The Real Story Behind the Guam Military Buildup

UPDATED

by Koohan Paik

THE MILITARY BUILDUP IN THE MARIANA ISLANDS

Guam, a possession of the United States, is one of 15 islands in the Marianas, an archipelago in the western Pacific so pristine and rich in biodiversity that it was recently designated a federally protected Marine National Monument. However, military activities are exempt from this so-called “protection” and the Department of Defense has plans to effectively destroy the natural habitats of these islands with the “Guam Military Buildup,”slated to take place over the next five years. Guam, an island only half the size of Cape Cod with a current population of 178,000, will soon become home to 80,000 additional Marines, dependents and laborers. The military already owns a third of the island, and the Marines aren't the only unit expanding. The Army, as well, is building a missile defense system; the Air Force is adding more drones; and the Navy is tearing out 2.3 million square feet of a healthy reef ecosystem to make way to house a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Though the people of these islands are being told that the Buildup will improve their quality of life, the facts show otherwise. Below is a handout being distributed among the people of Guam and the Marianas to shed light on the reality of how the Buildup will impact their islands.

The Military Buildup being planned for Guam and the rest of the Mariana Islands chain is being sold to us as a once-in-a-lifetime economic opportunity. But if you read the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) put out by the Department of Defense, it quickly becomes clear that this is far from the truth. And if you know your Pacific history, it is a simple connection of dots to see that the Buildup will likely be as cataclysmic for our people and environment as the atomic testing at Bikini was for the Marshall Islands. Below are a collection of facts taken from the Draft Environmental Statement released November 20, 2009:

I. ECONOMY

Myth: The military buildup will be great for Guam’s economy.

Fact: The military’s DEIS document states that very little money will go into Guam’s economy. According to the report, most contracts will go to large off-island companies, not to local contractors. Most money spent by the 80,000 newcomers will be spent on base, at companies also based on-island, not at local businesses. The 40,000 low-paid workers imported from the Philippines will not spend their money on Guam, but will send most of it back home.

And don’t think that Guam residents will benefit from an increase in construction jobs. According to the DEIS, at the projected 2014 peak in such jobs, only 2,566 will go to Guam residents, while 15,157 will be taken by off-island workers.

In addition, the military conducted a separate report which revealed that the cost of living will rise, but wages will remain low too low to keep up with skyrocketing costs. Guam Housing Urban Renewal Authority Executive Director, Benny Pinaula, does not feel the buildup will help keep housing affordable.

How will GovGuam fare during the buildup? The costs to the Government of Guam associated with the buildup will be $2.9 Billion dollars. But GovGuam officials are uncertain as to how those projects will be paid for.

Guam Senator and local industrialist Eddie Calvo explained that the buildup will cost millions of dollars to maintain roads, to upgrade wastewater treatment and by taking revenue from the port. Calvo recently wrote that the $50 million appropriated for roads within the 2010 Defense Budget is “a drop in the bucket to what is required to expand the roads and harden bridges to handle the thousands of containers and workers that will be arriving on island.”

Calvo also pointed out that EPA has ordered the local government to spend nearly $300 million dollars to develop secondary wastewater treatment facilities. Though the military will ultimately be end-users of the northern facilities, it appears that the local government will bear the brunt of the upfront costs, resulting from EPA’s edict.

According to Calvo, it has been discovered that commercial cargo has been shipping out of the Navy side of the harbor. If this trend is a prediction of things to come, this may cost the local government millions of dollars in lost revenue in the future.

To sum things up, the military build up will NOT help local Guam businesses, will NOT provide a boon in construction jobs, will NOT be an economic boost for local Guam residents, and will cost Guam's government millions of dollars. The fact that the DEIS was written by big defense contractors in Hawaii, not Guam, indicates where the money will go, and it is not to you and me.

II. NOT A “DONE DEAL”

Myth: The Guam Military Buildup is a “done deal.”

Fact: The Military Buildup is NOT a “done deal," as the Pacific Daily News would have us believe. There are many variables that need to take place in order for it to happen.

The buildup depends on what Japan decides to do. The U.S. is relying on Japan building an additional base on Okinawa in order for the troops to transfer from there to Guam. They are also depending on Japan to kick in $6 billion to help fund the buildup. However, Japan doesn’t want to build another base and it has been questioning the exorbitant expenses of the buildup, such as $775,000 per housing unit. Japan could make a decision that significantly delays the buildup, or even prevents it entirely.

Especially since the economic downturn, the Pentagon, too, has been uncertain about the expenses of the buildup (see this article from as recently as May 2009: "Pentagon Reconsiders Pricey Guam Move" at http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0509/050709cdam1.htm )

The powerful Heritage Foundation, an ultra-conservative, rightwing think tank, has been behind this buildup from the start, and has been steadily lobbying Congress to spend the billions of dollars it will take to make it happen. The Heritage Foundation takes the “Manifest Destiny” view of America, that it must rule the world, rather than share the world. And yet, in December 2009, a Pew Research Center study showed that almost half of Americans think that their country should “mind its own business internationally.” No doubt, these people would be opposed to the idea that $15 billion in their tax dollars is going to the Guam buildup, devoted to the military domination of another hemisphere. If these people were even aware of the buildup, let alone if they knew where Guam was, they would object to their Congressional representatives’ greenlighting the buildup. So far, less than $1 billion has been appropriated for the colossal project. There is no guarantee that the remaining $14 billion plus will come through.

So, it isn't a "done deal" after all. It is a future that can be shaped by the strategy and foresight of the people, starting at the grassroots.

III. WATER

Myth: There will be no problem supplying water to 80,000 new people on Guam. All we need to do is drill 22 more wells.

Fact: False. Twenty-two new wells will deplete our freshwater source. If there were enough water for that many more people, the DEIS would not have listed a desalination plant as a long-term solution. Desalination plants have adverse effects on the environment; and building one would make the people of Guam dependent on the military for the most basic resource for life – water.

If there were enough water to go around, the military would not consider the development of Tolaeyuus River (“Lost River”) in Santa Rita, either, to augment the water supply during the dry season. This would entail dredging the reservoir area of the existing dam, and installing a pump station and pipeline. Another scheme listed in the EIS is a comprehensive dredging of Fena Lake to increase capacity. Dredging equals more environmental devastation.

The DEIS makes no guarantee of water for the estimated 260,000-plus people to be on the island. So when you run short of water, as too many of us already do in Agat, Santa Rita, Piti and Asan, just remember the old Navy saying: "The needs of the Navy come first".

IV. SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONFLICTS

Myth: People living on the base and civilians will live together harmoniously, as “one.”

Fact: The buildup will create three distinct classes: 1) the military, who will be given expensive homes and good salaries; 2) the local people, who will be marginalized as second-class citizens and 3) 40,000 “temporary workers” who will be housed in barracks.

Billions of dollars are slated to be poured into construction inside the fence, while THERE ARE NO PLANS TO SPEND ANY MONEY OUTSIDE THE FENCE, except for road construction (not maintenance). There will be no money to help the current systems deal with infrastructure inadequacies or the expected rise in crime.

The difference between “inside the fence” and “outside the fence” will be more evident within our education system than it already is. There is already a big difference between the quality of education between the DODEA schools for the military kids and that of local public schools. Now, the DEIS tells us to expect a 20% increase in enrollment in the civilian public schools. With no supplemental funding to enable the public schools to absorb this huge influx of students brought by the military buildup, the disparity in education between civilian and DODEA schools will resemble the segregated schools of the Old South. The shameful separate-but-equal ethic is already alive and well on Guam, and will thrive further if the military buildup is allowed to take place.

Medical care and other social services will share similar problems. While military personnel on-island will receive better funded care, the thousands of additional people will overwhelm Guam’s already stressed medical and social services.

Meanwhile, who will monitor and enforce the labor laws governing the island’s temporary workers, most of whom will be from the Philippines and the Federated States of Micronesia? There is already a problem regarding huge human-rights and labor abuse on Guam. Human-rights violations will most likely get worse, without adequate monitoring or enforcement. In addition, the idea that these workers are really “temporary” is a myth. Studies show that the vast majority of workers who migrate to the states from the Philippines, even on temporary visas, stay, and create families. Do not expect a population reduction after the buildup.

V. CRIME INCREASE

The huge surge of young single males, both Marines and laborers, along with the disparity between haves and have-nots, will lead to an increase in crime, fights, alcoholism, rape and prostitution. According to the DEIS, the buildup will also cause an increase in drug smuggling, due to the increased flow of goods and legal and illegal immigrants into Guam. Currently, the drug methamphetamine is already readily available on Guam, due to a steady supply from the Philippines, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, and South Korea.

VI. STRESSED SOCIAL SERVICES

As pointed out by University of Guam Professor of Social Work ,Dr. Gerhard Schwab, social services cannot keep up with current demands. He says that currently, “children in private and public child welfare organizations experience neglect and abuse… hard-working families do not have the health care and family support they need to care for their elderly and sick family members … our best local social service professionals leave Guam because of poor working conditions and/or lack of support and resources for their work.” And that is the way things are now.

If the buildup is allowed to go forward, troubles will get worse. The workload will double, while no money or resources are being appropriated to deal with these gigantic, foreseeable problem social problems.

Peter Sgro, president of the Guam Healthcare Development Foundation, says 500-600 additional doctors, nurses, technical, management and administration professionals will be needed on Guam, should the buildup take place. Where will they come from? Guam’s civilian hospital already has the lowest patient-to-bed ratio of anywhere in the U.S. and no funding in sight. Meanwhile, $259 million was appropriated in December 2009 to build a brand new Navy hospital – open only to military personnel and their dependents. The injustice of this neo-Apartheid system will be made all the more evident by the small size of the island, which will force the haves and have-nots to live uneasily side-by-side.

VII. CROWDING

Bottom line: More people, less land. Get ready for a road system that will be a constant traffic jam of construction trucks.The military is eyeing an additional 3,900 acres to take. That’s about one and a half times the size of Barrigada. This would include the FAA property, which was supposed to have been given back.

Regarding population increase: at first, the DOD told residents that the buildup would increase the population by 40,000, though they were always aware that the figure was really 80,000 -- double that! Unfortunately, no one told the people of Guam until the last possible moment – the day the EIS was released (November 20, 2009). Why did they wait so long? Maybe because they knew how upsetting this information would be.

Currently, the cap on H-2B temporary workers allowed to enter the country is only 66,000 for the entire United States. But on tiny Guam, that cap for such workers has been lifted. Instead of protecting the island from a surge of migrants, the government is encouraging a dangerous population spike. Clearly, no consideration was given to living conditions, resources or infrastructure on Guam. All that is considered important to project planners is to get the military facilities up and running – no matter what are the human, social or environmental costs.

VIII. RACIST ATTITUDES

According to the Draft EIS, the transplanted Marines will not have an impact on Guam's overall crime and social order. Instead the report blames migrants from the Federated States of Micronesia as the likely cause. This blatantly racist mindset behind the planning of Guam’s future is deplorable and goes against everything America stands for.

And racism will continue to flourish as the buildup’s planned social stratification takes hold, with predominantly Caucasian military personnel living in the most comfort inside the fence, while Pacific Islanders live outside the fence in lesser conditions, or outright squalor. It is tragically ironic that people native to the region are the ones to be relegated to the worst housing, the worst education system, the worst medical facilities, and the lowest wages. As 80,000 new people are dumped on Guam to fall into their preordained caste in this new “planned community” of Apartheid, the Buildup will exponentially accelerate the denigration of Pacific Islanders in their own land.



IX. NO MORE GREEN SPACE

Most of the four- and two- lane roads in the north will be widened to six- and seven-land highways. The greenery in the north will be removed, not just for road work, but to house many of the 80,000 new people. One hundred acres of jungle will be replaced by a camp for tens of thousands of low-wage laborers. More jungle will be razed to make way for the luxury military homes. These homes will be soundproofed to protect those inside from the noise of the new landing pad. Local homes just outside the gate will not have such sound protection.

X. NOISE

Aside from the harrowing noise of helicopters coming and going, the racket of weapons firing from the firing range will plague much of the island. A 2000 study from Asahikawa Medical College shows that aircraft-noise exposure resulted in a range of physical and mental consequences including sleep disorders, hearing loss, higher rates of low birth weight infants, fatigue, neurosis, and negative effects on children.

XI. NO MORE ACCESS TO NATURE

According to the impact study, “There are several recreational resources that the public would lose the access to, and the use of the features if the proposed action were implemented: Guam International Raceway, Marbo Cave, Pagat Trail and associated trails near it, cultural gathering activities (suruhana), and off-shore fishing near Marbo Cave.”

The DEIS spends chapters detailing their plans for creating "recreation space" for their dependents. They go on about how important it is to make sure that there is lots of "wide, open, green space" within their neighborhoods. In the mean time, they are taking away OUR recreation space. They are lessening the wide, open, green space in OUR neighborhoods. And what does the DEIS say to try to make things better? It actually says we should replace our outdoor culture with indoor physical fitness centers, and indoor recreational resources such as bowling, skating rink, youth center, theater and recreational pavilion. Do they really think that bowling is an acceptable substitute for traditional fishing practices? Can they really be that culturally insensitive? And even if people wanted to go bowling instead of fishing, what makes them think local people would be able to afford such diversions, as the cost of living skyrockets against their low wages?

XII. STRESSED INFRASTRUCTURE

As 80,000 newcomers create waste and stress on our utilities and roads, the local people must cope with the burdened electrical system, continual road maintenance, limited water supply and thousands of tons of additional sewage. As mentioned earlier, funding for the Guam Buildup does not include any financial support for infrastructure outside the fence.

XIII. DESTRUCTION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE SITES

The DEIS states that cultural heritage sites to be destroyed or compromised include locations at Apra Harbor, Anderson AFB, Orote Field, Anderson South, and a sizable portion of land south of Route 15. As described in the report, a parcel of land at Anderson Air Force Base that is rich in archaelogical artifacts will be subject to “100-percent disturbance.” In addition, it warns of increased vandalism at the historical coastal site of Haputo, rich with latte stones.

XIV. THE DESTRUCTION OF PAGAT

The limestone forest that stretches from Marbo Caves to Pagat Caves is being considered for use as a firing range, where the military can practice shooting and bombing. The land belongs to several families who have been caring for it for decades, choosing to not develop because they prize the land for its inherent values. Their efforts to keep the land pristine have made it more desirable for the military. The site in Pagat is registered at the Department of Historic Preservation as an archaeological site.

XV. THE DESECRATION OF MOUNT JUMULLONG MANGLO

This holy mountain, where thousands of island residents pilgrimage every year on Good Friday, is also being considered for use as a firing range. This is disrespectful of local Chamorro traditions.

XVI. DESTRUCTION OF REEF AND FISHING IN APRA HARBOR

Amount of reef to be dredged: 2.3 MILLION SQUARE FEET. That’s the equivalent of 40 football fields!  That’s to make way for the berthing of a nuclear aircraft carrier, the largest ship in the Navy’s fleet, carrying 85 aircraft. It will bring 5600 additional people to Guam, ported 63 days a year. Having it will be terrific for local tattoo parlors; disastrous for nature. The sediment churned up by the dredging will kill the coral that is not plowed up and the fish population. According to Manny Duenas, president of the Fisherman’s Co-op, the dredging will “affect Guam in itself because we know the fish don’t just live in one area.” Brent Tibbatts, fisheries biologist at the Guam Department of Agriculture, explains that “there have been things found in Apra Harbor that have been found growing nowhere else in Guam.” One of those things are 6-foot brilliant blue elephant ear sponges that stand out among the common mounds of yellow, brown and green coral. It is rare for a busy port to be teeming with marine life like Apra Harbor, Tibbatts said. Most of the ports of the Pacific have barren sea bottoms, not lively ecosystems.

Many of the organisms in Apra Harbor will be buried during the dredging, according to the Draft EIS. Some will survive and seek new homes elsewhere in weeks or months, the document states. Other colonies of fish that are attached to their territory -- like damselfish, clownfish and butterfly fish -- will die. The draft EIS also states that ship traffic and dredging will create "short-term" disruption in the birthing area for scalloped hammerhead sharks. The sharks give birth directly in the carriers' path into the wharf, the draft EIS states. Although the adult hammerheads spread to waters around the island, Apra Harbor is the only place they consistently return to give birth.

If the dredging lasts more than a year, it could easily disturb two breeding cycles for the sharks, Tibbatts said. Since they only give birth to a few babies a year, local populations will be affected. "It would not be easy for them to replenish the population if something impacts their ability to pup," he said.

XVII. LARGEST MANGROVE FOREST ON U.S. SOIL DESTROYED

The dredging at Apra Harbor will destroy the mangrove forest there.

XVIII. SEA TURTLE AND SPINNER DOLPHIN HABITAT DESTROYED

The green sea turtle, the Hawksbill sea turtle and the Spinner dolphin, all protected by federal law, will be wiped out in Apra Harbor. We are trading endangered species and their ecosystems for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

XIX. REMOVAL OF DUKDUK TREES; DECIMATION OF IFIT TREES

The ifit tree is the official tree of Guam, traditionally used as timber, for fuel wood and craftsman art. The termite-resistant hardwood has completely disappeared from some parts of southeast Asia already and is increasingly harder to find on Guam. Construction eyed for Finegayan at Andersen South, and a firing range would decimate the critically-endangered ifit trees, says the DEIS. The construction would also require the removal of dukduk trees, a traditional resource used by canoe builders.

XX. DESTRUCTION OF NATIVE MEDICINAL PLANTS

The hundreds of acres of jungle to be destroyed or contaminated contains native plants used in traditional medicine. To destroy these plants is to destroy Guam’s Chamorro heritage.

XXI. HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTE

The total amount of hazardous waste produced by the increased military presence will equal 8 tons per year! (according to the DEIS). The DEIS refuses to disclose all of the toxic and hazardous materials they will be storing; this is most likely because they are radioactive and banned from the shores of most countries. Our island is still in the process of decontaminating land and removing toxic materials left behind by the military; and many older generations of Guamanians suffer from an abnormally high cancer rate resulting from previous exposure to radiation by the military.

XXII. DEPLETION OF REEF RESOURCES BY H-2 WORKERS

What little reef resources are left may be quickly depleted by the underpaid foreign workers who tend to comb the reefs for food.

XXIII. WILL AFFECT THE ENTIRE MARIANA ARCHIPELAGO

The Guam Buildup does not affect only Guam. It will have grave, irreversible consequences for the entire island chain. The military does not see the Mariana Islands as a biodiverse treasure of natural wonders that the U.S. has even designated a protected Marine National Monument (“protected” from everyone except the military). Rather, the military sees our islands as a gigantic shooting gallery, which they’ve aptly re-named the Mariana Islands Range Complex (MIRC). Don’t they know that regular people live here—people who have been caretakers of the culture and environment for millennia? But that is not their priority. As far as they’re concerned, Guam will be where the soldiers will live; the MIRC will be their enormous playground where they will learn how to destroy life. The DEIS even describes the Mariana Islands as “deficient,” for lacking enough live-fire ranges. In other words, the military sees our archipelago home as useless unless it can be bombed.

The MIRC area will encompass about 501,873 square nautical miles to include open ocean, coastal areas, surface and underwater. The combined land area on Guam, Rota, Tinian, Saipan, and Farallon de Medinilla to be used for training areas and facilities will be about 64 nautical miles, and approximately 63,000 nautical miles of airspace will be designated as Special Use Airspace. Surface and underwater areas, according to the study, will “extend from the waters south of Guam to north of Pagan and from the Pacific Ocean east of the Marianas Islands to the middle of the Philippine Sea to the west.”

Already bombing practice occurs routinely on Farallon de Medinilla, an island not long ago prized by locals for its excellent fishing. Now it is off-limits and contaminated, worsening by the day. Stopping the Guam Buildup will “cut off the head of the snake” that would otherwise kill or severely diminish the celebrated reef and land ecologies of the rest of the archipelago. According to the Population Reference Bureau, only 30% of Guam’s natural habitat remains. But that sad statistic is not shared by the rest of the islands in the chain, still plentiful in biological diversity.

Tinian

The spectacularly beautiful and ecologically rich island of Tinian would be hardest hit, if we let this happen. Tinian is home to many endemic species, including the Tinian Monarch, an endemic bird. The DEIS explains that the military intends to use two-thirds of the island to routinely conduct many hazardous activities, including live-fire training (which leaves behind depleted uranium and other highly toxic materials), various pyrotechnics and detonations both on land and underwater, and amphibious landings (heavy, lumbering tanks crushing the thriving reef as well as destroying the sea-turtle nesting areas on the beach). As the DEIS explains, Tinian is “capable of supporting Marine Expeditionary Unit aviation events such as ground element training and air element training, simulated evacuations of noncombatants, airfield seizure training, expeditionary airfield training, and special warfare activities.”

No species will be left undamaged. These activities will decimate one of the healthiest and most biologically diverse marine ecosystems on the planet, thus also destroying an important food source for its Pacific Island inhabitants.

Tinian groundwater endangered

The DEIS also warns that “groundwater aquifers on Tinian are also vulnerable to contamination by substances introduced onto the soil surface because the thin soils and underlying permeable limestone does not significantly impede the passage of contaminants to the shallow aquifer.” We can only imagine what heavy metals and other carcinogenic and hazardous materials will be seeping into the groundwater as military war games are routinely conducted all over the island.

In addition to the destruction caused by bombs, tanks, planes, ships and nuclear and hazardous wastes, the islands will also suffer from opportunists “cashing in” on the sudden inflow of a large demographic of single males looking for “rest and relaxation.” As on Guam, we can safely predict a rise in prostitution, illegal drugs, and crime. On Rota – pristine and undeveloped; an authentic “tropical paradise” -- the construction of two hotel-casinos are in the works, in anticipation of the Guam Buildup becoming a reality.

As you can see from these facts presented in the military’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Guam Buildup is a recipe for nothing short of social and ecological disaster. Please do what you can to stop it. Here is an interesting observation from blogger Dave Owen (http://www.guamblog.com/):

“The Draft Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) wasn’t written to protect Guam. It was written to protect the U.S. government from criticism once things go wrong on Guam. The U.S. will say that the 11,000 page DEIS is evidence of its great concern and care for Guam. It’s just the opposite. It’s a pile of data and observation dumped on the island far too late, and Guam has been given precious little time – just 90 days – to respond to it. The buildup, as the DEIS illustrates, impacts every aspect of the island; the environment, land use and development, schools, health care, crime, roads -- the sum of Guam’s quality of life. With the DEIS in hand, Guam’s government must now prioritize the buildup’s impact and then prepare mitigation strategies. It’s a Manhattan Project-sized task and one that’s impossible to complete in the amount of time available. Guam can rest assured that the U.S. will use the DEIS as its defense when things go wrong: We prepared you, Guam.”

USVI Governor Forwards Draft Constitution to US

Source:  The Government House Blog
Posted by Jean Greaux on December 31, 2009 at 2:10 PM AST

Governor deJongh sent the following a letter to President Obama regarding the Constitution adopted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention last May and submitted to the Governor for transmittal to the President of the United States.

December 31, 2009

Honorable Barack H. Obama
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500


RE: Proposed Constitution of the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the United States Virgin Islands

Dear Mr. President:

First, I extend Holiday Greetings to you on behalf of the people of the United States Virgin Islands, and best wishes for the New Year.

I write to you today with respect to a matter of importance to the political development of the United States Virgin Islands.

On June 1, 2009, a proposed draft Constitution for the Virgin Islands was forwarded to me by the Fifth Constitutional Convention that had been established by federal law, Public Law 94-584, and local law, Act No. 6688. The most general and generous reading of this draft Constitution showed it to be inconsistent with basic tenets of equal protection and fairness as established by the United States Constitution. As such it was unacceptable to me on both legal and moral grounds.

Further review at that time also suggested that I, as Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands, had no duty to forward this proposed draft to you in furtherance of the process set forth in Public Law 94-584 if the proposed draft did not "...recognize, and be consistent with, the sovereignty of the United States over the Virgin Islands... and the supremacy of the provisions of the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States applicable to the Virgin Islands..., including, but not limited to, those provisions of the Organic Act and Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands" as required by subsection (b)(I) of that law. Accordingly, and for those reasons, I announced to the people of the Virgin Islands that r (sic) would not forward it. A copy of the Public Statement I made on June 11, 2009 is enclosed with this letter.

Despite my concerns, certain officials of the Fifth Constitutional Convention filed suit in court to require me to do so. Without reaching the constitutional issues presented in the matter a Virgin Islands judge has now concluded that my "...only duty with respect to the proposed Constitution was to submit it..." to you. Rather than further delay this process with more litigation here in the Territory focused on process and not substance, I am forwarding the document for your review. Ultimately Congress, in the exercise of its Constitutional duty to administer the territories, and in conformity with Public Law 94-584, will decide both the fate of this document and how we in the Virgin Islands are to move ahead towards our goal of increased local governmental autonomy. I stand ready to assist you and the Congress in working towards this goal.

I thank you for your care and attention to this matter which is of considerable importance to the political development of the United States Virgin Islands, just as I thank you for all you are doing to restore the American Dream to all Americans.

Sincerely,

John P. deJongh, Jr.
Governor

Court Clears Way for US Review of Draft Virgin Islands Constitution

A long-awaited judicial ruling by US Virgin Islands Superior Court Judge Darryl Donohue has opened the way for the resumption of a political process which could lead to the adoption of the first constitution for the US Virgin Islands, one of two US administered dependencies in the Caribbean. The territory is governed pursuant to the Revised Organic Act of 1954 written by the US Congress, rather than a constitution written by the people of the dependency, and is one of sixteen remaining territories worldwide recognised by the United Nations as non self-governing.


This is the fifth attempt by the US Virgin Islands to complete the process of drafting and ratifying a territorial constitution based on the present status. In retrospect, the many attempts at constitutional advancement may have more to say about the efficacy of the present dependency status rather than the commitment of the people to have a constitution, since any enhancements of the status quo must fit within limitations of colonial dependency which vary from territory to territory.

Legal Issues

The legal case on this phase of the constitutional process was filed in the Superior Court of the territory in June, 2009 by Fifth Constitutional Convention President Luz James and Convention Secretary Mary Moorhead questioning whether elected Governor John de Jongh had the authority to hold back the draft constitution from transmission to US President Barak Obama for consideration, as required by the US and territorial laws governing the constitutional process (an earlier ruling of the court had required the two Convention officials to file the case in their personal capacities rather than as Convention officials).

The Governor had decided last June not to submit the draft document to Washington after a legal analysis by territorial Attorney General Vincent Frazer contending that elements of the draft violated certain provisions of the US Constitution, including the equal protection of US citizens (there is no Virgin Islands citizenship to be protected, as no such citizenship exists in the Revised Organic Act). A number of members of the Convention have countered that the provisions in question were consistent with those in constitutions of other US-administered territories in the Caribbean and Pacific where the people of the territories do not have full political rights as other US citizens, and thus have unique provisions in their constitutions to compensate for the democratic deficiencies. The court case was not based on the constitutionality of any provisions, but rather was restricted to the procedural question of whether the law provided a role for the governor other than to submit the document to Washington. The ruling made it clear that no such authority existed, as reflected in the conclusion of the court ruling:

“III. CONCLUSION


The Court finds that Respondent (Governor) has a specific non-discretionary duty required by both (US) Pub.L. No. 94-584 and (Virgin Islands) Act No. 6688 to forward the proposed Constitution to the President of the United States. Respondent's failure to forward the proposed Constitution constitutes a violation of Pub. L. No. 94-584 and Act No. 6688. Within the confines of the language of both statutes, Respondent's duty entails only submitting the proposed Constitution to the President of the United States. The statutes authorize nothing more and nothing less. There is no authority for Respondent to amend, modify, revise, withhold, or take any other action regarding the proposed Constitution beyond his enumerated duty. Consequently, it was not within Respondent's power to take contrary action by not forwarding the proposed Constitution to the President of the United States. Accordingly, mandamus relief is appropriate and Respondent shall be ordered to proceed with his duty pursuant to Pub. L. No. 94-584 and Act No. 6688 and forward the proposed Constitution to the President of the United States within ten (10) business days.”

Budgetary Shortfall

The 30 – member Fifth Constitutional Convention had begun its work in 2007 but suffered from the start because of insufficient resources. The budget of the Convention was never fully funded, and it had to rely on ad hoc appropriations resulting in operational delays and periods of dormancy when there were insufficient funds to convene its public meetings. Several requests to the US Government for financial assistance to the Convention to fill the budgetary gap were denied, leaving the Convention with a significant budgetary shortfall to fully carry out its work. In apparent anticipation of a favourable court decision, the President of the Convention, in testimony before the Fourth Committee of the United Nations (UN) last October, reported on the financial condition of the constitutional process, and requested UN assistance for the upcoming educational programme on the constitution after the document is returned to the people from Washington. The UN has routinely provided such assistance to non self-governing territories in their constitutional advancement process, and it is too early to determine whether the world body would assist the US Virgin Islands in this manner.

The Next Stages

With the court ruling, an in-depth substantive analysis of the draft document will now be undertaken by the US administration, as originally intended, rather than short-circuited at the territorial level. If the territorial government appeals the decision to the Virgin Islands Supreme Court, further delays could be expected. The longer the delays, however, the more likely the constitutional discussions in the territory could take place in the middle of the electoral campaign in 2010 – not an unfavourable outcome for those who seek more substance in the campaign debates, but perhaps an unintended consequence for those who prefer that these issues remain outside of the campaign debate. In any case, the timing could invariably result in the rare opportunity for substantive constitutional and political status issues to be injected into the political campaign.

A number of experts have argued that the constitutionality of the draft Virgin Islands constitution is best examined by the US, rather than by the territory – since it is the US constitution which governs the process, rather than a territorial law, and it is the US Government which is in the best position to determine whether something is consistent or not with its constitution. Any territorial interruption of how US law applies could be well off the mark since the US has the power under the present political status to unilaterally decide which parts of the US Constitution – as well as US laws - apply to the territories, and which do not. Thus, who best to explain this peculiarly inconsistent dependency status than the government which created it, and which has administers it in the case of the US Virgin Islands for over 90 years, and in the case of Puerto Rico and Guam for over one hundred years?

Legal and political scholars are awaiting the contemporary US analysis of the draft Virgin Islands constitution which should be undertaken at some point in 2010. Among the US government agencies which would provide views on the proposed constitutional provisions, the US Justice Department should be the most intriguing I its analysis, as it would provide an assessment on levels of autonomy possible – and not possible - under the unincorporated territory status as it is defined in 2010. The Justice Department assessment of the present commonwealth/territorial status of Puerto Rico essentially served to redefine the limitations of the prevailing dependency status, and an assessment of that department of the draft constitution of the Virgin Islands could also shed similar light on what is deemed possible under the present territorial status. The last time such an analysis was undertaken by the US government was in conjunction with the draft constitution adopted by the Fourth Constitutional Convention in 1980, so a new assessment after thirty years would be useful at the very least.

Conclusion

The clarity which could be brought by a US analysis of the draft constitution could be most revealing, specifically as it relates to the parametres of the territorial status ten years into the 21st century, and at the end of the decade when such colonial arrangements – even as sophisticated as they have become - were supposed to be a thing of the past. Have the parametres of territorial status been expanded sufficiently to accommodate some of the provisions in the draft as adopted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention, as some are hoping? Or do the continual constraints of the dependency political status provide insufficient political space to accommodate what the delegates to the Convention have agreed are necessary adjustments in the political development of the territory?

The anticipated US Congressional hearings on the draft constitution for the US Virgin Islands sometime in 2010 should be most interesting since these questions should be answered. If certain provisions contained in the constitutional draft are outside the parametres of the present territorial status, then the option of choosing a new status which would accommodate new powers and autonomy would have to be seriously considered, sooner rather than later. In any case, the unincorporated territorial status was never meant to be permanent and is an anachronistic relic of an era long past. It was always meant to be an interim stage to a status of political equality, and should have been long relegated to the annals of history, to be replaced by a status of full political equality consistent with international law. The ruling of the Virgin Islands Superior Court permits the process of assessment, public education and political advancement to move ahead, if by only a step.

Turks and Caicos Call for UK Withdrawal

From: TCIwatch.com
14th December 2009

As the matter of Gibraltar is sorted out as a territory of the UK, so must the matter of Turks and Caicos. The distinguishing factor is that Turks and Caicos is not a territory, rather a colony since UK invaded the Caribbean islands in August 2009.

As the UN acknowledges, based on its adoption of numerous declarations, colonialism is wrong. Furthermore, most experts agree that Colonialism has no place in world societies and it has never worked. The act of one government entity forcing its values on a weaker population cannot be justified in any way, especially from a different culture. As The UK Activist Stuart Yates pointed out in his writings, the UK's presence in Turks and Caicos is shrouded in secrecy and cannot be described as anything less than a coup. The UK took over governance of these Caribbean islands without any election or consensus from the people living in the islands.

Granted, the former Turks and Caicos government, under the Michael Misick administration, made mistakes; no arguing the point. However, Michael Misick achieved success by converting Turks and Caicos into a high-end celebrity holiday hideaway. Misick said on many occasions that his goal was to turn Turks and Caicos into the "Monte Carlo of the Caribbean". Misick argued that he had to "look the part" in order to woo high-end resort developers to invest in the islands. Certainly,"looking the part" came at cost, a cost that the islands absorbed from the revenue generated by his tourism and business plan, but improper nonetheless said the UK. At the end of the day, Misick was accused of taking for himself and forming improper relationships with foreign businessmen to achieve his personal and business goals. This coming from the UK's Commission of Inquiry Report by Sir Robin Auld of the UK. Misick was forced to resign in March 2009.

With the lessons very fresh in the minds of local officials and citizens of the islands, a new leader was elected and installed in the Turks and Caicos government immediately after Misick, the cabinet of Galmo Williams. In August, nearly six months after Premier Williams was installed, the UK unilaterally took the government of Turks and Caicos and installed a one-man ruler from the UK to conduct all of the islands' business. The governor from UK HE Gordon Wetherell took upon a dictatorship, electing his own judiciary and making sole decisions for the islands. This was the proposed plan for a period of at least two years with new elections in 2011. However, the UK has since announced that it will be installed in the islands indefinitely and certainly past 2011.

The UN has made numerous resolutions declaring the UK's invasion of Turks and Caicos to be improper and it cites authority from the Fourth Committee's resolution for self determination of Turks and Caicos. However, the UN cannot "act" on behalf of the people of Turks and Caicos and can only impose warnings and perhaps sanctions and yes, more resolutions.

The UK claims that it is helping Turks and Caicos. After all, the people of Turks and Caicos have been subjected to a corrupt governmental body dating back 6 years with Michael Misick. Never mind that officials from the UK never reported any financial abuse and warnings were never provided. The UK took drastic measures to clean up government corruption by installing their own government. "Maybe this is a good thing," said some islanders giving the UK a chance to help.

Before the islanders could even welcome the new UK government, major resorts were closing amid charges that these developers had improper relationships with the former premier. Furthermore, the resort developers were kicked off their land as the UK reclaimed it as Crown land. The UK did not make these resort developers whole under Eminent Domain Laws. Rather, the UK told the developers that they relinquished their lands and developments worth millions due to improper behavior. Sure, the resort developers left the islands and good riddens (sic) to them anyway, right? Not quite. These resorts were responsible for employment of thousands of people, they were bringing in revenue, building investor confidence in the islands, attracting more economic growth and encouraging tourism spending. Now these resorts are abandoned on Crown land which now belongs to the Crown entirely. No word on when or if these developers will sue the UK for economic damages.

The next breakdown, which happened quite rapidly upon UK's arrival in the islands, was the firing of islanders within the government replaced by new UK faces. This had islanders feeling uneasy about the leadership and created additional job losses. New hires' salaries from the UK are not disclosed, yet the UK claims that it cannot meet payroll for islanders timely because of the national debt of $135 million. The UK has failed to bring financial aid for this so-called deficit.

Though the islands bring in $600 million per year in tourism revenue and off-shore banking, the UK refuses to infuse any money into the territory and instead it raised taxes, cut benefits and suspended salaries for the locals. There has been no disclosure by the UK as to where the revenue is funneled.

As Adrian Holman reported, the Caribbean slave trade by England in the 1700s are haunting the islands once again. Their right to self determination has been revoked and as such, there is nothing that people can do in the grasp of the strong arm of the UK. A man by the name of Alvin Hegner, a former resident of North Caicos, visited the islands and spoke intimately and openly with islanders on December 10, 11 and 12. Of the hundreds of citizens that he interviewed, not one person was in favor of UK's direct rule and almost all reported financial suffering. Though some claimed to have kept an open mind when the UK first arrived in August, the people are more than convinced now that this was a very bad idea.

BVI Premier to UK - "Don´t Treat Us Like Minions"

On December 9, the Overseas Territories Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the United Kingdom Chris Bryant hosted the eleventh meeting of the Overseas Territories Consultative Council (OTCC) in London. The meeting was attended by Premiers, Chief Ministers and other representatives of the UK Overseas Territories - Anguilla, Ascension, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn, St Helena, Tristan da Cunha, Turks and Caicos Islands. . This was the first OTCC meeting hosted by Mr. Bryant, who followed Gillian Merron in the post of Foreign Office Minister. The meeting was preceded  on 8th December  by a ten-year review of the 1999 Government White Paper “Partnership for Progress and Prosperity - Britain and the Overseas Territories.” No formal statement on the review or Council Meeting was made available. The British Virgin Islands delegation to both sessions was led by Premier Hon. Ralph O'Neal whose interview with the BBC about the meeting was reported by BVI Platinum:


"At times we disagree and I (Premier O'Neal) have disagreed with one action the Governor took and I still disagree with it and I will continue to disagree. So maybe I might be the next one to get the axe, but to treat us like minions...or like children begging their father to give them a piece of bread...I cannot understand that mentality and it makes me think there is the warship diplomacy still in progress."

Those were the words of Premier Hon. Ralph T´ O Neal as he responded to a question posed by Mike Jarvis of BBC Caribbean, on if local Governments do not expect that they will have to accept certain dictate tactics from the administering powers if they remain Overseas Territories.

During the interview which was aired on Monday, the Premier was at the time also speaking on his position on Cabinet´s involvement in determining the awarding of British citizenship in the Territory. Premier O'Neal said it is wrong for the British-appointed Governor alone to naturalise people to stay in the BVI.

"...They can apply for naturalization after they have been there (BVI) for a certain number of years. That is granted under the British Nationality Act which I think is time to get that amended. The Governor deals with that, he doesn´t even inform Cabinet, but I must say he invites me to the ceremony to speak and I go. But I think it´s improper of a Governor to grant nationality without even referring it to the Cabinet or the Premier, even for information."

The Premier was questioned on why the latter was not dealt with during the period of Constitutional Reform and how close are Overseas Territories such as the BVI on the issue of independence.

"The question of the granting of nationality was not a matter discussed at the conference. Independence comes with price. We set up a committee to consider the cost, implications and liabilities of independence," Premier O´ Neal told BBC Caribbean.

BVI Platinum
15th December 2009

The Constitutional Tragedy of Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba in the Caribbean

Summary of a Presentation by Mr. Eugene R. Abdul, LLM
former Governor of St.Eustatius and former Lt.Governor of Bonaire

Seminar on Independence held in Curacao, Netherlands Antilles
27th November 2009

After an analysis of the concepts ‘self-determination’ and ‘people’ in international law, Mr.Abdul briefly describes the constitutional process on the islands of Bonaire, St.Eustatius and Saba (the so-called BES-islands),starting with the constitutional referendums held in 2004/2005. He states that in accordance with international law the right of self-determination is a human right and that only peoples – and not their elected representatives - are holders of the right of self-determination.

He is of the opinion that if the present constitutional process continues unchanged none of the 3 BES-islands will eventually obtain the constitutional status their peoples really opted for in referendums held in 2004 and 2005. He states that during those referendums Bonaire opted for direct links with Holland, St.Eustatius for maintaining the Netherlands Antilles and Saba for becoming a ‘Crown Island’, a constitutional status comparable to Anguilla.In the Final Declaration of October 2006 elected representatives (!) of the 3 Dutch-Antillean islands in an agreement with the Netherlands decided that Bonaire, St.Eustatius and Saba would become ‘public entities’ based on article 134 of the Dutch Constitution, resulting in integration,one of the 3 internationally recognized forms of reaching a ‘full measure of self-government’ described in U.N. Resolution 1541.

Mr.Abdul purports that in the 2004 and 2005 referendums none of the peoples of the 3 islands opted for integration.He is of the opinion that the peoples of the 3 islands should decide explicitly in new referendums whether they want integration with the Netherlands or not. That would be the only way to comply with Principle IX of U.N. Resolution 1541 stating inter alia that ‘the integration should be the result of the freely expressed wishes of the territory’s peoples acting with full knowledge of the changes in their status, their wishes having been expressed through informed and democratic processes, impartially conducted and based on adult suffrage….’.

He argues that ratification of the Final Declaration of October 2006 in the respective Island Councils of the 3 BES-islands based on international law is not sufficient to legitimize integration. Mr.Abdul concludes that dismantling of the Netherlands Antilles should be postponed until the islands Bonaire, St.Eustatius and Saba in a (new) referendum explicitly opt for integration into the Netherlands. He states that the Federal Government of the Netherlands Antilles based on article 43 paragraph 1 of the Charter of the Kingdom of the Netherlands must take care of realization of fundamental rights and liberties, legal security and good governance and that the Federal Government cannot allow the ‘annexation’ of the 3 islands by the Netherlands without complying with international law.

According to Mr.Abdul also the Kingdom Government has an obligation under article 43 paragraph 2 of the same Charter to guarantee due compliance with international law in this matter.

Self-Determination Legislation - Opportunity for US Administered Territories?

An OTR Editorial

Now that legislation authorizing United States (US) assistance to three territories under its administration has been adopted by the full US House of Representatives (H.R. 3940), the next phase of the process is crucial. The measure, originally introduced by Guam Delegate to Congress Madeleine Z. Bordallo, has now been forwarded to the US Senate for consideration. Delegate Bordallo should be commended for having done her job well in guiding the legislation through the US House.

The original legislation was amended during the House vetting process to include the territories of American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands, as the original bill was specific to Guam. The revised text has also been strategically re-casted to amend a decades-old 1980 US law (P.L. 96-597) meant to "authorize appropriations for certain insular areas of the United States, and for other purposes." This would appear to heighten the opportunity that some dedicated resources would be attached to the measure, although the Congressional Budget Office estimate of $2 million over the period 2010 - 2014 appears rather paltry for one territory, let alone three such jurisdictions. The resources provided must be commensurate with the importance of the initiative as a significant contribution to the long-delayed process of self-determination. Otherwise, it would be mere window-dressing.

In the 7th December 2009 House of Representatives report interpreting the legislation (H.R. Report 111-357), it was emphasised that the political education programme envisaged in the bill would be based on political status alternatives "including, but not limited to" the internationally-recognised options of (US) "statehood, free association (and) independence," along with "maintaining the status quo." The first three alternatives were confirmed by the White House in two White House Reports in 2005 and 2007, respectively, as the “permanent” political status for options for Puerto Rico, and by extension for the other four US-administered territories.

The “not limited to” reference in the House report, however, is problematic as it implies the legitimacy of other options not providing for political equality, and inconsistent with democratic governance. The 1993 political status referendum in the US Virgin Islands is an example where an excessive total of seven options was put before the voters in referendum. These included no less than three different versions of the status quo, in addition to the three permanent options and one autonomous model. Not surprisingly, there was no conclusive referendum result as confusion reigned during the public education process over minute details between virtually indistinguishable dependency options. The options of political equality got “lost in the wash.” Political status for that territory has been considered only intermittently since then, and mostly in unofficial circles. This present Congressional legislation may force the issue to be revisited in earnest.

Such a proliferation of political status choices should be assiduously avoided through the provision of a less complicated process with a clearer and less complicated array of political alternatives. In this regard, the three permanent political status options identified by the White House, with an option for the temporary continuation of the status quo, would be the best approach. This should be done by informing the people of the territory concerned what they should have been advised of all along - that the status quo is not a permanent form of democratic government, nor was it ever meant to be so. Thus, if the people choose to remain as a dependent territory, they should have to be consulted again - sooner or later until they arrive at a permanent solution.

There is a precedent for this enlightened approach – it is the 2009 legislation on the self-determination of Puerto Rico which recognises the primacy of the three options consistent with international law. The legislative measure for Puerto Rico was approved by the US House of Representatives last June, and is also under consideration by the Senate. The Puerto Rico bill provides that the electorate be consulted again (as many times as it takes) if the dependent status of commonwealth is chosen in a referendum, since a permanent status would not have been achieved. The legislation for the other three territories presently has no such requirement. It is clearly understood in most political circles in Puerto Rico – even amongst those who support the status quo - that there are inherent democratic deficiencies in the territorial status which need to be corrected through “enhancements.”

The same democratic deficiencies apply to the territorial status of the other three US – administered territories, as well ( in addition to the Northern Mariana Islands), even as this may not be as readily recognised in these other territories. Thus, it should be made clear in the US Senate that the legislation for American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands refers to the same options of political equality as those offered to Puerto Rico - along with the possibility to temporarily retain the status quo, with the same stipulation that the territories would be periodically consulted until a permanent status is chosen. In fact, the distinction between temporary and permanent options should form an integral part of any public education process in the territories concerned, especially as the status quo itself is not stagnant, but rather allows for erosion of the limited autonomy of the territorial government at any time through unilateral decisions and applicability of legislation. The Northern Mariana Islands is a clear example of how such unilateral applicability of US law has begun to erode their erstwhile autonomous arrangement. The entire political arrangement should be the subject of formal review and reconsideration.

In some territories, the discussion on political evolution has already begun prior to this US legislation. The Governor of American Samoa initiated a promising political status and constitutional development process utilising local resources. That was before the tsunami earlier this year. Understandably, all efforts in that territory are now directed to reconstruction following the disaster, and the issue of political evolution is scheduled to be revisited in 2010. This timetable places the American Samoa process within the framework of the legislation being considered by the US Senate.

In the US Virgin Islands, an elected constitutional convention adopted an ambitious draft constitution last May for consideration by the US Congress which would test the limited parameters of the status quo dependency arrangement as a first step in resuming focus on political and constitutional development after over a decade and a half of dormancy. Whether the draft constitution would formally be considered by Washington, however, remains to be determined by the territorial court which has yet to rule on whether the document will be transmitted to the US Congress over the objection of the current elected governor who has held back the document based on certain provisions within it. Chances are that a US Congressional analysis of the draft constitution could determine that the additional powers sought for the territory contained in the document could only be realised in one of the permanent options – thus, the process could comes full circle, squarely back into the realm of the fundamental need to address the political status question – as one scholar has written, “decolonisation rather than colonial reform.”

The role of civil society in all of this continues to be crucial. Organisations in the US Virgin Islands such as the United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands (UNAVI) have been active for over a decade in providing information on the importance of a legitimate process of self-determination. Non-governmental organisations in Guam have taken a sustained approach over the years through organisations such as the Chamoru Nashion, and the Organisation of Peoples for Indigenous Rights (OPIR), among others. American Samoa’s Political Status Commission did especially important work on political alternatives several years ago, and this should serve as an excellent point of departure as the legislation in Congress shifts to the US Senate. In Puerto Rico, the political parties and the Bar Association, among others, have historically taken the lead in advocacy on the issue.

The introduction of the Bordallo legislation, therefore, was an important step in ‘jump-starting’ the process of self-determination in all of these territories, and has the promise of reviving serious deliberations among the people on their political evolution. Meanwhile, in the territories, media attention to the measure has been uneven. Other than in Guam, the media in the other two territories covered by the bill has been curiously and conspicuously silent as to the very existence of the legislation, and OTR is not aware of any official statements emanating from these territorial capitols on the legislation with the notable exception of Guam whose governor testified before the US Congress in Washington in favour of the measure.

With the appropriate clarifications to the legislation, including the correction of re-focusing on the permanent options, along with a realistic amount of resources for the three territories to wage a serious public campaign, a process of self-determination can yet be realised. The Obama Administration could very well be the first US administration since these territories were acquired at the end of the 19th century and into the 20th century to foster a genuine process of self-determination for the peoples of these territories, and the first to seriously implement its international obligations under the United Nations Charter to bring genuine self-government and full political equality to the territories under its administration.

US House Approves Political Status Education Bill

News from Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo

House Passes Political Status Education Bill
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 7, 2009 – Washington, D.C. –

Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo today announced that the U.S. House of Representatives has passed H.R. 3940, a bill that would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend technical assistance grants and other assistance to facilitate a political status public education program on Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. H.R. 3940 today passed on a voice vote one month after Congresswoman Bordallo first introduced the bill and two weeks after it was approved by the House Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 3940 will now be transmitted to the U.S. Senate for consideration in their chamber.

“The passage of H.R. 3940 by the U.S. House of Representatives today advances the issue of political self-determination in the non-self-governing territories by providing federal funding for political status education,” Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo said today. “H.R. 3940 now goes to the Senate for consideration and I hope that they will act on it with the same sense of priority that the House has viewed this issue. This bill is supported by the Obama Administration, elected officials from Guam, and decolonization and indigenous rights advocates on Guam. I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress and with Assistant Secretary Tony Babauta to pass this legislation in the Senate.”

-30-

Bonaire Referendum Alternatives Discussed

Bonaire Reporter
29 November 2009

On Saturday, November 28, Dr. Carlyle Corbin, the former minister in charge of foreign relations for the US Virgin Islands and an international advisor on political structure and UN Caribbean and Pacific treaty issues, met with Bonaire government officials to offer his expertise. He discussed alternative choices for Bonaire’s upcoming referendum. He visited at the invitation of the Executive Council.

Following the closed-door meetings he was interviewed by the press in a conference in the Pasangrahan. Representatives from Papiamentu, Dutch and English language newspapers were present.

Dr Corbin talked at length about the differences and similarities between integration of a former colony with the “mother country” and a free association following the release of colonial ties. His said that integration can take several forms as could a free association which is also is a legitimate political status recognized in 1960 by the UN under article 1541. The essence ofthe message he presented in response to questions from the press was "People have a right to be consulted once again (in a referendum)... after they have been given more information."

11/29/2009 UN to Visit

Two advisors from the United Nations (UN) will be arriving on Bonaire next week to consult with Island Government about the upcoming referendum.

On Monday, Mansour Sadeghi and Peter Eicher of the UN’s Electoral Support Department will be speaking with members of the Executive Council, political parties, the referendum committee. A meeting with the press is set for the end of this week.

US Agency Changes Mind on Health Risk in Vieques

Press Release
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

(ATSDR, a federal public health agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, evaluates the human health effects of exposure to hazardous substances.)

Federal Agency to Change its Early Conclusions on Environmental Assessment in Vieques
November 13, 2009
(In English. Spanish version follows )

ATLANTA-The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has signaled its intent to modify some of its earlier conclusions about health risks to residents of the Island of Vieques. The decision was shared during a meeting with scientists from Puerto Rico and followed a thorough review of ATSDR public health assessments finalized in 2003 and other environmental studies of the island conducted in the intervening years. ATSDR’s re-examination of the data comes as part of a "fresh look" the federal public health agency pledged to island residents and Congress.

"A thorough and objective review of the available data is an important step in our commitment to the people of Vieques", said Dr. Howard Frumkin, agency director. "Much has been learned since we first went to Vieques a decade ago, and we have identified gaps in environmental data that could be important in determining health effects." We are committed to using the best technology and scientific expertise to help find answers for the people of Vieques.

"The gaps we found indicate that we cannot state unequivocally that no health hazards exist in Vieques. We have found reason to pose further questions," Frumkin said. As a result of the scientific consultation and its document review, ATSDR expects to:

• change some of its earlier conclusions regarding the safety of environmental exposures on Vieques;
• recommend biomonitoring to determine whether persons living on Vieques have been exposed to harmful chemicals, and, if so, at what levels those chemicals may be in their bodies;
• work with Puerto Rican health officials to conduct more in-depth evaluation of health outcomes;
• work with community members and Puerto Rican health officials to issue science-based, precautionary recommendations to protect public health;
• work with partners in the Puerto Rican health care community to encourage improved access to health care for residents of Vieques; and
• coordinate an inclusive, accountable process featuring participation of Puerto Rican community members and professionals in moving forward.

ATSDR scientists will prepare a summary report of the previous environmental health work done for Vieques, including recommendations developed from the scientific consultation. As part of the scientific process, this report will be peer reviewed by independent experts. Once peer review is completed, ATSDR will provide detailed recommendations about future activities.

"ATSDR greatly appreciates the scientists taking time to travel to Atlanta and share their findings and perspectives. We salute the independent scientists and community leaders for their dedication to the health of the people of Vieques, and we look forward to working with them as we move forward with our fresh look at Vieques," Frumkin said.

________________________________________________________________

(En Español)

Agencia Federal Cambiará sus Primeras Conclusiones en la Evaluación Ambiental de Vieques

Friday, November 13, 2009

ATLANTA-La Agencia para Sustancias Tóxicas y el Registro de Enfermedades (ATSDR por sus siglas en inglés) ha señalado su intento de modificar algunas de sus primeras conclusiones sobre los riesgos de salud de los residentes de la Isla Vieques. La decisión fue compartida durante una reunión con científicos de Puerto Rico después de una revisión comprensiva de las evaluaciones de salud pública que la ATSDR finalizó en el 2003 y otros estudios ambientales de la isla elaborados en los años siguientes. La reexaminación de los datos forma parte de la “mirada fresca” que la agencia de salud pública prometió a los residentes de la isla y al Congreso.

“La revisión comprensiva y objetiva de los datos disponibles es un paso importante en nuestro compromiso a la gente de Vieques,” dijo el Dr. Howard Frumkin, director de la agencia. “Hemos aprendido mucho desde que fuimos la primera vez a Vieques hace una década, y hemos identificado lagunas de información en los datos ambientales que pueden ser importantes al determinar efectos de salud. Estamos comprometidos a usar la mejor tecnología y experiencia científica para ayudar a encontrar respuestas para la gente de Vieques.

“Las lagunas de información que encontramos indican que no podemos establecer sin duda alguna que no existen riesgos de salud en Vieques. Hemos encontrado razones para hacer más preguntas,” dijo Frumkin. Como resultado de la consulta científica y la revisión de los estudios, ATSDR anticipa:

• cambiar algunas de sus primeras conclusiones sobre la seguridad de las exposiciones ambientales en Vieques;
• recomendar monitoreo biológico para determinar si las personas que viven en Vieques han estado expuestas a químicos dañinos, y si es así a que niveles esos químicos se encuentran en el cuerpo;
• trabajar con los oficiales de salud de Puerto Rico para hacer una evaluación más exhaustiva sobre las consecuencias de salud;
• trabajar con miembros de la comunidad y oficiales de salud para elaborar recomendaciones preventivas basadas en conocimiento científico para proteger la salud pública;
• trabajar con nuestros colegas de la comunidad de la salud Puertorriqueña para alentar un mejoramiento en el acceso al cuidado de salud de los residentes de Vieques; y
• coordinar un proceso responsable y exhaustivo distinguiendo la participación de los miembros de la comunidad y profesionales mientras avanzamos.

Los científicos de la ATSDR prepararan un reporte del trabajo ambiental hecho en Vieques, incluyendo las recomendaciones elaboradas en la consulta científica. Como parte del proceso científico, este reporte va a ser revisado por expertos independientes. Cuando se complete esta revisión, ATSDR proveerá recomendaciones detalladas sobre actividades en el futuro.

“ATSDR agradece efusivamente a los científicos por venir a Atlanta y compartir sus hallazgos y perspectivas. Reconocemos a los científicos independientes y los líderes comunitarios por su dedicación a la salud de la gente de Vieques, y anticipamos trabajar con ellos mientras avanzamos con nuestra mirada fresca en Vieques,” dijo Frumkin.

Cayman Islands Contemplates Political Future

Will Independence ever be the answer?
Editorial
Cayman Net News, Cayman Islands
1st December 2009

Last week’s referendum result in St Vincent and the Grenadines, when the country’s voters decisively rejected a move to adopt a new constitution removing the Queen as head of state and abandoning the UK’s Privy Council in favour of the Caribbean Court of Justice, is unusual in that it appears to go against the flow of regional desires to sever the last bastions of colonial ties.

The issue of independence for the Cayman Islands is one that has been increasingly mooted in recent months, no doubt as a result of Britain’s intransigence in relation to borrowing our way out of financial failure and our economic model generally.

Although the question of independence has not yet been raised with any great fervour, there are people of influence in these islands who support -- at times not so secretly -- the notion and who accordingly promote and support those politicians who may be similarly inclined.
And, granted, we have surely been given cause to re-examine the benefits of our historical ties to Britain in the light of the various events that have taken place during the last couple of years.

However, the prospect of independence has never been a major factor in our political landscape, unlike other British Overseas Territories in the region, notably, Bermuda and the Turks and Caicos Islands, where it has formed from time to time a significant election issue.

Once its former Caribbean colonies began to achieve independence in 1962, Britain’s policy has been to withdraw from individual security, but not economic commitments, to the Commonwealth Caribbean. British interests in the region have been reduced mainly to trade, investment, and limited economic and security assistance.

What arguments are likely to be advanced in favour of independence for the Cayman Islands? One could certainly say that we would not be completely on our own. As a full member of the Commonwealth, we could expect some financial aid in case of need from the larger countries.

But then, who is to say that we will benefit anyway if we remain under British rule, given the independent spirit the Caymanians in dealing with their economic and social affairs, for example, in the wake of Hurricane Ivan. Even Grenada, which is a fully independent nation, got more hurricane relief aid from Britain than Cayman.

Some five years ago – shortly before Ivan struck, in fact – there was something of a fuss when a delegation from Cayman Islands non-governmental organisations (NGOs) addressed the United Nations Special Committee of 24 (C24) on Decolonisation in New York and claimed that there had been “misleading representations” by the British Government dating back to the 1960s regarding its obligations under various UN resolutions dealing with self-determination.

Although the most recent pronouncement by the C24 concerning the Cayman Islands is somewhat anodyne – it merely notes the finalisation of the new constitution and recommends that participate in the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) as a new associate member – it would seem from a contemporaneous statement by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that the C24 may well adopt a more active approach in promoting independence for all 16 remaining non-self-governing territories. In fact, Mr Ban said that the United Nations must step up its decolonisation efforts.

Decolonisation “is an unfinished process that has been with the international community for too long,” he said.

In the last two years of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, Mr Ban called for the acceleration of the UN’s work to “achieve concrete results.” He told the C24 to continue its support of the “legitimate aspirations of the people of non-self-governing territories so they can exercise their right to self-determination.”

So far as we know, Britain will never force us to become independent but the views, activities and resources of world bodies such as the C24 will certainly lend support to any local interests that wish to take up such a cause.

On February 4, 1960, former British Prime Minister and consummate politician of his era, Harold Macmillan, in speaking about the future of Africa, coined the memorable phrase: “The wind of change is blowing through the Continent. Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact.”

At that time, the use of this simple metaphor in relation to the turmoil of African affairs was most apt and may still prove to be relevant to an increasing acceptance of the notion of independence for the Cayman Islands.

2010 Ibero-American Summit to Address Malvinas Sovereignty

MercoPress
South Atlantic News Agency
3rd December 2009

Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner said that the sovereignty claim over Malvinas, South Georgia, South Sandwich islands and surrounding maritime spaces, illegitimately held by Britain, will be paramount in next year’s Ibero-American summit declaration. Mar del Plata (Argentina) will be hosting the summit next year (2010).

Mrs. Kirchner was privileged with the closing speech of the two-day 19th summit held in Estoril, Portugal, since Argentina has taken over the pro tempore chair of the meeting and will be hosting the summit next year in Mar del Plata.

The president also thanked summit members for their support to Argentina’s South Atlantic islands claims, as has happened in previous occasions, and underlined the importance that such a support was part of the final Estoril declaration.

“All of us present here are members of the United Nations and we all know the UN has called on Argentina and the United Kingdom to begin sovereignty negotiations over the Malvinas Islands but this has not happened because of Britain’s point blank rejection”, insisted Mrs. Kirchner.

However the issue has been further complicated with the coming into effect December first of the Lisbon Treaty which considers “Malvinas, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands and the Argentine Antarctic sector as associate territories of the European Union”.

“The Malvinas, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands and surrounding maritime spaces are integral part of Argentine territory and are illegitimately occupied by the United Kingdom” said a strongly worded protest released by Argentina with instructions to be presented before all EU 27 members by the Argentine embassies.

Nevertheless Mrs. Kirchner thanked Portuguese Primer Minister Jose Sócrates for his disposition “to take the issue to the European Community”, an important step before “returning the claim to United Nations”.

Argentine Foreign Affairs secretary Jorge Taiana also addressed the issue during the closing press conference in Estoril.  Slowly but steadily, “we continue to advance in the creation of conditions to make the United Kingdom sit with us to discuss the Malvinas sovereignty, as has been repeatedly recommended by United Nations”.

“We are satisfied with the support from all heads of state present at the Ibero-American summit to Argentina’s sovereignty claim over the Malvinas”. He also said that Argentina for the “umpteenth time is iterating its protest because the Lisbon Treaty (‘a kind of EU constitution’) includes the Malvinas islands as part of their territory”.

Taiana said that formal protests have been presented before Brussels and the capitals of all EU country members.


Meanwhile...

Malvinas oil ‘to help' British struggling economy, report

Reserves estimated at 60 billion barrels

Buenos Aires Herald
2 Dec. 09

A British newspaper (Telegraph) reported that a North Sea oil and gas exploration rig is on its way from Scotland to the North Malvinas basin to explore oil reserves, which it described as possible source for economic recovery.


According to the report, Scientists believe that the territory could have up to 60 billion barrels of oil underneath its coastal waters. The area, over which both Argentina and Britain claim sovereignity, are being probed by four British companies - Rockhopper Exploration, Desire Petroleum, Falkland Oil and Gas and Borders and Southern Petroleum.

The estimated amount of oil has already led to the British financial sector pouring around half a billion dollars.

Second International Decade of Decolonization (to) End Unnoticed

América Latina en Movimiento
by Joyce van Genderen-Naar
30th November 2009

The Second International Decade of Decolonization is ending soon in 2010. The main conclusion is that two decades were not enough to resolve all decolonization issues, in contrary the process of self-determination leading to decolonization has become increasingly complex. Third and even more International Decades will be needed before all Non-Self-Governing Territories have attained self-determination.

The international mandate for decolonisation is a function of the UN Charter and UN resolutions on decolonisation are supported by all of the nations of the world, with regard to the international obligation to develop self-government and to take due account of the political aspirations of the people of their territories (article 73 of the United Nations Charter). But the implementation is politically sensitive and information has been scarce. Decolonization issues stay unnoticed.

The stocktaking took place during the Caribbean Regional Seminar on Decolonization, organized on 12, 13 and 14 May in St. Kitts and Nevis (Caribbean) by the UN Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization (Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples). Recommendations were made to establish a mechanism for dialogue between local authorities in the Territories, administering Powers and the international community to facilitate the decolonization process.

There has to be more interaction and cooperation between the Special Committee and the administering Powers, by creating frameworks for dialogue between the Territories, the administering Powers and the Special Committee. The international community needs to work together and to remain engaged, guided by the political options available to the Non-Self-Governing Territories: free association with other independent States, full integration with political rights, or independence. It is important to focus more on the specific needs of each Territory in terms of their political and economic needs and assistance by the United Nations system.

Education and public outreach are crucial for decolonization, to enable the people concerned to make informed decisions regarding their future political status, to promote maturity and movement towards “appropriation of the own destiny”: “You cannot insist on your rights, unless you understand them.” Decisions on self-determination must be based on full information and education. In a message to the Seminar UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had urged the administering Powers, Non-Self-Governing Territories and the United Nations to continue working together to accelerate the process of eradicating colonialism.

He said that progress in this area will require close cooperation between all three actors. He noted that the right to self-determination must be taken into proper account in exploring how to accelerate the decolonization process for the remaining 16 UN listed non self-governing territories, namely the ten Overseas Countries and Territories of the UK (Anquilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos Islands in the Caribbean Sea; Falklands Islands (Malvinas) and St. Helena in the Atlantic Ocean; Pitcairn Islands in the Pacific; Gibraltar in Europe); New Caledonia, Overseas Country and Territory of France in the Pacific; three territories of the USA: Virgin Island in the Caribbean, American Samoa and Guam in the Pacific; Tokelau, a self-governing dependency of New Zealand in the Pacific; Western Sahara, occupied by Morocco, in Africa.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was counting on the administering Powers in particular to discharge their obligations in a manner that promotes the well-being of the inhabitants of the territories within their responsibility. The interests of the peoples of the Territories have to be at the heart of all efforts.

The UN system will continue to assist the Non-Self-Governing Territories, in areas such as economic and social development, environmental sustainability, healthcare and good governance. Emerging challenges for the Non-Self-Governing Territories on their path towards decolonisation are the impact of climate change, the global economic and financial crisis, the role of regional cooperation, education and public awareness, the role of women, the empowerment of vulnerable people and the capacity for full self-government towards self-determination. Key elements in responding to the challenges of today are political maturity, economic sustainability, enhanced administrative capacity and strengthened regional cooperation.

Regional cooperation and regional arrangements offered important opportunities for many Non-Self-Governing Territories and contributed to the development of a strong regional identity and strengthened concrete functional cooperation in various areas of mutual interest. Important were the role of the United Nations regional commissions, such as the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and bodies like the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), as well as various United Nations specialized agencies.

In response to climate change, which had exposed the vulnerability of many Non-Self-Governing Territories, regional cooperation could play a crucial role in the field of disaster preparedness. The global economic crisis had further highlighted the importance of economic sustainability and diversification of the economic base in the Non-Self-Governing Territories through community-based development, the development of small and medium enterprises, promotion of micro-financing and employment-generating activities, and the empowerment of vulnerable groups.

In his closing statement on behalf of the host country, Delano Frank Bart, Permanent Representative of Saint Kitts and Nevis to the United Nations, characterized the seminar as “the penultimate event” in the course of the Decade. He said that with regard to the energy, food and financial crises, the Territories had been hit as hard as most countries, if not more, but that their concerns were often marginalized. “Our role is to ensure that all needs are met, especially the needs of those of us who are not governing themselves.” Highlighting the impact of climate change, he said that, of the 16 Territories under the Special Committee’s mandate, the majority were islands. Therefore, the concerns of small island developing States within the United Nations system were also the concerns of those Territories. They were among the most vulnerable and needed to be aware of the commitment of the international community to stand by them and “weather the storm together.”

Recalling that his country had recently celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary of independence, he said Saint Kitts and Nevis remembered the concerns of the pre-independence period. One needed the goodwill of all parties to resolve such issues, and the participants should, therefore, take away with them a determination to ensure that the day would come in the not-too-distant future, when the Special Committee’s work would bear fruit, and that the solutions found would be in the best interests of all concerned.

The recommendations of the St. Kitts Seminar have become the most recent chapter of the ever growing legislative authority on the self-determination of the territories. Some of the recommendations were included in the decolonisation resolutions adopted by the UN Fourth Committee in November 2009, and are expected to be approved by the General Assembly in December 2009. Implementation is an entirely separate matter, according to International Advisor on Democratic Governance Dr. Carlyle Corbin

GUAM’s self-determination bill

How important information and education are to the people of the Non-self Governing Territories and how essential to the expression of their political aspirations and self-determination, was shown on November 5, 2009, when the delegate of Guam Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, in the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife Legislative hearing on H.R. 3940, introduced a self-determination bill to support a public education program for the people of Guam regarding various political status options to express their desired political status.

Guam is a territory of the USA in the Pacific, that has been under the United States Flag as an unincorporated territory for over 111 years. Guam, like her sister territory Puerto Rico, was ceded to the United States from Spain upon the signing of the Treaty of Paris settling the Spanish-American War in 1898. Guam is listed by the United Nations as a non-self-governing territory. Despites all efforts towards defining a new political relationship between Guam and the United States, the political aspirations of the people of Guam for such status were never realized. A referendum affording the people of Guam an opportunity to express their views on status was authorized by local law but remains unscheduled. In November the US Congressional Committee approved the self-determination bill and assistance to the territories.

Dr. Corbin explained that there are two separate pieces of legislation - one bill for American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands, and a second different bill for Puerto Rico, which is essentially a referendum bill which had been adopted by the same Committee earlier this year. The Puerto Rico measure does not address public education since they already have a very sophisticated process in place via their political parties. Both bills have been adopted by the substantive committee in one House of the US Congress so far. It still has to be adopted by the full House of Representatives, then by the US Senate and signed by the President. He anticipated that this would happen without too much difficulty since there is no new financial resources associated with either measure.

Dr. Corbin also made clear that the issue is not only between independence or not, but rather to chose one of the three political status option which provides for a full measure of self-government, namely independence, free association and integration. These are so recognised by the UN. Some member states which administer territories, such as the UK, have told its territories that offers neither integration nor free association to them, and the choice is either independence or remaining in a dependency status. This is unlike the Dutch Antilles which had achieved sufficient autonomy to be regarded as fully self-governing. This might change as the dismantling of the five islands will now yield a new less autonomous model for the two islands which have chosen in referendum to become separate countries within the Dutch Kingdom.

Deposed Premier Condemns Climate of Fear in Turks and Caicos Islands

Premier Gilley calls for Unity

Turks and Caicos Weekly News
13 November 2009


By Rebecca Bird

FORMER Premier Galmo Williams hit out at Governor Gordon Wetherell this week accusing him of setting the country back 50 years. In a fiery press statement the PNP leader called again for a public uprising against the British-led government.

He said that Mr Wetherell has yet to inform the country of his plans for moving the country forward or “how he intends to empower TC Islanders.”

“I always believed and still do today, that the British Government does not have a plan for this country.

“It appears that their main aim is to cripple this country’s economy by stifling development and marginalising Turks and Caicos Islanders.”

Mr Williams claimed that the British have created their own ‘climate of fear’ over the past three months and said that people are afraid to speak out against the Governor’s actions for fear of victimisation.

He added: “I would like to make a final appeal to all Turks and Caicos Islanders, whether you are a PNP or PDM, persons residing in this country, those of you who care about and love this country, to let us come together as one and demand our country back - history has proven that there is strength in unity.”

In Wednesday’s statement Mr Williams also accused the Governer of hypocrisy in his actions. He challenged him to explain the “influx” of British advisors after criticising the former PNP government of appointing their own advisors.

The PNP veteran said that Islanders are being “shoved to the side” and earning “meagre” salaries. “Today I am disheartened at the fact that so many of our Turks and Caicos Islanders are being marginalised and being replaced by persons from the UK whose qualifications and experience still remains a mystery.

“Our PNP Government did not spend $18m dollars annually educating Turks and Caicos Islanders to be placed on the back burners making meagre salaries, whilst persons coming from the UK are in the frontline making huge salaries along with many benefits.

"Turks and Caicos Islanders, those of you who say you love this country, you must speak out. “You must let your voices be heard.”

Mr Williams also accused the Governor and his advisors of trying to “frustrate” TC Islanders into quitting their jobs. He cited former Registrar of Lands Kendle Williams and former Director of Tourism Lindsey Musgrove as examples.

Governor Gordon Wetherell was not available for comment up until press time.

_______________________________________________________________

Editor's Note:
In the wake of the 'colonial coup' undertaken by the British Government in the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) earlier this year with the abolishment of the elected government of the territory and the imposition of direct rule by the London-appointed governor, the United Nations (UN) made but a few minor adjustments to the language of the TCI section of the resolution when the UN Fourth Committee adopted its text. These changes insufficiently reflected the seriousness of the extraordinary development that had taken place, and the political crisis which has been created, and which continues as evidenced by the comments of the deposed Premier (see above article).

A request from activists in the territory for a separate resolution to address the complexities of the issue, similar to the UN resolution in the case of the coup in Honduras, was not heeded. The Honduras resolution, of course, elicited no action on the ground in Honduras, since the coup government remains in place, and the dutifully elected president remains in the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa - but at least the UN stated its position on principle. No such luck for a non self-governing territory such as the Turks and Caicos Islands which has no voice in the political bodies of the UN. Ironically, both coups took place in the Western Hemisphere where democracic governance is a priority.

Since the UN General Assembly meets in early December to complete its work on decolonisation for the year, there is still time for it to express its indignation with what has taken place. The following is a draft of a resolution which the UN might consider:

Draft Resolution on the Suspension of Democratic Governance in the Non Self-Governing Territory of the Turks and Caicos Islands


The General Assembly,

Deeply concerned that in reaction to the findings of a Commission of Inquiry on the administration of the Turks and Caicos Islands, the administering power of the territory has suspended major provisions of the Turks and Caicos Islands constitution, and in the process, has abolished the Premiership, Cabinet and House of Assembly, trial by jury and other provisions of the constitution, and has replaced democratic governance with direct rule by the governor acting on behalf of the administering power,

Noting with interest repeated requests made by the elected Premier, including in his statement to the May 2009 Caribbean regional seminar of the Special Committee on Decolonization held in St. Kitts and Nevis, calling for new elections to resolve the political crisis, and Noting with regret the subsequent rejection of these requests by the Government of the United Kingdom, the territory's administering power;

Taking into account the stated position of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) which emphasized that the imposition of direct rule was a regrettable forced step backward; that the democratic process could not be strengthened by removing representative democracy from the citizens of the territory; 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 in the territory;

Also taking into account the position of the Non Aligned Movement Coordinating Bureau at its 2009 ministerial meeting that called for the urgent restoration of the constitutional government in the territory pursuant to the Constitutional Order of 2006;

Bearing in mind Article 73(b) of the United Nations Charter which recognizes, inter alia, the responsibility of member States which administer non self-governing territories 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;

Also bearing in mind Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other relevant human rights instruments, which affirm that “all peoples have the right to self-determination (and) by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development;”

Recalling the Inter American Democratic Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS) which, inter alia, "recognizes that representative democracy is indispensable for the stability, peace, and development of the region, and that one of the purposes of the OAS is to promote and consolidate representative democracy,"

Further recalling Article 1 of the Inter American Democratic Charter which states that "Democracy is indispensable for the effective exercise of fundamental freedoms and human rights in their universality, indivisibility and interdependence, embodied in the respective constitutions of states and in inter-American and international human rights instruments,"

Confirming that the unilateral abolishment by the administering power of the elected government of the territory violated recognized principles of democratic governance, and was inconsistent with the international treaty obligations of an administering power as contained in the United Nations Charter and relevant human rights conventions,


1. Calls for the restoration of constitutional government, as a matter of urgency, pursuant to the Turks and Caicos Islands Constitutional Order of 2006 in order to facilitate the conduct of new elections in the territory, and requests the administering power to facilitate relevant electoral assistance to the territory in the conduct of the elections consistent with relevant resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly,

2. Further calls for the creation of a timetable for the self-determination and subsequent decolonization of the territory in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands, and in conformity with the legitimate political status options clearly defined in Resolution 1541 (XV).

3.  Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly in three months on the implementation of the present resolution.