto Rico after the enactment of the Jones Act would be natural-born citizens of the U.S.
Since the Foraker Act, the governor of Puerto Rico was appointed by the U.S. president and, as a result, the highest-ranking and most-powerful elected public official after 1917 was the Puerto Rico Senate president.
It wasn’t until 1948 that we were allowed to elect our own governor by virtue of an act of Congress during President Harry Truman’s administration. Precisely during those years, right after World War II, Gov. Luis Muñoz MarÃn began conversations with the White House and Congress in an attempt to achieve full local self-government in Puerto Rico.
The attempt failed and all we obtained was:
First, a change of official name from the Territory of Puerto Rico to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;
Second, the consent of Congress to allow us to draft a local constitution, which would define the Republican form of government with its separation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches as were already established under the Jones Act of 1917 as amended, including the right to elect our own governor, which had been bestowed upon us in 1948;
Third, the right to appeal our local Supreme Court decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, was eliminated and our Puerto Rico Supreme Court decisions could only be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In everything else, Puerto Rico remained under full congressional authority in all laws including, but not limited to, labor, tax and other revenue, transportation, commerce, banking, health & health services, criminal, immigration, environmental and all other areas subject to congressional jurisdiction.
All attempts to interpret the legal and political relationship with the U.S. as one that granted Puerto Rico full local self-government, have fallen by the wayside. For many years, Muñoz MarÃn and “Commonwealth” supporters claimed we had full control over minimum-wage laws and other labor relations. However, when Congress decided to legislatively apply federal minimum wages in Puerto Rico, it did. There was nothing the Popular Democratic Party and those who claimed full autonomy on minimum wages and other fair-labor standards could do about it.
For decades, Muñoz MarÃn and all Commonwealth supporters claimed full fiscal autonomy. However, when President Clinton and Congress decided to eliminate the tax credits of Section 936 to companies established in Puerto Rico, there was nothing “Commonwealth” supporters could do other than beg and plead with the president and Congress. All they could obtain was an extension of the time to eliminate the tax credits.
More and more people in Puerto Rico have realized the so-called Commonwealth status is nothing other than a “disguised colony.” Or, as that memorable constitutional lawyer, Dr. Santos P. Amadeo, used to say: “The Commonwealth is nothing other than a perfumed cologne” or, a “bonsai,” as Peña Clos says.
As a result of Puerto Rico’s continuous colonial relationship, an undesirable colonial mentality has been creeping into our behavior and sense of relationship with the federal government and even with our own local government.
That is why every time a member of our executive or legislative branch of government goes to the White House, Congress or any federal government agency, it is to ask or beg for money or other resources, while here, in Puerto Rico, Commonwealth supporters blame the federal government for all of our problems, albeit past, present or future.
While those of us who work and struggle to achieve political and economic equality, not only in terms of rights and privileges but also in terms of duties and obligations, those who support the colonial relationship ask for more money and equality in privileges and funds, but refuse to accept any more responsibilities or obligations, particularly payment of taxes and acceptance of other fiscal responsibilities.
The colonial relationship has undermined the self-respect and sense of pride of those who continuously beg and plead but refuse to accept responsibilities and obligations. They make our people appear as beggars and leeches. When Commonwealth supporters go to Washington to beg and plead, while at the same time they refuse to accept any more duties or obligations as citizens, they not only demean our people, they also give the bigots and prejudiced groups arguments to use against us in our quest for equality and to create and provoke prejudice against Puerto Ricans.
The result of the undermining of our self-esteem as a consequence of our colonial relationship and the sponsoring of a beggars attitude is clearly demonstrated by a widely held fear that even if we have a majority support for political equality in a referendum, Congress wouldn’t grant us statehood. Those who make the argument and believe we will never be granted equality even if a majority asks for it, have a clear inferiority complex. The nation’s history clearly demonstrates that not a single territory has ever been denied admission as a state once a majority has voted for it.
The political reality of the world and the nation today makes it even more improbable that we wouldn’t be accepted as a state if a majority votes for it. It is precisely the colonial mentality that we must rid ourselves of. It is the colonial mentality that creates doubt in many of us as to what we can achieve with a majority vote.
It is our misfortune that a majority of our people were misled into voting for “Commonwealth” under the belief we were achieving a full measure of local self government.
Instead of celebrating July 25, we should proclaim it a day of shame and a day of mourning in our struggle for political and economic equality. Next year, on July 25, those of us who want full measures of democracy and political and economic equality should wear black ribbons on our chests and put black flags on our cars.
by CARLOS ROMERO BARCELÓ
Caribbean Business
July 30, 2009
Carlos Romero Barceló is a two-term former governor of Puerto Rico (1977-’84), a two-term former resident commissioner (1993-’00) and a two-term former mayor of San Juan (1969-’78). He was president of the New Progressive Party for 11 years.
What happened on July 25, 1952 that we should celebrate and honor with an official holiday? Nothing. On the contrary, instead of celebrating the adoption of our local constitution on that day as a giant step toward full local self-government, we should declare July 25 a day of shame and mourning for being the day when our people voted to become a “colony by consent.”
Until July 25, 1952, we were a colony by conquest in the Spanish-American War of 1898. At the time of the Spanish-American War in 1898, we had been a colony for more than 450 years. In the Treaty of Paris, signed at the end of the Spanish-American War, Spain gave up Puerto Rico to the U.S. and we became a colony of the U.S. by conquest.
During the first two decades of our colonial relationship with the nation, two very important acts of Congress established the colonial government in Puerto Rico. The Foraker Act in 1901 and the Jones Act of 1917 determined and defined the Republican form of government established in Puerto Rico. As established in the Jones Act, the Puerto Rico Senate and House of Representatives were organized, and all people born in Puerto Rico after the enactment of the Jones Act would be natural-born citizens of the U.S.
Since the Foraker Act, the governor of Puerto Rico was appointed by the U.S. president and, as a result, the highest-ranking and most-powerful elected public official after 1917 was the Puerto Rico Senate president.
It wasn’t until 1948 that we were allowed to elect our own governor by virtue of an act of Congress during President Harry Truman’s administration. Precisely during those years, right after World War II, Gov. Luis Muñoz MarÃn began conversations with the White House and Congress in an attempt to achieve full local self-government in Puerto Rico.
The attempt failed and all we obtained was:
First, a change of official name from the Territory of Puerto Rico to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;
Second, the consent of Congress to allow us to draft a local constitution, which would define the Republican form of government with its separation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches as were already established under the Jones Act of 1917 as amended, including the right to elect our own governor, which had been bestowed upon us in 1948;
Third, the right to appeal our local Supreme Court decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, was eliminated and our Puerto Rico Supreme Court decisions could only be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In everything else, Puerto Rico remained under full congressional authority in all laws including, but not limited to, labor, tax and other revenue, transportation, commerce, banking, health & health services, criminal, immigration, environmental and all other areas subject to congressional jurisdiction.
All attempts to interpret the legal and political relationship with the U.S. as one that granted Puerto Rico full local self-government, have fallen by the wayside. For many years, Muñoz MarÃn and “Commonwealth” supporters claimed we had full control over minimum-wage laws and other labor relations. However, when Congress decided to legislatively apply federal minimum wages in Puerto Rico, it did. There was nothing the Popular Democratic Party and those who claimed full autonomy on minimum wages and other fair-labor standards could do about it.
For decades, Muñoz MarÃn and all Commonwealth supporters claimed full fiscal autonomy. However, when President Clinton and Congress decided to eliminate the tax credits of Section 936 to companies established in Puerto Rico, there was nothing “Commonwealth” supporters could do other than beg and plead with the president and Congress. All they could obtain was an extension of the time to eliminate the tax credits.
More and more people in Puerto Rico have realized the so-called Commonwealth status is nothing other than a “disguised colony.” Or, as that memorable constitutional lawyer, Dr. Santos P. Amadeo, used to say: “The Commonwealth is nothing other than a perfumed cologne” or, a “bonsai,” as Peña Clos says.
As a result of Puerto Rico’s continuous colonial relationship, an undesirable colonial mentality has been creeping into our behavior and sense of relationship with the federal government and even with our own local government.
That is why every time a member of our executive or legislative branch of government goes to the White House, Congress or any federal government agency, it is to ask or beg for money or other resources, while here, in Puerto Rico, Commonwealth supporters blame the federal government for all of our problems, albeit past, present or future.
While those of us who work and struggle to achieve political and economic equality, not only in terms of rights and privileges but also in terms of duties and obligations, those who support the colonial relationship ask for more money and equality in privileges and funds, but refuse to accept any more responsibilities or obligations, particularly payment of taxes and acceptance of other fiscal responsibilities.
The colonial relationship has undermined the self-respect and sense of pride of those who continuously beg and plead but refuse to accept responsibilities and obligations. They make our people appear as beggars and leeches. When Commonwealth supporters go to Washington to beg and plead, while at the same time they refuse to accept any more duties or obligations as citizens, they not only demean our people, they also give the bigots and prejudiced groups arguments to use against us in our quest for equality and to create and provoke prejudice against Puerto Ricans.
The result of the undermining of our self-esteem as a consequence of our colonial relationship and the sponsoring of a beggars attitude is clearly demonstrated by a widely held fear that even if we have a majority support for political equality in a referendum, Congress wouldn’t grant us statehood. Those who make the argument and believe we will never be granted equality even if a majority asks for it, have a clear inferiority complex. The nation’s history clearly demonstrates that not a single territory has ever been denied admission as a state once a majority has voted for it.
The political reality of the world and the nation today makes it even more improbable that we wouldn’t be accepted as a state if a majority votes for it. It is precisely the colonial mentality that we must rid ourselves of. It is the colonial mentality that creates doubt in many of us as to what we can achieve with a majority vote.
It is our misfortune that a majority of our people were misled into voting for “Commonwealth” under the belief we were achieving a full measure of local self government.
Instead of celebrating July 25, we should proclaim it a day of shame and a day of mourning in our struggle for political and economic equality. Next year, on July 25, those of us who want full measures of democracy and political and economic equality should wear black ribbons on our chests and put black flags on our cars.
23 July 2009
“Political Evolution: The Next Phase of Emancipation”
The 161st anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the former Danish West Indies – the present day US Virgin Islands - was commemorated on 3rd July 2009. A commemorative programme was held in Fort Frederik, Frederiksted, St. Croix, Virgin Islands. An address was given by former Virgin Islands Minister for External Affairs Dr. Carlyle G. Corbin, International Advisor on Democratic Governance. The address has been made available to Overseas Territories Review (OTR), and is reprinted by permission.
3rd July 2009
Introduction
I wish to thank the members of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, the organizers of this important event each year, for the kind invitation to participate in these activities in commemoration of the 161st anniversary of emancipation. I wish to especially thank Ms. Mary Moorhead and Ms. Pam Richards for facilitating my participation at this year’s activities. I have worked with these dynamic Virgin Islanders for a number of years, and was honoured to have been asked to present some thoughts on this sacred day in our history.
I especially wish to congratulate my friend and brother Mario Moorhead on the publication of his most recent book, “He and Me.” His earlier works, Redemption, Mammon Versus History, Who Feels it Knows It, and the series of ‘Black Star' novels among other works, provide a most dynamic analysis of the historical evolution of the people of the Virgin Islands. These works are required reading for those who wish to achieve clarity on the true legacy of the struggle of our past, and what is necessary to move forward. In the words of Actress Ruby Dee, “Above all, we need those with a sense of history - those who have the longer view.” I look forward to Mario’s feature address this afternoon.
As we commemorate this 161st year of emancipation, it is my firm belief that today, Emancipation Day, is our single most important holiday because it represents the successful struggle of the ancestors in abolishing the abominable system of slavery under the Kingdom of Denmark, beginning a long and arduous journey towards the pursuit – but not yet the attainment - of the civil, political and human rights of the people.
It is interesting that Emancipation Day in other parts of the Caribbean is often the most important holiday on the calendar. Our close neighbor, the British Virgin Islands, commemorates its emancipation on the first Monday in August (August Monday). In fact, the Emancipation Festival in the BVI, as in other British territories, is centered around Emancipation Day, with many activities dealing with cultural history and the struggle of African people who succeeded in defeating slavery under the British.
International Commemoration of the Abolition of Slavery
In recent years, my work at the United Nations has permitted me to participate in the international commemoration the abolition of slavery. On 17th December 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution designating March 25th each year as the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade. As a result, a number of educational outreach programmes have been instituted to draw attention to the “causes, consequences and lessons of the transatlantic slave trade, and to communicate the dangers of racism and prejudice.” This initiative was done through the collaboration of the member countries of Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the African Union at the United Nations. Ambassador Crispen Gregoire of Dominica and Ambassador Raymond Wolfe of Jamaica are especially engaged in keeping the issue on the front burner of the United Nations.
This initiative was an outgrowth of the momentum generated at the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance which convened in 2001 in South Africa – one of the world conferences in which I had the honour to speak on behalf of the Government of the US Virgin Islands during my tenure in Government House.
In 2008, a number of activities were undertaken including a solemn ceremony in the United Nations General Assembly Hall and an exhibition in the United Nations Visitor’s Lobby entitled “The Middle Passage: White Ships, Black Cargo.” Additionally, a conference entitled “Lest We Forget: Breaking the Silence on the Transatlantic Slave Trade,” was also held after the premiere of the powerful documentary “The Slave Route: A Global Vision.” Also in 2008, a group of students sailing on a replica of the Freedom Schooner Amistad retracing the Transatlantic Slave Route joined an international videoconference, when their ship docked in St. Lucia on 26 March.
The 2009 activities three months ago at the United Nations included several documentary films: Scattered Africa: Faces and Voices of the African Diaspora (US),and Black Atlantic: On the Orixas Route (Brazil). An expert panel discussion on The Legacy of the Slave Trade on Modern Society, and a major cultural event in the General Assembly Hall culminated this year’s commemoration. Recently, a Trust Fund was established for the creation of a permanent memorial at United Nations Headquarters acknowledging victims of slavery and the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. You would be interested to know that the Kingdom of Denmark has pledged US$ 10,000 to this memorial, and was one of the first countries to so pledge.
To this end, Denmark’s acknowledgment of the past has been encouraging. In a 2007 report submitted to the United Nations, Denmark acknowledged its role in “the barbarism of transatlantic slave trade (which) constitute(d) 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.” The Danish perspective, however, regards slavery as a legal institution at the time it was practiced, and as such, absolves them of any liability to this point. In any case, the Danes, too, should share in this July 3rd commemoration as well since our emancipation, and the cessation of that “crime against humanity,” was part of Danish political history and evolution, as well – even as emancipation was not one of benevolent enlightenment, but rather the result of the organized revolt by the enslaved Africans.
The Internalization of Dependency
A week or so ago, I heard a talk show host in St. Thomas discuss the adoption of the recent non-binding US Senate Resolution 26 apologising for the “enslavement and racial discrimination of African-Americans.” This followed the adoption in 2008 of a similar resolution in the House of Representatives (H. Res.194). Neither resolution, however, supported reparations for the descendents of the enslaved Africans. Undeterred, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan last January introduced legislation, once again (HR 40), to form a Commission to Study Reparation Proposals. Meanwhile, President Obama’s delegation to the recent United Nations international conference in Geneva to review progress in implementing measures to combat racism successfully pressed for the removal of reference to reparations in the final report of the conference.
In any case, what was interesting to me as I listened to the talk show host discuss the Congressional apology was how he internalized this Congressional resolution, as if it applied to us here in this unincorporated territory. I am sure that he was aware that the slavery experience of our ancestors was under Denmark, not under the United States – unless, of course, the US assumed liability at the time of the purchase. I don’t see that anywhere in the Treaty of Cession, however.
The point that I am making is that our territorial status has caused us to internalize many things that do not apply to us precisely because our political identity is incomplete. In effect, we operate without a full measure of self-government. We are a people, not a ‘minority,’ as we are often referred to in the media. How can an overwhelmingly African descended society located in the Caribbean be referred to as a minority? Even federal statistics acknowledge that the society is comprised of about 85 per cent African descendents. Why, then, are we continuously characterized as a minority? As Paul Keens-Douglas wrote, is this “freedom of the press, or freedom to de-press?”
The fact is that we are a people who have a right to self-determination under international law - but we have never exercised that right. The Charter of the United Nations and the human rights conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights confirm this right as inalienable. This is not based on United Nations resolutions whose effect is not legally binding – although they are certainly morally binding. These are international treaties which are, in fact, legally binding on the countries that enter into them.
Under this inalienable right of self-determination, we have the right to choose from a set of legitimate political status options which provide for absolute political equality. As a society, however, we seem to have internalized the dependent territorial status, and by doing so, we have given it a legitimacy which it does not necessarily warrant. It has served us to this point in our political evolution and development, but the elements of the present status remain seriously deficient with respect to what constitutes democracy. These democratic deficiencies are the primary reason why we are listed by the United Nations as one of the sixteen remaining non self-governing territories. If we cannot be recognised as a people because of our dependent territory status, then there is clearly something wrong with that status – not with the people who demand their due recognition as a people. Identity and citizenship are not necessarily synonymous.
Recommendations have been made by the United Nations General Assembly since 1946 to give effect to our political development and evolution to full self-government. As a society, however, we are encouraged to dismiss the relevancy of international law and principles, and the role of the United Nations, even as most of our elected governments for decades have addressed the United Nations during the annual United Nations review of the US Virgin Islands. The Bush Administration issued a policy position that the territories under its administration were no longer an international issue, and merely a domestic one – but they still report to the United Nations every year. But, if we are not an international issue, why are we still on the United Nations list, and why did the Bush Administration continue to acknowledge us as an international question by reporting to the United Nations?
We do not read, see nor hear much of any of this in the media. The fact that our political development has been the subject of international review and assessment since 1946, based on the Charter of the United Nations is rarely reported - unless someone writes a guest editorial. We must find alternative sources to fill the considerable gaps in information on matters that directly relate to us.
Status Quo Versus Options of Political Equality
I was asked to focus this afternoon on the option of free association – one of the three options which would provide us with a full measure of self-government. It is an option which is recognized as a permanent political status, along with independence and integration, in accordance with international law. These three options are also recognized by the US Congress as options of political equality. Present legislation before Congress known as the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009 (H.R. 2499) introduced by Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi confirms that these three options as the only ones which provide for a permanent political status. The White House under former President Bush had agreed that these were the three permanent options in their 2005 and 2007 reports, while also recognizing the temporary nature, as well as the limitations, of the present territorial status.
Puerto Rico Governor Luis Fortuño put it this way in his testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources on self-determination legislation for Puerto Rico:
“230 years after the Declaration of Independence and 220 after the ratification of the US constitution, (the United States) continues to sanction an arrangement of governance over four million of its citizens that is abhorrent to the sacred principles enshrined in that Declaration because of the anachronistic survival of the Territory Clause of that constitution.”
Governor Fortuño continued that:
“Whatever may have been the role of the territorial system in the birth and growth of (the United States), the fact is that (the) Founding Fathers never intended it as a permanent way of governance by the federal government over the citizens of the Republic. More importantly, it clearly offends the values of American democracy in the 21st Century, especially as Congress has allowed such an inherently undemocratic system to remain in place…”
The Governor went on to say that:
“…we have forged an overall and growing consensus in Puerto Rico that our current relationship with the U.S. – territorial, unequal in the rights and duties of citizenship, not fully democratic, not fully self-governing and not fully consensual – no longer serves either Puerto Rico or the U.S. as well.”
The present territorial status no longer serves the U.S. Virgin Islands either.
Governor Fortuño, in his testimony, asked the fundamental question of “whether the framers of the (U.S.) constitution intend American citizenship to be a source of equal rights?”
He observed that:
“Puerto Rico is a community of American citizens who are deprived of the most basic rights of citizenship in a representative democracy: the right to vote and the right to be represented in the political body that enacts the laws by which they must abide.”
He ventured that:
“American citizens in Puerto Rico are separated from their counterparts in the States by a wall of political inequality built upon the foundation of our current territorial status.”
So there we have it. In analyzing this unincorporated territorial status, then, it is easy to recognize the fundamental democratic deficiencies under which we are governed. We are aware, for example, that we have no presidential vote, non-voting representation in the US House of Representatives and no representation at all in the US Senate. We also know that there are limitations, because of our status, in relation to the level of participation in some federal programmes.
The inconsistency of these democratic deficiencies are mentioned, often in passing, in the local media from time to time, but often so obliquely that it generates little or no reaction. As Mario might say, we may have heard it, but nothing rang in our head. This is not the case in some of the other territories. The driving force behind Puerto Rican political parties, for example, is their support for a political status preference. Thus, there is a pro-statehood New Progressive Party, a pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party and a pro-independence Puerto Rico Independence Party. The political leadership, as evidenced by the clarity of position of Puerto Rico Governor Fortuño and other political leaders, plays a critical role in the public education process on these issues.
The territory of Guam recognised the importance of full internal self-government as far back as the 1990s, and voted in favour of substantive autonomy in a referendum, although their proposal stalled in Congress. The commonwealth of the Northern Marianas has the most autonomous status of all of the US territories with powers governing the ownership of land and sea resources, among other areas. They gained these powers through successful negotiations with the United States in the 1980s. Recently, however, their autonomy is being systematically eroded by the Congress through legislation adopted late last year. This has motivated the Marianas Government to bring suit against the federal government for the unilateral removal of their self-government. We await the decision on their lawsuit which was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C.
For our part, the Virgin Islands Status Commission in the early 1990s drafted an autonomous political arrangement for consideration by the voters as an attempt to achieve a degree of self-government. The faulty process which included an excessive number of seven options severely impeded a proper public review of the areas contained in the autonomy proposal. The result, as we recall, was a less than sufficient turn-out in the 1993 referendum, and we reverted to the status quo, by default, and many questions remained.
Thus, in our present political status, we in the US Virgin Islands know that there is something not quite right. There is something peculiar, for example, with the fact that on Election Day last year we could not cast a vote for Mr. Obama – we seem to have concluded that voting in a primary election in the territory months before the ‘real vote’ for president is sufficient. We have internalized the deficiencies, and seem to have accepted them as adequate. We have given legitimacy to a model of political dependency which is far short of acceptable democratic governance. The late Michael Manley in the book “Struggle in the Periphery,” wrote that in order “to go forward (we) first have to recognize the depth of the trap in which we are caught.”
It may be surprising to many that the denial of such political rights is an issue for the citizens of the District of Columbia. The democratic deficiencies in their political status vis a vis the United States were enough to motivate civic leaders to file a case in the Inter American Commission for Human Rights. The Commission ultimately ruled that the lack of Congressional vote violated international law (specifically, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, et al). The Inter American Commission on Human Rights is a statutory body of the Organization of American States (OAS) which itself has a Democracy Charter by which it defends democratic principles in the hemisphere. On this basis, a similar case was filed with the same Commission by former Puerto Rico Governor Pedro Rossello, but has not yet been heard.
While there are no enforcement provisions in the Commission rulings, they represent a true sense of moral reasoning. In any case, such rulings serve as precedents for our situation as an unincorporated territory if we were to similarly challenge our lack of full political rights. Are there similarly organized civic groups in the US Virgin Islands who recognize the democratic deficiencies, and who would bring such a challenge?
Indeed, proper and sustainable organisation around these issues is critical if we are to advance from the political periphery. As if to confirm our place in that periphery, the US courts have continuously and consistently reaffirmed that full political rights can only be granted through the achievement of political integration, or statehood. The ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in 2000 was a landmark in a series of earlier and subsequent court decisions which confirmed this fact. The Court reversed an earlier District Court of Puerto Rico decision which had concluded that the 24th and 26th amendments of the U.S. Constitution support that the right to participate in presidential elections is not a function of state residence, but rather of individual right of citizenship.
It was therefore confirmed by the Appeals Court, once again, that only citizens residing in one of the fifty states have the power to vote for electors, and thereby indirectly for the president of the United States. A similar case brought by Krim Ballantine in St. Thomas with respect to the US Virgin Islands has met with similar rulings.
The federal executive has acted consistent with these rulings, and has made important policy decisions regarding the territories to this effect. Thus, prevailing White House policy has confirmed that the present status in Puerto Rico known as commonwealth is really an unincorporated territory subject to the Territorial Clause of the US Constitution. This gives the Congress the right to unilaterally make laws for the territories without their consent, and often against their will. It is this very unilateral authority which has been identified by the United Nations General Assembly each year as the fundamental basis of the political inequality which characterizes unincorporated territorial status. It is a fundamental reason for the retention of territories on the UN list of non self-governing territories. We are one of the sixteen remaining territories on that list.
We should find out the position of the Obama Administration later this year on the self-determination process of the territories when the newest White House Report on the status of Puerto Rico is due. Would the Obama administration have a different opinion than that of the Bush administration on the legitimacy of territorial status, and the possible way forward? We shall see. It is often the case, however, that policy made on the basis of the U.S. Justice Department opinion carries over from one administration to the next.
But whatever is decided, one thing remains clear. There is a fundamental imbalance in the political relationship between a territory and the federal government. The only matter of discussion is how do we correct the imbalance? But then again, do we recognize that such an imbalance indeed exists? Do we consider that the political imbalance of power between the federal government and the territory is necessary - to keep us in check? I am especially troubled by this thinking. This is why Mario’s talk show is so important because it helps us to understand the imbalance, and to discuss how it can be re-balanced. On this Emancipation Day, I recall the words of former Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere that: “Freedom is the ability to determine your own future and to govern without interference.”
One way of addressing the imbalance is through a gradualist approach where we would seek incremental rights, beginning, perhaps, with the presidential vote. But this would be a formidable task, and could only come via an amendment to the US Constitution, as was done for the District of Columbia. It would be a major challenge to gain overwhelming support of both houses of Congress along with three-fourths of the state legislatures for a constitutional amendment. The lobbying costs alone would probably be prohibitive. Of course, legislation to grant the presidential vote to the U.S. territories by federal law has been dutifully introduced in the House of Representatives, year after year, for decades. These bills have never been acted upon.
Also taking the gradualist approach, we could seek to gain full voting rights in the US House of Representatives as opposed to the present vote only in committee. Under the present Democratic Party-controlled Congress, this also includes a vote in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House rules. But the District of Columbia non-voting delegate can attest to the difficulties in achieving a Congressional vote for a non-state, as present legislation is being held up as a result of provisions added to soften DC gun laws – to allow more guns. You might be quite amazed by the nature of the discussions in the Congressional debate on several bills that would extend House of Representatives voting rights to Washington, D.C.
Further, what about the vote for the territories in the US Senate? The US Constitution is clear that only states have that power. We are not a state, although we have state directors and state plans, and state-like treatment. A colleague of mine calls it the illusion of inclusion. But, as Martin Luther King said in his “I have a dream” speech on the steps of the US Capitol, “We must guard against the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.” As Leba Ola Niyi concluded in his newspaper column on this day, “the status quo is archaic, colonial and undesirable.”
The fact that we have an Olympic team which competes in international competitions under the US Virgin Islands flag, and the fact that we have associate membership in several United Nations agencies with a seat behind the US Virgin Islands nameplate, should signal that our status is complex. States cannot send teams to the Olympics nor can they be represented in international organisations. These things were created, mostly at the request of the territories, to contribute to preparation towards full self-government. We must not lose sight of that fact.
Statehood as a Legitimate Option
If we really want to emerge from the ‘illusion of inclusion,’ and gain full political rights in the United States system, we could become a state, or even a part of a state. But with a population of just over 100,000, as well as other demographic factors, it would be especially difficult to achieve separate statehood. Of course, there is the possibility of joining an existing state, or joining with a new state entering the union. This would solve the democratic deficit. We would have a vote in both Houses of Congress, as well as the presidential vote. But would this be in our economic, cultural and political interest? There are certain questions that answer themselves just by being asked.
But it is necessary for us to decide our political future sooner, rather than later. If we don’t decide, Congress could decide for us - so if they wish to combine us with an existing state, for example, or make us three new municipalities of a new 51st state of Puerto Rico, what would be our response? Indignation? Incredulity? Or would we have a counter offer?
In any case, the option of integration – or as we know it, statehood - is defined by the United Nations in its Resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960, as follows:
• "Integration should be on the basis of complete equality between the peoples of the erstwhile non-self-governing territory with which it is integrated. The peoples of both territories should have equal status and rights of citizenship and equal guarantees of fundamental rights and freedoms without any distinction or discrimination; both should have equal rights and opportunities for representation and effective participation at all levels in the executive, legislative and judicial organs of government...”
Former territories such as Alaska and Hawaii became the 49th and 50th states of the US, and as such, were removed from the UN list of non self-governing territories. In our region, Martinique, Guadeloupe and French Guiana are the examples of integration through their overseas departmental status. This provides them with full political rights, but recent labour unrest indicates that the model is far from perfect. Recently, there have been calls for the creation of a new autonomous arrangement for Martinique – perhaps along the lines of French Polynesia. In any case, the chronic economic crisis in Hawaii does not bode well for the ‘overseas state’ model, which along with the five US territories, was in economic crisis long before the present global recession.
Of course, political integration, or statehood, is one of the three options which provide for full political equality where the people of the territory would have full political rights, as well as the responsibilities of actually being “a part of” the US - rather than “owned by” it. Many have internalized that we are a part of the US already, since we hear the phrase repeated on a daily basis. But the political and constitutional reality is fundamentally clearly otherwise. Having the US territories embossed on the back of a coin does not constitute political integration, but merely serves to further the illusion of integration. I suppose if any of the territories change their status, the minting of these coins would cease, and the remaining coins would become immediate collector’s items.
I am clearly not an advocate of statehood. But I fully respect it as a viable option because it would afford full political rights which we presently do not have. It would provide, in the words of the late Peter Tosh, “equal rights and justice.” The price in economic, social and cultural terms, however, might be far too steep.
Evolution of Governance
Historically, we have gone through various systems of governance, beginning with chattel slavery to military governance through Congressional rule via the Organic Act of 1936 and the Revised Organic Act of 1954, as it has been subsequently amended. In the process, we have moved from the era of an appointed governor to one of an elected governor by 1968 – all the while, still being governed by the Revised Organic Act which was written by the U.S. Congress.
We have gone through four – and now five – attempts to draft a local constitution - with the caveat each time that the final document would have to be consistent with our present dependency status. I share the view of those who felt that we should have followed the will of the people who voted in referendum in 1982 to deal with status first. Of course, we did try to deal with status through two commissions in the 1980s and 1990s, as well as one committee of the Legislature. Our second Status Commission, which convened before and after Hurricane Hugo, and on which I had the honour to serve, did significant work that should have propelled us into a new decade of concentration on the political evolution of the territory.
Some of our best political thinkers of today, Gerard Emanuel and Malik Sekou, were part of that earlier process, and it is most unfortunate that their recommendation was not accepted that an educational component on political development be continued after the inconclusive referendum of 1993. As such, there was no public discussion on the status or constitutional issues between 1993 and the present Fifth Constitutional Convention process. Many issues which were left unresolved following the political status referendum in 1993 have re-surfaced in the Fifth Constitutional Convention which has a narrower mandate. We should not be surprised since this was the only forum for over a decade where any issues of governance could be discussed.
My view is that a constitution based on a legitimate status chosen by the people would be preferable than one which is based on the status quo which itself was never meant to be permanent. Territorial status was always meant to be a transitional status to one of permanence. We have tweaked it, amended it and otherwise changed it within parametres, sometimes defined, sometimes un-defined, by the U.S. Congress, and always subject to unilateral change. Such changes effectively eliminated the foreign sales corporations sector, and had significant impacts on the investment incentive programme, for example. The overarching control to legislate for the territory remained, and remains, in place.
It is not surprising, therefore, that many of the issues under discussion in the present Fifth Constitutional Convention were those which sought more autonomy and local control. Some viewed them as ‘status’ issues. Again, I have always favoured status-first, but in a pragmatic sense, I take the view that anything which stimulates discussion on political development is a good thing. This is why I agreed to serve as an advisor to the Fifth Constitutional Convention where the deliberations raised a series of fundamental questions, such as:
• Would additional powers and authority be delegated by the Congress to an unincorporated territory under a local constitution?
• Does the fact that other US territories have unique provisions in their constitutions in relation to their local population serve as precedents for the US Virgin Islands? If not, why not?
• If the process goes through successfully, and we adopt a new constitution after it comes from Washington – assuming it actually goes to Washington – will we feel that we have “arrived,” and that we are “done with that?”
• Or will we recognise that with the enactment of a new constitution, a step would be made, but that we would still remain an unincorporated territory, albeit with a constitution, as opposed to a territory without a constitution as we are now?
• Will we come to the realisation that a local constitution would be only the beginning of a process to address the fundamental matter of achieving full internal self-government and the achievement of a permanent status?
It is often better to know some of the questions than all of the answers.
Free Association
As I stated earlier, integration, free association and independence are the three options recognised as legitimate by the White House, by the Congress and by the United Nations. If these are the available alternatives to achieve a permanent status, then the most logical step in my view would be a transition from a political dependency, as we are now, to a political association – given that the territorial status was always meant to be temporary and transitory.
Most of the present work in political transition has been historically done in regards to Puerto Rico, and is directly related to the political future of the US Virgin Islands. The present legislation before the US Congress authorizing a referendum for Puerto Rico confirms the legitimacy of the three options. It also provides for the Puerto Rican people to choose the status quo commonwealth - but if the people choose it, they would have to vote again in a few years, until they select one of the three permanent options. As you might imagine, Commonwealth supporters are not too pleased with their option of “permanent union” with United States now being re-defined as temporary. As far as they are concerned, commonwealth is permanent. This is part of their illusion.
Free association, then, is an option which emerged from the same United Nations resolution which defined political integration, specifically United Nations Resolution 1541 (XV) of 1960. It sets the minimum standards for an acceptable autonomous political arrangement. Accordingly:
• “Free association should be the result of a free and voluntary choice by the peoples of the territory concerned expressed through informed and democratic processes. It should be one which respects the individuality and the cultural characteristics of the territory and its peoples, and retains for the peoples of the territory which is associated with an independent state the freedom to modify the status of that territory through the expression of their will by democratic means and through constitutional processes.
• The associated territory should have the right to determine its internal constitution without outside interference, in accordance with due constitutional processes and the freely expressed wishes of the people..."
So far, the model of free association offered by the United States is that which it maintains in the Pacific with the associated states of Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall Islands. These arrangements emerged from the former United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and are based primarily on military considerations in exchange for long-term economic assistance packages. There are also requirements for consultation to take place on all issues related to defense and foreign affairs. The three associated states are also full members of the United Nations.
The free association arrangements between these three associated states and the United States provides for grant assistance over a twenty year period (which could be extended), and a trust fund that will accrue to provide an ongoing source of revenue when direct U.S. grant assistance ends. The arrangement also identifies the mutually agreed priorities for grant assistance in the areas of education, health care, infrastructure, private development, environmental protection, and capacity building sectors. It also provides for the continuation of federal programs and services for the benefit of the citizens of the associated state.
The Congressional Research Service in a 2005 Report indicated that the US model of free association is based upon a legal document known as a compact of association between the associated state and the United States. The CRS also said that free association could be accompanied by a transition period in which the United States could continue to administer certain services and provide further assistance for a period of time, as specified in the compact. Free association could also be annulled by either party based on the terms of the compact.
Whether US citizenship could be retained under free association continues to be the biggest question mark. I would argue that if free association with the retention of US citizenship were offered to Puerto Rico, a critical mass of 75 per cent of the electorate would coalesce around that option – especially if statehood were denied. The Congress, thus far, has been rather adept over the decades in avoiding the question of whether it would accept Puerto Rico as a Spanish-speaking state. The retention of the primacy of the Spanish language as a state is non-negotiable, even among many pro-statehooders. Congress may be faced with that question, once again, if the present legislation authorizing a referendum for Puerto Rico on the three options is adopted and signed into law by President Obama.
In the Caribbean, there are presently other, more flexible, models of autonomy which combine elements of free association and elements of integration. These have risen to the level of political equality sufficient to remove them from United Nations jurisdiction. The Netherlands Antilles, comprised of Bonaire, Curacao, Saba, St. Eustatius and Sint Maarten, is referred to in the Charter of the Kingdom of the Netherlands as a separate country with significant autonomous powers, along with Aruba and Holland. The relationship allows for the right to influence whether or how Kingdom laws or treaties apply. At the same time, there are provisions for participation in the legislative body of the Kingdom.
The present dismantling of the five-island Netherlands Antilles has more to do with the difficulties in multi-island governance from Curacao than the efficacy of the autonomous model itself. Both Sint Maarten and Curacao fought hard to maintain the autonomy existing in the present arrangement of the five islands in their negotiations with the Dutch on separate arrangements for the individual islands. The negotiations, however, have resulted in some loss of autonomy in fiscal matters and security.
Puerto Rico used to be considered a model of free association with the United States on the basis of common market, common citizenship, common defence and common currency. However, as I mentioned earlier, the Puerto Rico model of commonwealth has been re-defined by the White House, and in Congressional legislation, with the perception of autonomy significantly curtailed. It is on the basis of significant autonomy, however, that the people supported numerous referenda in support of commonwealth status.
Pro-commonwealth leaders continue to argue – most recently in Congressional hearings – that the commonwealth status provides freedom from control or interference by the Congress in respect of internal government and administration. They cite a series of US Supreme Court decisions supporting their position, as well as a 1971 U.S. Justice Department opinion which concluded that Congress can gradually relinquish its plenary powers and grant ever increasing measures of self-government. More recent Justice Department opinions, however, appear to have modified this perspective.
Other autonomous models for small island territories are in the Pacific, including the Cook Islands and Niue in free association with New Zealand. This is probably the most progressive of models of association existing today, providing for the maximum autonomy with shared New Zealand citizenship.
There is also Greenland and the Faroe Islands which enjoy autonomous arrangements with Denmark. These arrangements (Greenland more than the Faroes) provides for significant autonomy, while also providing for shared Danish citizenship and voting representation in the Danish Parliament. This brings to mind a discussion in our Status Commission in the 1990s of adding “Return to Denmark” as a status option. It was clear that the political status of Greenland and Faroe Islands, respectively, was far more autonomous than our present status of unincorporated territory. Since we already had seven options, however, there was insufficient interest in adding an eighth.
In all of these cases, though, the elements of any model of free association are determined in negotiation. Our best minds would have to be tasked to study these models, and develop a strategic plan for negotiations. Ultimately, an autonomous arrangement specifically suited to us would be the logical outcome. Of course, this would have to be preceded by an extensive public education programme on the three legitimate political options, to ensure fairness. To this end, the federal government has an international obligation under Article 73(b) of the United Nations Charter to assist the territory in the promotion of self-government.
So far, the federal government has not been forthcoming in providing such assistance. Both the Virgin Islands Status Commission in the early 1990s, and the present Fifth Constitutional Convention, made requests for assistance in conducting a public education programme. In both cases, the requests were denied, as was the request for the authority to access United Nations assistance. Interestingly, previous Congressional legislation on status referenda for Puerto Rico would have the public educational programme funded from the rum excise tax rebate.
Conclusion
Of the three legitimate options of political equality, I would lean towards the option of free association. While I am confident that we have the capacity to govern ourselves as an independent state, just as any other small island states in the Caribbean with even smaller populations than our own, it is clear to me that our society is not presently prepared for such a qualitative leap at this time. Independence is a state of mind. We are not in that state of mind.
Free association would be an excellent compromise between those who wish to retain a political relationship with the United States, while also attaining more autonomous powers. It would also place us in a position for further political evolution. Because of the democratic deficiencies, including the continued vulnerability to unilateral decisions affecting us, I do not believe that it is in our interest to maintain the status quo. Long-term planning is difficult, at best, when the rules can be changed unilaterally at any time.
Thus, we should do all we can to replace the unincorporated territorial status with a more democratic model of governance where the power lies with the people.Barring any extraordinary political initiatives to address our political status in the next several years, however, we will observe in the year 2017 the centennial under United States jurisdiction as an unincorporated territory. The four previous efforts to draft a local constitution since the 1960s, and the three processes to deal with the issue of our political status since the 1980s, have been useful exercises, but they have not yielded a result. We therefore remain as one of the sixteen remaining non self-governing territories in the world eight years before the centennial in 2017. I have read that celebrations are being planned, as we speak. But by 2017:
• Will we 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, if successfully adopted, the end of our 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 by a government in which the territory has no voting rights?
• Do our 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 are insensitive given the historical legacy of slavery?
Again, it is often better to know some of the questions than all of the answers. These are some of the questions which are fundamental to our future political and socio-economic development.
I would further ask whether our society is 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.
But if an awareness emerges among the people that the dependency status has become anachronistic, then much work lies ahead. In the first instance, there would have to be a process developed to sensitize the society of the existing democratic deficiencies in our present status, how these deficiencies affect us in our daily lives and how upgrading the status would benefit us, and more importantly, future generations. Our young people are watching closely.
Such an exercise would lead to a viable, democratic model with a full measure of self-government for the 21st Century, based on internationally recognised standards of full political equality and democratic governance. Our choices are to act, or to acquiesce. We must decide, or I am afraid that our future may be decided for us.
A good place to start would be in defining the 'We.' Leba put it best in his newspaper column on this 161st commemoration of Emancipation Day when he said that “the descendents of the emancipated Africans have the duty to achieve the highest degree of self-determination and political equality.”
It is only from the base of our collective Caribbean identity that we can propel ourselves toward a natural political evolution as a society. This is the next phase of emancipation, and perhaps the most challenging phase since the struggle which began in 1848. The struggle continues. We must remove the barriers which have been artificially erected to fragment Caribbean people in our society. We must forge the strategic Caribbean alliance which is critical and essential in the building of a 21st Century Virgin Islands. We must embrace the richness of our collective identity. We can move forward from there.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)