This is Part II of "The Native Papers" written by Virgin Islands historian Gerard Emanuel. Part I dealt with the Historical and Legal Bases for the Definition of a Native Virgin Islander. This second installment deals with the right to self-determination.
_______________________________________________________________________________
PART II. Why Native Virgin Islanders Have the Right to Exercise Self-Determination
by Gerard M. Emanuel
Part I of this series provided the legal basis for the definition of a Native Virgin Islander, as well as one fundamental reason why all U.S. citizens living in the U.S. Virgin Islands are not “equally American”. This justifies special treatment for natives, since the source or authority that grants citizenship to V.I. natives, (i.e. a Congressional Act of 1940), is a lower source of law, and is not as protected as the source of U.S. Citizenship for persons born in a state or for those who are naturalized, (i.e. the U.S. Constitution). The reality is that Congress can pass another act changing the law that grants U.S. Citizenship to Native Virgin Islanders at any time, but it cannot similarly change the U. S. Constitution, which guarantees and solidly protects the U.S. citizenship of persons born or naturalized in the U.S.
The above provides part of the historical and legal basis for proving that V.I. Natives are not similarly situated with other U.S. citizens who have migrated here, whether they are natural born citizens in a state or naturalized citizens, and thus it fulfills the singular requirement for mandatory differential treatment as required by the proper application of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
(See http://www2.sfasu.edu/polisci/Abel/ConstitutionalLawII/EQUALPROTECTION.htm)
Native Virgin Islanders who are not similarly situated with migrants are consistently having their 14th Amendment equal protection right to U.S. citizenship violated as we read these words. This is one reason that necessitates special privileges for them in lieu if this in the local constitution.
This essay will examine some very enlightening citations from Supreme Court cases, known as the “Insular Cases”. This review should conclusively dispel the notion that the Native Virgin Islanders, who suggest that only they and their descendants should make any fundamental decisions regarding the “civil rights and political status” of the people of the Virgin Islands, are racists, discriminatory and have no foundation for these assertions. This article should also expose the flaw in the statement that this idea of Native self-determination has no place in American law, and is thus “un-American”.
The fact is that the U.S. has historically treated territories with a majority of “non-European”, native people such as the Virgin Islands, in a racially patronizing manner. The native people in these territories, which became politically associated with the U.S. as a result of war or purchase, were denied certain rights and privileges that were automatically granted to persons in territories where the population was mainly of European descent.
This provides part of the historical record and foundation for the arguments put forth by some natives today, that only Native Virgin Islanders should determine their civil rights and political future, whether it is by writing a constitution or deciding political status, and that they should have special protections and privileges inserted in the local constitution. THIS IS BECAUSE OF THEIR RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION.
Native Virgin Islanders (who were mainly but not only the African majority of the population), were the only ones in the Virgin Islands between 1917 and 1927, who were legally and politically prevented from deciding for themselves, their civil rights, citizenship and political status, without outside interference and imposition of the laws of another country. We already read in Part I that the Danes were allowed to decide for themselves whether to become U.S. citizens or retain their Danish nationality. Other European foreigners could likewise go back home or stay and become U.S. Citizens. The U.S. even opposed a referendum held to determine the wishes of the people. Thus it is clear that the U.S. intended to unilaterally force a decision on the majority of the population, (i.e. the natives), without providing them an opportunity for input in the decision-making process, which occurred during the treaty negotiations.) HOW UNAMERICAN THIS SEEMS!!!!
I understand that an informal plebiscite was held. However, if a real binding referendum were held, the majority of the population would have been denied participation, just as was the case in 1868, when sales negotiations were being considered. A vote on both St. Thomas and St. John at that time only included 12% of the population. (Boyer p. 79) This occurred because of the prohibitive property and income qualifications for voting or participating in any way in the political process under Danish rule. Thus, the majority of Native Virgin Islanders were denied their political EQUAL PROTECTION rights under both Danish and American rule.
Native Virgin Islanders eventually were involuntarily included in several congressional statutes, which they were told would serve as their constitutions, even though they did not vote to approve them locally – (i.e. the Organic Acts of 1936 and 1954). They were also told that their home was now an Unincorporated Territory. This meant that as long as they resided here in their homeland, they could never enjoy the privileges or have the full rights that U.S. citizens born and living in a state or on a U.S. military base any place in the world automatically get. It also meant that these islands were not a part of the U.S. The following statements by Justices Brown and White in A Supreme Court case entitled Downes V. Bidwell regarding Puerto Rico, confirm the latter statement. Recent Court cases have confirmed that the statements below apply to all Unincorporated Territories of the United States. (See the Krim Ballentine case.)
“The 13th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude 'within the United States, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction,' is also significant as showing that there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are no part of the Union.” (182 U.S. 251) “We are therefore of opinion that the island of Porto Rico is a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States within the revenue clauses of the Constitution;” (182 U.S. 287)
“The result of what has been said is that while in an international sense Porto Rico was not a foreign country, since it was subject to the sovereignty of and was owned by the United States, it was foreign to the United States in a domestic sense, *342 because the island had not been incorporated into the United States, but was merely appurtenant thereto as a possession.” (182 U.S. 244, 342). Finally, if one interprets Justice Brown correctly below, the citizenship granted by Congress to the natives of these islands was not constitutionally protected as it is for persons born within a state or for naturalized citizens.
“Upon the other hand, the 14th Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, declares only that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside.' Here there is a limitation to persons born or naturalized in the United States, which is not extended to persons born in any place 'subject to their jurisdiction.' “ (Downes v. Bidwell, 1901, 182 U.S. 251). I do not think that he could have said it any clearer. The above lays the cornerstone for native rights and equal protection for Native Virgin Islanders.
What Virgin Islanders did not understand in 1917, was that the U.S. never intended to incorporate these islands into the U.S. proper, either as a territory or as a state. In sum, the degree to which native Virgin Islanders are “American” is directly tied to the political status of their homeland. “U.S. citizens” are not all equally “American”. They have certain rights when they live in a state, and lose them when they live in a territory. (See the Krim Ballentine case.) THIS IS REALLY WHAT IS UN-AMERICAN. THIS IS REALLY THE VIOLATION AND INJUSTICE. THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT PERSONS WHO COME HERE OUGHT TO BE FIGHTING AGAINST, INSTEAD OF ATTACKING THE REAL VICTIMS OF LEGALIZED RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS IN THIS LAND– (i.e. the Native Virgin Islanders.) As such, the persons who were adversely affected and their descendants, have the inalienable right to change the status of this territory, or retain it if they so choose, on their own without outside interference.
Although some local input was entertained when the Organic Acts were discussed in Congress, the masses of natives were not legitimately or popularly consulted about these important local self-governance decisions. They were never exclusively and legitimately, (according to international legal standards), given the opportunity to vote on any federal statutes that defined and outlined their civil rights. (The relevance of international law and standards to this discussion will be fully addressed in Part IV of this series).
They also had no say in deciding their political status. Therefore, whatever civil rights and political status currently exist, whether natives agree with them or not is immaterial and irrelevant. Native Virgin Islanders pursuant to both U.S. and international law, and resolutions must have the right to decide both of these matters on their own, without outside interference. Outside interference includes the constraints imposed by the United States Constitution and Congress on the processes granted by law to achieve greater self-government and finally self-determination. For example, Congress has determined for the natives of the Virgin Islands, who will be permitted to be a constitutional delegate and who will vote on the out come of the process. The local Legislature simply made superficial modifications that in no way respect the right of the indigenes of this territory to equal protection of the laws, self-definition, self-governance and ultimately self-determination.
Furthermore, the Virgin Islands are governed pursuant to Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. This is the part that gives Congress full authority over property. If the V.I. and its natives are considered legally as mere property, how can any exercise in self-government or self-determination be legitimate? Before Virgin Islanders can engage in these processes, the colonial control that the U.S. exercises over them under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution must be temporarily delegated or more directly, transferred from the U.S. to the Virgin Islands. (Se Resolution 1514 sections 5-7 in Appendix A at the end of this paper.)
Only when the above occurs can Virgin Islanders validly engage in self-governing and/or self-determining activities. In other words, only free persons not colonial subjects can exercise self-governance and self-determination. Absent this transfer of powers to the Virgin Islands, these processes can be viewed as nothing but a sham. This position is particularly strengthened by the facts previously mentioned, which can be summarized in the following sentences.
Only persons defined as natives or inhabitants were singled out for unfair discrimination in 1917. They were the only Virgin Islanders who were denied their inalienable right to choose their political status and civil rights, without undue outside pressure and interference. This is a clear violation of the principles upon which the United States of America was founded and a violation of their right to equal protection of the laws. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”(taken from the 2nd sentence of the Declaration of Independence).
Furthermore, denying Native Virgin Islanders this right is also a violation of those international standards that have been accepted by the U.S. as being appropriate for other places in the world ( such as Israel). In light of this, only Native Virgin Islanders, their descendants and whomever else they choose to participate, should legally have the right to correct this wrong. The key point is that natives alone should have the right to choose who along with them will determine their political future. Any decision which excludes this right can
under no valid definition be considered a legitimate exercise of self-determination or even self government.
Persons who have come here either from the U.S. or from elsewhere, emigrated from countries where their people either already exercised their right of self-determination, or if not, because of their “native” or “belonger” status, these persons could go back and do so if and when the opportunity arises. For Native Virgin Islanders, the Virgin Islands is their only homeland, and the place where they must be able to exercise their inalienable rights as human beings.
Readers, Native Virgin Islanders have no similar options (i.e. we are not similarly situated with migrants to the V.I. Thus the proper application of the 14th amendment on behalf of V.I. Natives demands that we be treated dissimilarly from the migrants to the V.I. and be accorded certain privileges to provide for equal protection of the laws.) In 1917, Native Virgin Islanders were not automatically granted several of the rights and privileges given to U.S. Citizens in the original contiguous territories of the U.S. prior to the last decade of the 19th century, such as trial by jury, the right to a Grand Jury, U.S. Citizenship, etc.
Just as had been done with Puerto Rico and Guam in the Treaty of Paris 19 years earlier, the U.S. treated its territories that did not have a majority of Caucasians, very differently from how it had dealt with its original territories on the U.S. mainland, which had consisted largely of Caucasians.
These original contiguous territories were immediately incorporated into the United States, where almost the entire Constitution automatically applied to them – i.e. “ the Constitution automatically followed the flag.” Thus the Caucasian inhabitants were immediately made full citizens of the United States. According to William Boyer, a scholar of renown, who did his Master’s Thesis on Civil Liberties in the Virgin Islands, it had been assumed that the contiguous territories, which were created after the original 13, “were but extensions of the nation and entitled, not as a privilege, but as a right, to all the benefits of equality that the states enjoyed in the field of civil rights.” (Boyer, Civil Liberties. P. 2) The status of these territories was regarded as being only temporary. The plan was to prepare them for eventual admission as a state. (ibid. p.2) Boyer called this practice the “doctrine of equality”. In it the Caucasian residents of territories were treated as the equals of other U.S. Citizens in the existing states. Their territory also was expected to join the union as a state as soon as they were ready. There was no mention of the need for these territories to be incorporated into the U.S. or for Congress to determine their civil rights and political status, as was the case for Guam, Puerto Rico and eventually the V.I.
The above was the prevailing practice until the end of the 19th century. However, when the U.S. acquired Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines at the end of the Spanish American War, it changed its practice of treating territories and the residents therein according to the “Doctrine of Equality”. It began to utilize what became known as the “Doctrine of Incorporation” for these new possessions. In other words, the U.S. government did not automatically incorporate these new places into the U.S. by making the U.S. Constitution automatically apply as much as possible, as had been the common practice. The Supreme Court invented a nebulous concept of incorporation to determine whether a territory and its inhabitants would have the Constitution automatically apply. In all of the cases where the territories had large populations of persons of a different color and culture from those in the U.S. mainland, the court refused to make them an incorporated possession of the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices White and Brown were the main proponents of the rationale for justifying this discriminatory treatment of the non-white peoples in the unincorporated areas belonging to the United States.
The same twisted reasoning expressed by the Justices cited above, was applied by other U.S. officials to the Virgin Islands in 1917, and used to deny full citizenship rights to the majority of Blacks, while granting these rights to the Danes. It is obvious that the U.S. Government never intended for these non-contiguous territories, where the majority of the population was nonwhite, to become states. Some persons even contend that it was only when the population of Hawaii had become “white” enough, was it admitted as a state. When one reads the Insular Cases, particularly Downes v. Bidwell, it is obvious that a small plurality of the Justices, led curiously by Judges with colorful names such as Brown and White, did not feel that persons of color who possessed different cultural practices from theirs, would be able to appreciate and properly utilize the privileges and rights accorded to Caucasian U.S. Citizens.
According to Justice Brown: “It is obvious that in the annexation of outlying and distant possessions, grave questions will arise from differences of race, habits, laws, and customs of the people, and from differences of soil, climate, and production, which may require action on the part of Congress that would be quite unnecessary in the annexation of contiguous territory inhabited only by people of the same race, or by scattered bodies of native Indians. “
As such, all kinds of distinctions were created to deny the people of color in these newly acquired territories, the equal treatment that had become the practice up until this point. The Supreme Court also invented an artificial distinction between fundamental and formal parts of the U.S. Constitution in its attempt to justify this blatant discrimination. According to Justice Brown:
“We suggest, without intending to decide, that there may be a distinction between certain natural rights enforced in the Constitution by prohibitions against interference with them, and what may be termed artificial or remedial rights which are peculiar to our own system of jurisprudence. Of the former class are the rights to one's own religious opinions and to a public expression of them, or, as sometimes said, to worship God according to the dictates of one's own conscience; the right to personal liberty and individual property; to freedom of speech and of the press; to free access to courts of justice, to due process of law, and to an equal protection of the laws; to immunities from unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as cruel and unusual punishments; and to such other immunities as are in- [182 U.S. 244, 283] dispensable to a free government. Of the latter class are the rights to citizenship, to suffrage (Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L. ed. 627), and to the particular methods of procedure pointed out in the Constitution, which are peculiar to Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, and some of which have already been held by the states to be unnecessary to the proper protection of individuals.”
Can you believe that the above citations were written by Justice Brown? Is this the kind of reasoning that is to be considered acceptable from an “American” sitting on the highest court in the U.S.? Furthermore, his view could not have been at variance with many other pubic officials, because they adopted this same logic in decisions regarding all of their overseas possessions.
In conclusion, after being subjected to such racially biased treatment, the indigenes of this territory and their descendants ought to have the prerogative to choose whomever they wish to invite to participate in deciding their political status and structure of government. If the above is not an adequate basis for granting Native Virgin Islanders these and other civil and human rights and privileges, for which they are reportedly overseas fighting to secure for other peoples, I do not know what else is. A reasonable and objective mind would see that this right is “totally American”, and forms the basis of several documents written by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. Part III in this series will discuss a more compelling basis for treating Native Virgin Islanders favorably.
APPENDIX A
Excerpts from U.N. GA Resolution 1514
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.
28 January 2010
27 January 2010
The Native Papers Part I
Considerable response has been generated from the Caribbean, Pacific and South Atlantic as a result of the article "Who Constitutes the People" in a non self-governing territory. Virgin Islands historian Gerard M. Emanuel has made available his series of articles known as "The Native Papers" which presents a unique perspective on the historical basis for the recognition of the Native Virgin Islander emerging from the 1917 Treaty of Cession transferring the former Danish West Indies to the United States for a sum of US$ 25 million in gold. The series of articles were originally written prior to the 2007 election of delegates to the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the US Virgin Islands, and revised in January 2010, following the adoption of a draft constitution for that US territory in May, 2009 which has been forwarded to Washington for review. Mr. Emanuel is a member of the Convention, but the views expressed are his own.
__________________________________________________________________________________
PART I. Historical and Legal Bases for the Definition of a Native Virgin Islander
by Gerard M. Emanuel
Prior to the constitutional convention in the Virgin Islands of the U.S.A., discussions about the definition of a “Native Virgin Islander” and that of a “Virgin Islander” resurfaced on radio talk shows and in editorials in local papers. These discourses prompted the writing of this series of essays entitled “The Native Papers”. It will hopefully provide some of the historical and legal rationale for the viewpoints and outcries of conscious Native Virgin Islanders who base their positions on facts, history, context and law. Specifically it will focus on acknowledging, providing the justification for and respecting the exclusive right of VI indigenes to participate on their own in determining their civil rights, form of government and political status. Natives have never been granted the right to do these things as natives without outside interference. Outside interference includes authorizing anyone who is not a native to participate in constitutional drafting, status and self-determination processes including plebiscites and referenda.
The historical records will verify that in the past, first the colonizers decided these matters for natives. When natives were allowed to participate, their vote and intent were circumvented because the decision-making processes always included all of the people in the Virgin Islands who could qualify to vote in regular elections. Included in this group of non-natives are members of the colonizers from the U.S. mainland. It is clearly contradictory and a violation of international law to allow non-native Virgin Islanders who are citizens of the colonizing or “Administering” power to participate in the fundamental political exercises of the People of an Unincorporated Territory, or colony. Two examples of such activities are constitutional reform, and political status determination. It is our contention that some of these persons should not have been allowed to participate if these acts were to be considered as authentic exercises in self-determination by the People of the Virgin Islands, who are the ones discriminated against in the treaty of Cession between Denmark and the U.S.A. in 1917, and during the first 14 years of military rule in the V.I., WE HOLD THAT THERE EXISTS A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE PEOPLE OF AND THE PEOPLE IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.
The former are the natives and their descendants who were purchased along with the property by the United States, (in clear violation of the 13th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the 1848 and 1863 Emancipation Proclamations by Denmark and the U.S.A. respectively). The latter are those who came afterwards, or were here during the transfer of the islands from Denmark to the U.S.A. but were expressly or implicitly given the option of keeping their citizenship or accepting U.S. citizenship. The People of the Virgin Islands, (who are the natives), were not given this privilege or right. This initial article will provide some of the citations in U.S. federal legal documents that created the definition of a Native Virgin Islander, and put to rest the assertions that the are the creation of a few radical and racist “Native Virgin Islanders” who want to “deny the fundamental rights” of other residents here.
Federal legal documents will also be cited to show that all U.S. Citizens living in the U.S. Virgin Islands are not all “equally American”. Some persons have suggested that to consider the “people of the Virgin Islands” to be something other than “Americans” is racially discriminatory, since this is an American territory and we are all equally “American”. Others point out that nobody living here today or any of their direct ancestors is a true “Native Virgin Islander”. Such a designation should be reserved for the Indigenous Americans who migrated here before Columbus.
None of these statements is accurate. First, we are not all “merely” or “equally” American. Even if we were to accept this claim, the U.S. Government always does something to illustrate that such is not the case. For example, according to reliable reports, the U.S. military, after hurricane Hugo ravaged the V.I. in 1989, indicated that it was sent here with the express purpose of “securing and saving U.S. Citizens or Americans”? What occurred however, was that the military primarily looked for Caucasians living in the Virgin Islands. If we are all equally American, why were the majority of “U.S. Citizens” living here, who are of African and Hispanic descent, who also lost their homes and required assistance, not sought and treated equally favorably? Apparently in this instance, “U.S. citizens” or “Americans” were simply euphemisms for Caucasians living in the Virgin Islands.
Native Virgin Islanders did not create race consciousness or racial and ethnic distinctions. The U.S. Government did so with its policies before, during and after the U.S. Constitution was framed and approved. It denied certain rights to women, most Africans and the indigenous American population. It was eventually forced by a war to grant some of these rights to most Americans, with the passage of Civil War Amendments. Nevertheless the U.S. Constitution and other U.S. law still do not extend to, protect and treat all U.S. Citizens equally.
When the U.S. acquired its outlying possessions, at the end of the 19th century, it continued to unfairly discriminate against persons of color as had been the pattern with Africans inside of the U.S. during and after slavery. The pretext this time was that certain “rights and privileges” in the U.S. Constitution, were peculiar to “Americans” and therefore “nonessential” for the protection of persons in the “outlying” territories to obtain. Two of these were full U.S. Citizenship, and trial by jury.
If anyone is to be charged with discriminating based on race and ethnicity, it is clearly the U.S. government even on the Supreme Court at the turn of the 20th century and in some earlier cases, such as the infamous Dred Scott Decision of 1857. Furthermore, the U.S. officials who authored the Treaty of Cession with Denmark also unfairly discriminated based on race, nationality and ethnicity. This article and its sequel will provide the documentation for these assertions. (See citations below):
United States Statute
8 USC Sec. 1406
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
CHAPTER 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
SUBCHAPTER III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization
-HEAD-
Sec. 1406. Persons living in and born in the Virgin Islands
The Insular Cases, 182 US 244 (1901), Downes v. Bidwell, comments by Justices Brown and White and 182 U.S. 1, De Lima v. Bidwell 1901
In U.S. Statutes or in the congressional acts cited above, the term, “Native Virgin Islander”, was not specifically used. However, a careful reading of the above cited documents will clearly indicate that the terms employed, meant those people who were living here at the time of the transfer of these islands from Denmark to the U.S.A., who could not claim to be a citizen or native of any other place but the Virgin Islands. This was the majority of “non-white” residents.
Let us now examine a few statements from Section 1406 of the 1940 Nationality Act. This act of Congress amended a previous Act, (44 Stat. 1234 1927), which had made Virgin Islanders U.S. Citizens by statute, by making them citizens at birth. However, before looking at the citations from the 1940 Act, it should be made clear that irrespective of how Congress provided U.S. Citizenship to Native Virgin Islanders, citizenship granted by Congress does not have the same legal authority as citizenship that is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. This is another legal reason why all “U.S. Citizens” living in the Virgin Islands, are not “all equally American.” Persons who were born in one of the 50 states, or on a U.S. military base in any part of the world, are natural-born U.S. Citizens, and are all equally “American” pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Also, persons who are naturalized, are granted U.S. Citizenship by the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution and thus receive the same constitutional protection of their Citizenship status as U.S. Citizens who are born in a state or on a military base receive. (See the applicable part of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment below).
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”
Both of these sets of U.S. Citizens may not be aware of this discriminatory privilege they have been granted, that persons born in the Virgin Islands or in another Unincorporated Territory do not have. This is another reason why we are not all “equally American” here in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Any Congress can pass an act to sell the Virgin Islands and take away the current right of persons born in these islands to be U.S. Citizens at birth. Conversely, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court can do this to persons whose basis for receiving U.S. Citizenship is the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Therefore, Native Virgin Islanders are not “similarly situated” with persons born in a state who have migrated here as U.S. Citizens, or with those who were naturalized either here or elsewhere. As indicated previously, these persons have their citizenship status protected and guaranteed by the first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (PART 2 of this series will discuss why this citizenship distinction is of vital importance in developing the basis for a compelling state interest and provides sound justification for the insertion of Native Rights in the local constitution.).
Persons acquainted with law will confirm the point that different laws or sources of law carry different weights legally. The highest source of law is the U.S. Constitution. Supreme Court Justices use the Constitution to determine whether an act of Congress or some decision of the Executive Branch is legal or not. Other Court rulings and Congressional Acts are next in terms of rank. Therefore, citizenship granted by the highest law in the land, (i.e. by the U.S. Constitution), is superior to citizenship granted by a law carrying lesser weight, (i.e. by congressional acts), which can be changed much more easily.
(One Supreme Court Justice who made reference to this difference between citizenship granted by the 14th Amendment to persons born in the U.S., and that granted by congressional statute to persons living in territories, is Justice Brown. *See footnote 1 in APPENDIX A at the end of this article).
Now let us examine the citations from the Nationality Act. For you readers with inquiring minds, I deliberately omitted the first subsection, because it only addressed the former Danish Citizens who were living in these islands. Their status never was and is not at issue here. So I began with #2 to show you that the Congress recognized that there were large numbers of people living here, who were not Danes but had no nationality, and could not claim any other place as their native land. The specific reference to this fact is underlined in the citations below.
(2) All natives of the Virgin Islands of the United States who, on January 17, 1917, resided in those islands, and were residing in those islands or in the United States or Puerto Rico on February 25, 1927, and who were not on February 25, 1927, citizens or subjects of any foreign country;
(3) All natives of the Virgin Islands of the United States who, on January 17, 1917, resided in the United States, and were residing in those islands on February 25, 1927, and who were not on February 25, 1927, citizens or subjects of any foreign country; and
(4) All natives of the Virgin Islands of the United States who, on June 28, 1932, were residing in continental United States, the Virgin Islands of the United States, Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, or any other insular possession or territory of the United States, and who, on June 28, 1932, were not citizens or subjects of any foreign country, regardless of their place of residence on January 17, 1917.
(b) All persons born in the Virgin Islands of the United States on or after January 17, 1917, and prior to February 25, 1927, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are declared to be citizens of the United States as of February 25, 1927; and all persons born in those islands on or after February 25, 1927, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are declared to be citizens
of the United States at birth.
-SOURCE-(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, Sec. 306, 66 Stat. 237.)
The preceding should clear up the principal source and the legal validity for the term and definition of a “Native Virgin Islander”. The salient qualifications for nativity or indigenousness delineated in the act are worth repeating. They are those natives who “…were not citizens or subjects of any foreign country, regardless of their place of residence on January 17, 1917.” Therefore, a child of a Dane, an Irish person, or an English person was not considered “Native” in the view of the congressional acts that conferred citizenship en masse to Virgin Islanders, because he/she could claim the citizenship status of at least one of his/her parents. Authentic natives, (whom we renamed as “Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders” in the fifth constitutional draft), are those who could not claim citizenship in any country whatsoever. Therefore they must be considered as indigenous to the Virgin Islands upon the arrival and takeover of this territory by the United States Government, just as the Pre-Columbian Inhabitants who Christopher Columbus met here 424 years earlier are considered indigenous since he met them here.
The point being made above is a subtle but not a small one because several persons want to equate being an indigene with being an aboriginal inhabitant. The persons to whom we have given the designation “Ancestral Native Virgin Islander, or Native Virgin Islander, are not the “aboriginal Native Virgin Islanders or the “first Virgin Islanders” as the Ciboneys and their descendants are considered to be. However, that does not make them any less indigenous. One does not have to be among the first inhabitants to be indigenous. One only has to be from a place without being able to claim citizenship or nationality in any other place to be considered such. However one must be among the first inhabitants to be aboriginal. The critical point is that the terms are not synonymous as some persons seem to be contending.
Additionally, the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes also show why natives do not have the same citizenship status as persons born or naturalized in a state or on a U.S. military base. Persons who disagree should take up this issue with Congress. However, if one still has doubts, about what Congress decided in 1927 and 1940, the U.S. had already recognized this specific group of “Native Virgin Islanders”, in the Treaty of Cession with Denmark in 1917. After granting Danish citizens the right to choose whether they wanted to remain Danes or become U.S. citizens, in the first part of Article 6, the second to the last paragraph of that article indicated that Congress shall determine the civil rights and political status of the “inhabitants of the islands.”
Now if all persons residing in the islands were Danes, or foreigners, (such as the British, Irish and Scottish planters and business persons, etc.), there would not have been any need for a paragraph that singled out a group of persons that did not fall into either of these two categories because they could not claim to be citizens of Denmark or of any other country.
I concede that the use of the term “inhabitants” in the Treaty of Cession between Denmark and the U.S.A. is ambiguous and could also include Danes and other foreign citizens who chose to remain in the Virgin Islands and renounce their citizenship. However the point is that these persons were granted the right to voluntarily keep or relinquish their citizenship status. No such discretion was provided to the “non-citizen Natives.” Therefore, it is my position that the term “inhabitants” automatically referred to those persons who had no other nationality or belonged to no other place but to the Virgin Islands. Hence, it is only logical to conclude that these should be referred to as the “Native Virgin Islanders” at the beginning of U.S. rule in the V.I.
As mentioned previously, persons have pointed out that nobody living here today or any of their direct ancestors is a true “Native Virgin Islander”. Such a designation should be reserved for the Indigenous Americans who migrated here before Columbus. Nevertheless, it is not wrong to use the term “Native Virgin Islander” to refer to the descendants of people, who were brought here either from Africa, or who migrated here from other Caribbean islands, and were living here when the U.S. took control from Denmark. First, those who came from Africa were not recognized as “citizens by either Europeans or Americans. They were not even considered to be fully human. That is why their enslavement and inhumane treatment could be justified. Remember further that Caucasians did not consider places in Africa as “countries”, much less as “civilized countries” from a European/American point of view.
Second, those persons who came here from our neighboring islands were most likely subjects of their European colonizer, and therefore non-citizens in those colonies. These people were not “citizens” of any country during Danish rule, and for the first time were made “citizens” of any place in 1927. Therefore, the definition of Ancestral Native Virgin Islander placed in the Fifth Constitutional Draft document includes these persons and their descendants as well as those persons who were actually born here and met the other criteria alluded to before. Wouldn’t be ironic if persons who are arguing against the native definitions conduct some research and find out that they also qualify due to the expanded and inclusive nature of the definition being proposed by constitutional convention delegates?
Yes, this group of people is not the “aboriginal” group of inhabitants of these islands. Historians and archaeologists have clearly shown that the pre-ceramic people (also known as the Ciboneys), settled here as far back as 2,000 B.C., and are the “first” “Native Virgin Islanders”. However, Scholars have likewise uncovered evidence that points to the existence of African settlements on St. John and maybe on St. Thomas before the arrival of Europeans. African skeletons found at Hull Bay on St. Thomas, and rock drawings of African symbols at Reef Bay on St. John, are two possible examples of Pre-Columbian African presence here. So who came here first? Who are the true aboriginal Virgin Islanders? In justifying the designation of the “non-citizen” persons whom the U.S.A. met here in 1917 as Native Virgin Islanders, it does not matter whether Africans or Persons from South America came here first. What does matter is that the majority of persons referred to as “inhabitants” in the 1917 Treaty of Cession between the U.S.A. and Denmark, as well as those referred to as natives who were not citizens or subjects of any foreign country, in the 1927, and 1940 nationality Acts, are “Native Virgin Islanders” by virtue of the fact that they were from these islands and had no “legal” claim of nativity, cizenship or allegiance to any other place.
Appendix A
Footnotes
1. “Upon the other hand, the 14th Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, declares only that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside.' Here there is a limitation to persons born or naturalized in the United States, which is not extended to persons born in any place 'subject to their jurisdiction.' “ (Downes v. Bidwell, 1901)
__________________________________________________________________________________
PART I. Historical and Legal Bases for the Definition of a Native Virgin Islander
by Gerard M. Emanuel
Prior to the constitutional convention in the Virgin Islands of the U.S.A., discussions about the definition of a “Native Virgin Islander” and that of a “Virgin Islander” resurfaced on radio talk shows and in editorials in local papers. These discourses prompted the writing of this series of essays entitled “The Native Papers”. It will hopefully provide some of the historical and legal rationale for the viewpoints and outcries of conscious Native Virgin Islanders who base their positions on facts, history, context and law. Specifically it will focus on acknowledging, providing the justification for and respecting the exclusive right of VI indigenes to participate on their own in determining their civil rights, form of government and political status. Natives have never been granted the right to do these things as natives without outside interference. Outside interference includes authorizing anyone who is not a native to participate in constitutional drafting, status and self-determination processes including plebiscites and referenda.
The historical records will verify that in the past, first the colonizers decided these matters for natives. When natives were allowed to participate, their vote and intent were circumvented because the decision-making processes always included all of the people in the Virgin Islands who could qualify to vote in regular elections. Included in this group of non-natives are members of the colonizers from the U.S. mainland. It is clearly contradictory and a violation of international law to allow non-native Virgin Islanders who are citizens of the colonizing or “Administering” power to participate in the fundamental political exercises of the People of an Unincorporated Territory, or colony. Two examples of such activities are constitutional reform, and political status determination. It is our contention that some of these persons should not have been allowed to participate if these acts were to be considered as authentic exercises in self-determination by the People of the Virgin Islands, who are the ones discriminated against in the treaty of Cession between Denmark and the U.S.A. in 1917, and during the first 14 years of military rule in the V.I., WE HOLD THAT THERE EXISTS A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE PEOPLE OF AND THE PEOPLE IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.
The former are the natives and their descendants who were purchased along with the property by the United States, (in clear violation of the 13th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the 1848 and 1863 Emancipation Proclamations by Denmark and the U.S.A. respectively). The latter are those who came afterwards, or were here during the transfer of the islands from Denmark to the U.S.A. but were expressly or implicitly given the option of keeping their citizenship or accepting U.S. citizenship. The People of the Virgin Islands, (who are the natives), were not given this privilege or right. This initial article will provide some of the citations in U.S. federal legal documents that created the definition of a Native Virgin Islander, and put to rest the assertions that the are the creation of a few radical and racist “Native Virgin Islanders” who want to “deny the fundamental rights” of other residents here.
Federal legal documents will also be cited to show that all U.S. Citizens living in the U.S. Virgin Islands are not all “equally American”. Some persons have suggested that to consider the “people of the Virgin Islands” to be something other than “Americans” is racially discriminatory, since this is an American territory and we are all equally “American”. Others point out that nobody living here today or any of their direct ancestors is a true “Native Virgin Islander”. Such a designation should be reserved for the Indigenous Americans who migrated here before Columbus.
None of these statements is accurate. First, we are not all “merely” or “equally” American. Even if we were to accept this claim, the U.S. Government always does something to illustrate that such is not the case. For example, according to reliable reports, the U.S. military, after hurricane Hugo ravaged the V.I. in 1989, indicated that it was sent here with the express purpose of “securing and saving U.S. Citizens or Americans”? What occurred however, was that the military primarily looked for Caucasians living in the Virgin Islands. If we are all equally American, why were the majority of “U.S. Citizens” living here, who are of African and Hispanic descent, who also lost their homes and required assistance, not sought and treated equally favorably? Apparently in this instance, “U.S. citizens” or “Americans” were simply euphemisms for Caucasians living in the Virgin Islands.
Native Virgin Islanders did not create race consciousness or racial and ethnic distinctions. The U.S. Government did so with its policies before, during and after the U.S. Constitution was framed and approved. It denied certain rights to women, most Africans and the indigenous American population. It was eventually forced by a war to grant some of these rights to most Americans, with the passage of Civil War Amendments. Nevertheless the U.S. Constitution and other U.S. law still do not extend to, protect and treat all U.S. Citizens equally.
When the U.S. acquired its outlying possessions, at the end of the 19th century, it continued to unfairly discriminate against persons of color as had been the pattern with Africans inside of the U.S. during and after slavery. The pretext this time was that certain “rights and privileges” in the U.S. Constitution, were peculiar to “Americans” and therefore “nonessential” for the protection of persons in the “outlying” territories to obtain. Two of these were full U.S. Citizenship, and trial by jury.
If anyone is to be charged with discriminating based on race and ethnicity, it is clearly the U.S. government even on the Supreme Court at the turn of the 20th century and in some earlier cases, such as the infamous Dred Scott Decision of 1857. Furthermore, the U.S. officials who authored the Treaty of Cession with Denmark also unfairly discriminated based on race, nationality and ethnicity. This article and its sequel will provide the documentation for these assertions. (See citations below):
United States Statute
8 USC Sec. 1406
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
CHAPTER 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
SUBCHAPTER III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization
-HEAD-
Sec. 1406. Persons living in and born in the Virgin Islands
The Insular Cases, 182 US 244 (1901), Downes v. Bidwell, comments by Justices Brown and White and 182 U.S. 1, De Lima v. Bidwell 1901
In U.S. Statutes or in the congressional acts cited above, the term, “Native Virgin Islander”, was not specifically used. However, a careful reading of the above cited documents will clearly indicate that the terms employed, meant those people who were living here at the time of the transfer of these islands from Denmark to the U.S.A., who could not claim to be a citizen or native of any other place but the Virgin Islands. This was the majority of “non-white” residents.
Let us now examine a few statements from Section 1406 of the 1940 Nationality Act. This act of Congress amended a previous Act, (44 Stat. 1234 1927), which had made Virgin Islanders U.S. Citizens by statute, by making them citizens at birth. However, before looking at the citations from the 1940 Act, it should be made clear that irrespective of how Congress provided U.S. Citizenship to Native Virgin Islanders, citizenship granted by Congress does not have the same legal authority as citizenship that is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. This is another legal reason why all “U.S. Citizens” living in the Virgin Islands, are not “all equally American.” Persons who were born in one of the 50 states, or on a U.S. military base in any part of the world, are natural-born U.S. Citizens, and are all equally “American” pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Also, persons who are naturalized, are granted U.S. Citizenship by the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution and thus receive the same constitutional protection of their Citizenship status as U.S. Citizens who are born in a state or on a military base receive. (See the applicable part of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment below).
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”
Both of these sets of U.S. Citizens may not be aware of this discriminatory privilege they have been granted, that persons born in the Virgin Islands or in another Unincorporated Territory do not have. This is another reason why we are not all “equally American” here in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Any Congress can pass an act to sell the Virgin Islands and take away the current right of persons born in these islands to be U.S. Citizens at birth. Conversely, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court can do this to persons whose basis for receiving U.S. Citizenship is the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Therefore, Native Virgin Islanders are not “similarly situated” with persons born in a state who have migrated here as U.S. Citizens, or with those who were naturalized either here or elsewhere. As indicated previously, these persons have their citizenship status protected and guaranteed by the first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (PART 2 of this series will discuss why this citizenship distinction is of vital importance in developing the basis for a compelling state interest and provides sound justification for the insertion of Native Rights in the local constitution.).
Persons acquainted with law will confirm the point that different laws or sources of law carry different weights legally. The highest source of law is the U.S. Constitution. Supreme Court Justices use the Constitution to determine whether an act of Congress or some decision of the Executive Branch is legal or not. Other Court rulings and Congressional Acts are next in terms of rank. Therefore, citizenship granted by the highest law in the land, (i.e. by the U.S. Constitution), is superior to citizenship granted by a law carrying lesser weight, (i.e. by congressional acts), which can be changed much more easily.
(One Supreme Court Justice who made reference to this difference between citizenship granted by the 14th Amendment to persons born in the U.S., and that granted by congressional statute to persons living in territories, is Justice Brown. *See footnote 1 in APPENDIX A at the end of this article).
Now let us examine the citations from the Nationality Act. For you readers with inquiring minds, I deliberately omitted the first subsection, because it only addressed the former Danish Citizens who were living in these islands. Their status never was and is not at issue here. So I began with #2 to show you that the Congress recognized that there were large numbers of people living here, who were not Danes but had no nationality, and could not claim any other place as their native land. The specific reference to this fact is underlined in the citations below.
(2) All natives of the Virgin Islands of the United States who, on January 17, 1917, resided in those islands, and were residing in those islands or in the United States or Puerto Rico on February 25, 1927, and who were not on February 25, 1927, citizens or subjects of any foreign country;
(3) All natives of the Virgin Islands of the United States who, on January 17, 1917, resided in the United States, and were residing in those islands on February 25, 1927, and who were not on February 25, 1927, citizens or subjects of any foreign country; and
(4) All natives of the Virgin Islands of the United States who, on June 28, 1932, were residing in continental United States, the Virgin Islands of the United States, Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, or any other insular possession or territory of the United States, and who, on June 28, 1932, were not citizens or subjects of any foreign country, regardless of their place of residence on January 17, 1917.
(b) All persons born in the Virgin Islands of the United States on or after January 17, 1917, and prior to February 25, 1927, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are declared to be citizens of the United States as of February 25, 1927; and all persons born in those islands on or after February 25, 1927, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are declared to be citizens
of the United States at birth.
-SOURCE-(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, Sec. 306, 66 Stat. 237.)
The preceding should clear up the principal source and the legal validity for the term and definition of a “Native Virgin Islander”. The salient qualifications for nativity or indigenousness delineated in the act are worth repeating. They are those natives who “…were not citizens or subjects of any foreign country, regardless of their place of residence on January 17, 1917.” Therefore, a child of a Dane, an Irish person, or an English person was not considered “Native” in the view of the congressional acts that conferred citizenship en masse to Virgin Islanders, because he/she could claim the citizenship status of at least one of his/her parents. Authentic natives, (whom we renamed as “Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders” in the fifth constitutional draft), are those who could not claim citizenship in any country whatsoever. Therefore they must be considered as indigenous to the Virgin Islands upon the arrival and takeover of this territory by the United States Government, just as the Pre-Columbian Inhabitants who Christopher Columbus met here 424 years earlier are considered indigenous since he met them here.
The point being made above is a subtle but not a small one because several persons want to equate being an indigene with being an aboriginal inhabitant. The persons to whom we have given the designation “Ancestral Native Virgin Islander, or Native Virgin Islander, are not the “aboriginal Native Virgin Islanders or the “first Virgin Islanders” as the Ciboneys and their descendants are considered to be. However, that does not make them any less indigenous. One does not have to be among the first inhabitants to be indigenous. One only has to be from a place without being able to claim citizenship or nationality in any other place to be considered such. However one must be among the first inhabitants to be aboriginal. The critical point is that the terms are not synonymous as some persons seem to be contending.
Additionally, the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes also show why natives do not have the same citizenship status as persons born or naturalized in a state or on a U.S. military base. Persons who disagree should take up this issue with Congress. However, if one still has doubts, about what Congress decided in 1927 and 1940, the U.S. had already recognized this specific group of “Native Virgin Islanders”, in the Treaty of Cession with Denmark in 1917. After granting Danish citizens the right to choose whether they wanted to remain Danes or become U.S. citizens, in the first part of Article 6, the second to the last paragraph of that article indicated that Congress shall determine the civil rights and political status of the “inhabitants of the islands.”
Now if all persons residing in the islands were Danes, or foreigners, (such as the British, Irish and Scottish planters and business persons, etc.), there would not have been any need for a paragraph that singled out a group of persons that did not fall into either of these two categories because they could not claim to be citizens of Denmark or of any other country.
I concede that the use of the term “inhabitants” in the Treaty of Cession between Denmark and the U.S.A. is ambiguous and could also include Danes and other foreign citizens who chose to remain in the Virgin Islands and renounce their citizenship. However the point is that these persons were granted the right to voluntarily keep or relinquish their citizenship status. No such discretion was provided to the “non-citizen Natives.” Therefore, it is my position that the term “inhabitants” automatically referred to those persons who had no other nationality or belonged to no other place but to the Virgin Islands. Hence, it is only logical to conclude that these should be referred to as the “Native Virgin Islanders” at the beginning of U.S. rule in the V.I.
As mentioned previously, persons have pointed out that nobody living here today or any of their direct ancestors is a true “Native Virgin Islander”. Such a designation should be reserved for the Indigenous Americans who migrated here before Columbus. Nevertheless, it is not wrong to use the term “Native Virgin Islander” to refer to the descendants of people, who were brought here either from Africa, or who migrated here from other Caribbean islands, and were living here when the U.S. took control from Denmark. First, those who came from Africa were not recognized as “citizens by either Europeans or Americans. They were not even considered to be fully human. That is why their enslavement and inhumane treatment could be justified. Remember further that Caucasians did not consider places in Africa as “countries”, much less as “civilized countries” from a European/American point of view.
Second, those persons who came here from our neighboring islands were most likely subjects of their European colonizer, and therefore non-citizens in those colonies. These people were not “citizens” of any country during Danish rule, and for the first time were made “citizens” of any place in 1927. Therefore, the definition of Ancestral Native Virgin Islander placed in the Fifth Constitutional Draft document includes these persons and their descendants as well as those persons who were actually born here and met the other criteria alluded to before. Wouldn’t be ironic if persons who are arguing against the native definitions conduct some research and find out that they also qualify due to the expanded and inclusive nature of the definition being proposed by constitutional convention delegates?
Yes, this group of people is not the “aboriginal” group of inhabitants of these islands. Historians and archaeologists have clearly shown that the pre-ceramic people (also known as the Ciboneys), settled here as far back as 2,000 B.C., and are the “first” “Native Virgin Islanders”. However, Scholars have likewise uncovered evidence that points to the existence of African settlements on St. John and maybe on St. Thomas before the arrival of Europeans. African skeletons found at Hull Bay on St. Thomas, and rock drawings of African symbols at Reef Bay on St. John, are two possible examples of Pre-Columbian African presence here. So who came here first? Who are the true aboriginal Virgin Islanders? In justifying the designation of the “non-citizen” persons whom the U.S.A. met here in 1917 as Native Virgin Islanders, it does not matter whether Africans or Persons from South America came here first. What does matter is that the majority of persons referred to as “inhabitants” in the 1917 Treaty of Cession between the U.S.A. and Denmark, as well as those referred to as natives who were not citizens or subjects of any foreign country, in the 1927, and 1940 nationality Acts, are “Native Virgin Islanders” by virtue of the fact that they were from these islands and had no “legal” claim of nativity, cizenship or allegiance to any other place.
Appendix A
Footnotes
1. “Upon the other hand, the 14th Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, declares only that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside.' Here there is a limitation to persons born or naturalized in the United States, which is not extended to persons born in any place 'subject to their jurisdiction.' “ (Downes v. Bidwell, 1901)
26 January 2010
Anniversary of Invasion of the Malvinas
Annex to the letter dated 3 January 2010 from the Permanent Representative of Argentina to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
Press Release
3 January 2010
On 3 January 1833, British forces occupied the Malvinas Islands, forcibly expelling their inhabitants and the Argentine authorities legitimately established there. The Argentine Republic immediately protested, and has never consented to that act of force.
Today, 177 years later, the illegal occupation continues. The Argentine Government reaffirms once again the Argentine Republic’s inalienable rights of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia Islands and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas, which are an integral part of Argentine national territory.
The permanent and unrenounceable objective of recovering the full exercise of sovereignty over these territories and maritime areas in accordance with the principles of international law while respecting the way of life of the inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands is enshrined in the first transitional provision of the national Constitution. This objective is a State policy and reflects the collective desire of the entire Argentine people.
Argentina and the United Kingdom have reached provisional bilateral understandings on practical matters relating to the South Atlantic, under the safeguarding of sovereignty formula, in successive joint declarations and exchanges of notes with a view to cooperating to create conditions conducive to the resumption of negotiations on sovereignty.
However, the United Kingdom continues to be reluctant to address the question of sovereignty and has repeatedly carried out unilateral acts in relation to the disputed area. These unilateral British acts violate the spirit and letter of the aforementioned understandings and are contrary to the calls by the United Nations on the two parties to refrain from taking decisions that introduce unilateral modifications in the situation while the islands are going through the process recommended in the relevant resolutions.
As a result of those unilateral British acts, the Argentine Government suspended the meetings of the South Atlantic Fisheries Commission from December 2005 and denounced the Joint Declaration on Hydrocarbons in March 2007.
The Argentine Republic considers incomprehensible the United Kingdom’s refusal to address the fundamental question in order to find a peaceful and lasting solution to the sovereignty dispute, in accordance with the mandate of the international community, and reiterates once again its continued and sincere willingness to resume the process of bilateral negotiations with the United Kingdom in order to find a definitive solution to the sovereignty dispute and settle this anachronistic colonial situation that is incompatible with developments in the modern world.
The Argentine Government believes that Argentina and the United Kingdom should jointly analyse all the bilateral understandings in the light of their ultimate goal, which is to contribute to a climate conducive to the resumption of negotiations on sovereignty. Regrettably, while the United Kingdom maintains its reluctance to
return to the negotiating table, Argentina will be compelled to carry out that analysis without the participation of its counterpart.
(Meanwhile...)
Tahiti Airline to transport U.K. troops to Falklands (Malvinas)
United Press International,
6 January 2010
STANLEY, Falkland Islands (UPI) -- British troops deployed in the Falklands Islands for patrol duties will be transported via Air Tahiti Nui, the flag carrier of French Polynesia, following a deal agreed between the airline and the U.K. Ministry of Defense. The contract centers on Air Tahiti Nui being able to release one of its fleet of five Airbus aircraft for the air bridge and is worth about $10 million, officials said.
The need for a new transport arrangement for the British military personnel arose after low-cost Scottish airline Fly Globespan collapsed last year. Officials said Britain might make the arrangement permanent once it is satisfied Air Tahiti Nui can deliver on its military's needs in the South Atlantic. The first Air Tahiti Nui flight is due to transport British personnel to the Falklands Wednesday.
The French Polynesian government has a majority stake in the national carrier, which currently serves mostly tourism flights between Tahiti and key points of origin for Tahiti-bound tourism travel, including the United States, Japan and Europe. The airline fleet of Airbus planes consists of newer models, including the Airbus A340-300 aircraft, which seats 294 passengers.
British military activity in the South Atlantic has increased, partly because of recent defense maneuvers and patrol duties and partly in response to recent pronouncements from Argentina about Argentine claims on the Falkland Islands. Britain and Argentina fought a war over the islands in 1982 after an Argentine military invasion that year. Britain retained control of the islands after a 74-day conflict, but Argentina did not renounce its claim of sovereignty over the islands. Argentina reiterated its claim in an official statement Sunday. The Foreign Affairs Ministry said Buenos Aires considered "incomprehensible" Britain's refusal to reopen negotiations on the sovereignty issue.
Tensions have been exacerbated amid stepped-up British activity to exploit the Falkland Islands' offshore oil and gas reserves, rated by scientists to be comparable to Britain's own North Sea oil deposits. The Argentine ministry said it would continue to seek "a definitive solution to the dispute" that could end an "anachronic colonial situation incompatible with the evolution of the modern world." Britain argues the Falklanders' have exercised self-determination and chosen to remain a British Overseas Territory.
A British Task Force sent to the islands by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher beat off the invading Argentine forces but at great human cost. The conflict led to the deaths of 255 British and 649 Argentine soldiers, sailors and airmen, and three civilian Falklanders. The Falklands war does not figure in British consciousness with the same intensity as it does in Argentina, where memories of the defeat remain raw and emotion-charged. Argentina's retreat in the conflict was a catalyst for the country ridding itself of military dictatorship.
Britain has invested heavily in Falklands defense and also used its military presence there for preparatory training of troops who are later deployed in Afghanistan.
The destroyer HMS York arrived in the Falkland Islands last week to take up defense and patrol duties from U.K.-bound HMS Gloucester. The last of the Type 42 destroyers to be built for the British Royal Navy, HMS York will be on patrol duty for the next six months. The warship is due to visit Stanley on Jan. 10.
Editor's Note: The Falkland Islands (Malvinas) is one of sixteen remaining non self-governing territories listed by the General Assembly of the United Nations. The peculiarity of the national air carrier of one (unlisted) non self-governing territory transporting troops to maintain the occupation of another territory has not gone unnoticed...)
Press Release
3 January 2010
On 3 January 1833, British forces occupied the Malvinas Islands, forcibly expelling their inhabitants and the Argentine authorities legitimately established there. The Argentine Republic immediately protested, and has never consented to that act of force.
Today, 177 years later, the illegal occupation continues. The Argentine Government reaffirms once again the Argentine Republic’s inalienable rights of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia Islands and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas, which are an integral part of Argentine national territory.
The permanent and unrenounceable objective of recovering the full exercise of sovereignty over these territories and maritime areas in accordance with the principles of international law while respecting the way of life of the inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands is enshrined in the first transitional provision of the national Constitution. This objective is a State policy and reflects the collective desire of the entire Argentine people.
Argentina and the United Kingdom have reached provisional bilateral understandings on practical matters relating to the South Atlantic, under the safeguarding of sovereignty formula, in successive joint declarations and exchanges of notes with a view to cooperating to create conditions conducive to the resumption of negotiations on sovereignty.
However, the United Kingdom continues to be reluctant to address the question of sovereignty and has repeatedly carried out unilateral acts in relation to the disputed area. These unilateral British acts violate the spirit and letter of the aforementioned understandings and are contrary to the calls by the United Nations on the two parties to refrain from taking decisions that introduce unilateral modifications in the situation while the islands are going through the process recommended in the relevant resolutions.
As a result of those unilateral British acts, the Argentine Government suspended the meetings of the South Atlantic Fisheries Commission from December 2005 and denounced the Joint Declaration on Hydrocarbons in March 2007.
The Argentine Republic considers incomprehensible the United Kingdom’s refusal to address the fundamental question in order to find a peaceful and lasting solution to the sovereignty dispute, in accordance with the mandate of the international community, and reiterates once again its continued and sincere willingness to resume the process of bilateral negotiations with the United Kingdom in order to find a definitive solution to the sovereignty dispute and settle this anachronistic colonial situation that is incompatible with developments in the modern world.
The Argentine Government believes that Argentina and the United Kingdom should jointly analyse all the bilateral understandings in the light of their ultimate goal, which is to contribute to a climate conducive to the resumption of negotiations on sovereignty. Regrettably, while the United Kingdom maintains its reluctance to
return to the negotiating table, Argentina will be compelled to carry out that analysis without the participation of its counterpart.
(Meanwhile...)
Tahiti Airline to transport U.K. troops to Falklands (Malvinas)
United Press International,
6 January 2010
STANLEY, Falkland Islands (UPI) -- British troops deployed in the Falklands Islands for patrol duties will be transported via Air Tahiti Nui, the flag carrier of French Polynesia, following a deal agreed between the airline and the U.K. Ministry of Defense. The contract centers on Air Tahiti Nui being able to release one of its fleet of five Airbus aircraft for the air bridge and is worth about $10 million, officials said.
The need for a new transport arrangement for the British military personnel arose after low-cost Scottish airline Fly Globespan collapsed last year. Officials said Britain might make the arrangement permanent once it is satisfied Air Tahiti Nui can deliver on its military's needs in the South Atlantic. The first Air Tahiti Nui flight is due to transport British personnel to the Falklands Wednesday.
The French Polynesian government has a majority stake in the national carrier, which currently serves mostly tourism flights between Tahiti and key points of origin for Tahiti-bound tourism travel, including the United States, Japan and Europe. The airline fleet of Airbus planes consists of newer models, including the Airbus A340-300 aircraft, which seats 294 passengers.
British military activity in the South Atlantic has increased, partly because of recent defense maneuvers and patrol duties and partly in response to recent pronouncements from Argentina about Argentine claims on the Falkland Islands. Britain and Argentina fought a war over the islands in 1982 after an Argentine military invasion that year. Britain retained control of the islands after a 74-day conflict, but Argentina did not renounce its claim of sovereignty over the islands. Argentina reiterated its claim in an official statement Sunday. The Foreign Affairs Ministry said Buenos Aires considered "incomprehensible" Britain's refusal to reopen negotiations on the sovereignty issue.
Tensions have been exacerbated amid stepped-up British activity to exploit the Falkland Islands' offshore oil and gas reserves, rated by scientists to be comparable to Britain's own North Sea oil deposits. The Argentine ministry said it would continue to seek "a definitive solution to the dispute" that could end an "anachronic colonial situation incompatible with the evolution of the modern world." Britain argues the Falklanders' have exercised self-determination and chosen to remain a British Overseas Territory.
A British Task Force sent to the islands by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher beat off the invading Argentine forces but at great human cost. The conflict led to the deaths of 255 British and 649 Argentine soldiers, sailors and airmen, and three civilian Falklanders. The Falklands war does not figure in British consciousness with the same intensity as it does in Argentina, where memories of the defeat remain raw and emotion-charged. Argentina's retreat in the conflict was a catalyst for the country ridding itself of military dictatorship.
Britain has invested heavily in Falklands defense and also used its military presence there for preparatory training of troops who are later deployed in Afghanistan.
The destroyer HMS York arrived in the Falkland Islands last week to take up defense and patrol duties from U.K.-bound HMS Gloucester. The last of the Type 42 destroyers to be built for the British Royal Navy, HMS York will be on patrol duty for the next six months. The warship is due to visit Stanley on Jan. 10.
Editor's Note: The Falkland Islands (Malvinas) is one of sixteen remaining non self-governing territories listed by the General Assembly of the United Nations. The peculiarity of the national air carrier of one (unlisted) non self-governing territory transporting troops to maintain the occupation of another territory has not gone unnoticed...)
22 January 2010
Sarkozy Promises French Polynesia Electoral Reform
Oceania Flash
SAINT DENIS, Reunion Island
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has on Tuesday signaled yet another electoral and institutional reform for French Polynesia, in a bid to end an ongoing spate of political instability in this French Pacific territory.
Speaking from the island of La Réunion, a French overseas department in the Indian Ocean, on the occasion of his New Year Wishes to all French overseas communalities, he touched on French Polynesia with a pledge that an electoral reform would be carried out some time this year. The aim, he said, was to "guarantee more stability to elected majorities."
Sarkozy however acknowledged that similar reforms had been implemented in French Polynesia in recent years, including one in 2007. "In spite of several reforms, French Polynesia has not yet been able to find the political stability it aspires to," he said. But he justifies the intention to try again by saying he was "convinced that (French) Polynesians are for sure flabbergasted at these systematic shifts in alliances."
The latest change of government came about only a few weeks ago, when yet another motion of no confidence was passed against then President Oscar Temaru. He has been replaced by Gaston Tong Sang, who himself had been thrown out in a similar manner a few months earlier.
Since 2004, which marked the end of an era of almost twenty years of undisputed rule by former President Gaston Flosse, French Polynesia has seen close to ten changes in governments.
The changes, most of the time, occurred as a result of sudden changes in alliances between small parties and the larger ones, with nearly every possible combination over a span of six years. The chronic instability has also taken its toll on the local economy, with a significant drop in investors’ confidence and tourism arrivals. The effects were compounded last year by the global financial crisis.
"(French) Polynesia deserves serious elected leaders and not a vast comedy where enemies of yesterday become the allies of today," he lashed out. "At a time when everyone should mobilize their energy to face the current crisis, this chronic instability is intolerable for those (French) Polynesians who are suffering. I will therefore initiate this year a reform of the electoral system and of the institutional mechanisms in order to guarantee more stability to elected majorities and therefore to give more capacity to envisage political and public actions in the long term," he said.
The latest announcement coincides with a recent visit, last week, from Tong Sang in Paris, where he held talks with several French government ministers and officials.On the issue of possible reforms for French Polynesia’s institutional and electoral setup, he went as far as saying the election of the President (the position he currently holds) could shift from the current parliamentary suffrage (from the 57 members of the local legislative assembly) to a universal direct suffrage.
During the same speech, Sarkozy also called on all French overseas communities to take charge of their own economical destiny by generating their own economic self-reliance, instead of relying on a hand-out policy by way of subsidies from the French government.
SAINT DENIS, Reunion Island
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has on Tuesday signaled yet another electoral and institutional reform for French Polynesia, in a bid to end an ongoing spate of political instability in this French Pacific territory.
Speaking from the island of La Réunion, a French overseas department in the Indian Ocean, on the occasion of his New Year Wishes to all French overseas communalities, he touched on French Polynesia with a pledge that an electoral reform would be carried out some time this year. The aim, he said, was to "guarantee more stability to elected majorities."
Sarkozy however acknowledged that similar reforms had been implemented in French Polynesia in recent years, including one in 2007. "In spite of several reforms, French Polynesia has not yet been able to find the political stability it aspires to," he said. But he justifies the intention to try again by saying he was "convinced that (French) Polynesians are for sure flabbergasted at these systematic shifts in alliances."
The latest change of government came about only a few weeks ago, when yet another motion of no confidence was passed against then President Oscar Temaru. He has been replaced by Gaston Tong Sang, who himself had been thrown out in a similar manner a few months earlier.
Since 2004, which marked the end of an era of almost twenty years of undisputed rule by former President Gaston Flosse, French Polynesia has seen close to ten changes in governments.
The changes, most of the time, occurred as a result of sudden changes in alliances between small parties and the larger ones, with nearly every possible combination over a span of six years. The chronic instability has also taken its toll on the local economy, with a significant drop in investors’ confidence and tourism arrivals. The effects were compounded last year by the global financial crisis.
"(French) Polynesia deserves serious elected leaders and not a vast comedy where enemies of yesterday become the allies of today," he lashed out. "At a time when everyone should mobilize their energy to face the current crisis, this chronic instability is intolerable for those (French) Polynesians who are suffering. I will therefore initiate this year a reform of the electoral system and of the institutional mechanisms in order to guarantee more stability to elected majorities and therefore to give more capacity to envisage political and public actions in the long term," he said.
The latest announcement coincides with a recent visit, last week, from Tong Sang in Paris, where he held talks with several French government ministers and officials.On the issue of possible reforms for French Polynesia’s institutional and electoral setup, he went as far as saying the election of the President (the position he currently holds) could shift from the current parliamentary suffrage (from the 57 members of the local legislative assembly) to a universal direct suffrage.
During the same speech, Sarkozy also called on all French overseas communities to take charge of their own economical destiny by generating their own economic self-reliance, instead of relying on a hand-out policy by way of subsidies from the French government.
20 January 2010
British Virgin Islands’ Political Culture
by Benito Wheatley
Over the last two election cycles, rule of the Government of the Virgin Islands has alternated between the Virgin Islands Party (VIP) and the National Democratic Party (NDP). The shifting of power between the two reflects the public’s general dissatisfaction with the overall governance of the territory under both VIP and NDP governments. The NDP’s election defeat in 2007 and the VIP’s election defeat in 2003 attest to this fact. The consecutive defeats of both ruling parties suggests that the source of public dissatisfaction is not explicitly with the parties themselves, but rather their governing style, and more broadly, the style of governance practiced in the British Virgin Islands (BVI). In simpler terms, the public’s underlying concern is the BVI’s political culture and its negative impact upon the society as a whole.
The overall performance of both the NDP and VIP governments did not live up to the expectations of the electorate in terms of the territory’s progress and development. While both governments can lay claim to many achievements, several aspects of the society are today worse off than at any other time in history and continue to deteriorate. Elements of the BVI’s political culture have helped to undermine government’s effectiveness in managing the territory’s affairs. More specifically, certain political practices engaged in by both the NDP and VIP governments were not in keeping with the good governance of the territory.
Following election victories in 2003 and 2007, both parties engaged in political patronage by removing previously appointed officials from their posts and replacing them with their own political operatives or party supporters. This practice was not necessarily merit-based or focused on appointing the most qualified person for the job. Political patronage also figured prominently in the economic sector with the awarding of government contracts to each of the parties’ preferred companies or highly favored businessmen. Coupled with the issue of political patronage was the problem of political victimization, which was also witnessed under NDP and VIP governments. In some instances, certain elected officials and government appointees threatened and punished civil servants and other residents who expressed disagreement with the government or spoke out on certain issues. Political victimization muzzled a certain segment of the population and in effect restricted elements of free speech in the BVI.
Perhaps the political practice most destructive to the governing of the territory was the NDP and VIP’s “headstrong” approach to governance that is a staple of BVI politics. The NDP and VIP pursued various agendas contrary to public opinion and the advice of technical experts. Certain policies were formulated and projects implemented under the pretext that a minister or the party knew what was best for the territory and that there was no need for consultation with the public on certain matters. This headstrong approach was a critical factor in the NDP’s defeat in 2007, where popular support for the party was lost after the NDP government made the decision to proceed with a controversial five-star hotel project on Beef Island that was vehemently opposed by environmental and community groups. In recent months the VIP government took a similar course of action by installing traffic lights at the roundabout against the wishes of the public and contrary to the technical advice of consultants. The “rescue the people from themselves” mentality damaged the credibility of both parties.
Another feature of BVI politics that helped to undermine the good governance of the territory was the lack of sufficient transparency in the NDP and VIP’s handling of government affairs. Under both governments, various contracts were negotiated under a veil of secrecy. The governments failed to adequately consult stakeholders or to disclose the governments’ intentions to the public. Their argument for less transparency and consultation followed that if the government were to consult the public on every issue nothing would get done. Politicians must accept that democracy is a consultative process which requires transparency and input from the people affected by decisions made by their government, even if it slows the pace at which government works.
Finally, underlying the political behavior of the NDP and VIP governments was the electoral need to satisfy local constituencies. Both governments launched projects directed at certain districts that were not necessarily implemented for the overall benefit of the territory. Rather, in too many instances, district projects focused solely on what was good for a particular constituency as opposed to the population at large. An example of this is the gym in BellVue. Prior to its construction, the BVI was in desperate need of an indoor recreational facility. However, BellVue was not an ideal location and travel to the area was inconvenient for most residents of other communities. Nonetheless, district politics prevailed and the gym was built under a VIP government. A few years later it became clear that the facility’s location did not serve the greater needs of the general public and a new recreational facility was constructed in Road Town (which presently serves a greater proportion of the territory’s population). Presumably, local constituencies will continue to drive BVI politics as long as electoral districts hold the key to re-election.
If the negative political practices engaged in by both NDP and VIP governments during their terms are not curbed, the progress and development of the territory will continue to be stymied. Certain measures are required to diminish the BVI’s poor political practices.
First, it must be recognized that the structure of the BVI’s political system (Westminster model) enabled the previous two governments to engage in political abuses by empowering the ruling parties to dominate the legislature with few checks on their power over decision making. Structural changes are needed to check the power of the government in the legislature, as well as the power of elected officials to victimize civil servants. Within the House of Assembly, on critical pieces of legislation, a two-thirds majority should be required for passage of a bill. For example, this approach can be applied to financial matters such as government borrowing that exceeds a certain monetary threshold (e.g., $30 million) within a fiscal year. Such a measure could help to encourage greater debate in the House of Assembly and compel the government to exercise fiscal restraint and prudence in the overall management of the territory’s affairs.
With respect to political victimization, the recent establishment of the Office of the Complaints Commissioner (i.e., Ombudsman) was a good start to addressing this problem. However, major questions remain about the powers, authority, and independence of the Ombudsman relative to other branches of government. Does the Ombudsman have the power to challenge an elected official or to protect a civil servant in cases involving abuse of power by their superiors? The interplay of the Ombudsman and other branches of government will reveal the future effectiveness of the office in curbing political victimization at the highest levels.
As it concerns government transparency, stronger disclosure requirements are needed in the procurement process. Prior to the approval of contracts entered into by government, a review period (e.g., two weeks) should be allowed during which the public can review the details of a contract if it exceeds a certain monetary threshold (e.g., $100,000). This would allow interested parties to assess the contract and engage their elected official if there are any concerns. Transparency of this kind would make the government more open and responsive to its citizens and help to diminish political patronage in the awarding of contracts.
Lastly, minimizing political patronage in the making of political appointments can be achieved by holding public confirmation hearings where candidates are interviewed before an independent body. This process would give members of the public an opportunity to observe candidates and asses their level of competency for the position. This measure would open up the process to public scrutiny and allow citizens to determine whether the government has selected the most qualified candidate for the job.
In conclusion, while VIP and NDP governments genuinely attempted to improve the condition of the territory, the poor political practices in which they engaged hampered their efforts to succeed in rapidly modernizing the BVI and solving some of its most pressing social, environmental, economic, and infrastructural problems. Until these political practices are addressed, the public will remain dissatisfied with the performance of government, and the political pendulum will continue to swing back and forth between the NDP, VIP, or any other political party that fails to abandon the poor political practices that are currently a feature of BVI politics.
Benito Wheatley is a Researcher for the publication International Affairs Forum in Arlington, Virginia and is also an Analyst in the International Affairs and Services Department at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in Washington, DC. Please direct comments or questions to mailto:bwheatley@ai-forum.org
Over the last two election cycles, rule of the Government of the Virgin Islands has alternated between the Virgin Islands Party (VIP) and the National Democratic Party (NDP). The shifting of power between the two reflects the public’s general dissatisfaction with the overall governance of the territory under both VIP and NDP governments. The NDP’s election defeat in 2007 and the VIP’s election defeat in 2003 attest to this fact. The consecutive defeats of both ruling parties suggests that the source of public dissatisfaction is not explicitly with the parties themselves, but rather their governing style, and more broadly, the style of governance practiced in the British Virgin Islands (BVI). In simpler terms, the public’s underlying concern is the BVI’s political culture and its negative impact upon the society as a whole.
The overall performance of both the NDP and VIP governments did not live up to the expectations of the electorate in terms of the territory’s progress and development. While both governments can lay claim to many achievements, several aspects of the society are today worse off than at any other time in history and continue to deteriorate. Elements of the BVI’s political culture have helped to undermine government’s effectiveness in managing the territory’s affairs. More specifically, certain political practices engaged in by both the NDP and VIP governments were not in keeping with the good governance of the territory.
Following election victories in 2003 and 2007, both parties engaged in political patronage by removing previously appointed officials from their posts and replacing them with their own political operatives or party supporters. This practice was not necessarily merit-based or focused on appointing the most qualified person for the job. Political patronage also figured prominently in the economic sector with the awarding of government contracts to each of the parties’ preferred companies or highly favored businessmen. Coupled with the issue of political patronage was the problem of political victimization, which was also witnessed under NDP and VIP governments. In some instances, certain elected officials and government appointees threatened and punished civil servants and other residents who expressed disagreement with the government or spoke out on certain issues. Political victimization muzzled a certain segment of the population and in effect restricted elements of free speech in the BVI.
Perhaps the political practice most destructive to the governing of the territory was the NDP and VIP’s “headstrong” approach to governance that is a staple of BVI politics. The NDP and VIP pursued various agendas contrary to public opinion and the advice of technical experts. Certain policies were formulated and projects implemented under the pretext that a minister or the party knew what was best for the territory and that there was no need for consultation with the public on certain matters. This headstrong approach was a critical factor in the NDP’s defeat in 2007, where popular support for the party was lost after the NDP government made the decision to proceed with a controversial five-star hotel project on Beef Island that was vehemently opposed by environmental and community groups. In recent months the VIP government took a similar course of action by installing traffic lights at the roundabout against the wishes of the public and contrary to the technical advice of consultants. The “rescue the people from themselves” mentality damaged the credibility of both parties.
Another feature of BVI politics that helped to undermine the good governance of the territory was the lack of sufficient transparency in the NDP and VIP’s handling of government affairs. Under both governments, various contracts were negotiated under a veil of secrecy. The governments failed to adequately consult stakeholders or to disclose the governments’ intentions to the public. Their argument for less transparency and consultation followed that if the government were to consult the public on every issue nothing would get done. Politicians must accept that democracy is a consultative process which requires transparency and input from the people affected by decisions made by their government, even if it slows the pace at which government works.
Finally, underlying the political behavior of the NDP and VIP governments was the electoral need to satisfy local constituencies. Both governments launched projects directed at certain districts that were not necessarily implemented for the overall benefit of the territory. Rather, in too many instances, district projects focused solely on what was good for a particular constituency as opposed to the population at large. An example of this is the gym in BellVue. Prior to its construction, the BVI was in desperate need of an indoor recreational facility. However, BellVue was not an ideal location and travel to the area was inconvenient for most residents of other communities. Nonetheless, district politics prevailed and the gym was built under a VIP government. A few years later it became clear that the facility’s location did not serve the greater needs of the general public and a new recreational facility was constructed in Road Town (which presently serves a greater proportion of the territory’s population). Presumably, local constituencies will continue to drive BVI politics as long as electoral districts hold the key to re-election.
If the negative political practices engaged in by both NDP and VIP governments during their terms are not curbed, the progress and development of the territory will continue to be stymied. Certain measures are required to diminish the BVI’s poor political practices.
First, it must be recognized that the structure of the BVI’s political system (Westminster model) enabled the previous two governments to engage in political abuses by empowering the ruling parties to dominate the legislature with few checks on their power over decision making. Structural changes are needed to check the power of the government in the legislature, as well as the power of elected officials to victimize civil servants. Within the House of Assembly, on critical pieces of legislation, a two-thirds majority should be required for passage of a bill. For example, this approach can be applied to financial matters such as government borrowing that exceeds a certain monetary threshold (e.g., $30 million) within a fiscal year. Such a measure could help to encourage greater debate in the House of Assembly and compel the government to exercise fiscal restraint and prudence in the overall management of the territory’s affairs.
With respect to political victimization, the recent establishment of the Office of the Complaints Commissioner (i.e., Ombudsman) was a good start to addressing this problem. However, major questions remain about the powers, authority, and independence of the Ombudsman relative to other branches of government. Does the Ombudsman have the power to challenge an elected official or to protect a civil servant in cases involving abuse of power by their superiors? The interplay of the Ombudsman and other branches of government will reveal the future effectiveness of the office in curbing political victimization at the highest levels.
As it concerns government transparency, stronger disclosure requirements are needed in the procurement process. Prior to the approval of contracts entered into by government, a review period (e.g., two weeks) should be allowed during which the public can review the details of a contract if it exceeds a certain monetary threshold (e.g., $100,000). This would allow interested parties to assess the contract and engage their elected official if there are any concerns. Transparency of this kind would make the government more open and responsive to its citizens and help to diminish political patronage in the awarding of contracts.
Lastly, minimizing political patronage in the making of political appointments can be achieved by holding public confirmation hearings where candidates are interviewed before an independent body. This process would give members of the public an opportunity to observe candidates and asses their level of competency for the position. This measure would open up the process to public scrutiny and allow citizens to determine whether the government has selected the most qualified candidate for the job.
In conclusion, while VIP and NDP governments genuinely attempted to improve the condition of the territory, the poor political practices in which they engaged hampered their efforts to succeed in rapidly modernizing the BVI and solving some of its most pressing social, environmental, economic, and infrastructural problems. Until these political practices are addressed, the public will remain dissatisfied with the performance of government, and the political pendulum will continue to swing back and forth between the NDP, VIP, or any other political party that fails to abandon the poor political practices that are currently a feature of BVI politics.
Benito Wheatley is a Researcher for the publication International Affairs Forum in Arlington, Virginia and is also an Analyst in the International Affairs and Services Department at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in Washington, DC. Please direct comments or questions to mailto:bwheatley@ai-forum.org
17 January 2010
Who Constitutes “The People” of a Non Self-Governing Territory?
The subject of just who constitutes “the people” in the remaining non self-governing territories and in other non-independent countries continues to be central to confirming the right to self-determination, especially in view of increasing demographic diversity in many of these societies. The issue has been addressed to varying degrees in a number of the territories concerned, including the US-administered territories in the Pacific. Guam, for example, has already legislated a future self-determination referendum for the indigenous native Chamoru people, whilst the Northern Mariana Islands Commonwealth Covenant contains provisions protecting land ownership for the indigenous native inhabitants. The traditional rights system in American Samoa affirming similar powers is further indication.
In the Caribbean, the draft constitution adopted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the US Virgin Islands last year contains provisions which would recognise the native population which is comprised of mainly African descendents, and which was formally recognised by the US in the Treaty of Cession when the islands were sold in 1917 from one colonial power (Denmark) to the next (US). The constitutions of most of the British-administered territories in the Caribbean are perhaps the clearest in identifying “the people.” An historical examination of political and cultural identity in Caribbean non self-governing territories was published in a scholarly article in the 2009 edition of Caribbean Perspectives, a Journal of the Eastern Caribbean Centre of the University of the Virgin Islands, and should be featured in OTR shortly.
This question of who constitutes the people in non self-governing territories also has been fundamental in the self-determination process underway in French-administered Nouvelle-Calédonie (New Caledonia), a Melanisian non-independent country in the Pacific region. Analyst Sarimin J. Boengkih of Nouvelle-Calédonie (New Caledonia) provides an historical analysis of these often complex issues in that territory. The article, which follows, was originally written in follow-up to the conclusion of an Address delivered at the 2009 official commemoration of the 161st Anniversary of Emancipation Day in the former Danish West Indies by Governance Expert Dr. Carlyle Corbin.
____________________________________________________________________________
Who Constitutes “The People?" - The Case of Nouvelle-Calédonie (New Caledonia)
By Sarimin J. Boengkih
I wish to share some thoughts on the matter of who constitutes “the people”. Of course and from a general point of view, it seems that one may refer to the United Nations document, “The Right to Self-Determination, Implementation of United Nations Resolutions” (U.N. Document E/CN.4/Sub.2/405/Rev.1,), a study by Hector Gros Espiell, Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities appointed in 1974, especially paragraphs 42-45 C (Meaning of the expression “right of peoples under colonial and alien domination to self-determination”, pages 5 and 6).
If during the decolonisation era of the 1960s and 1970s, in every one’s mind there was no question about who constitutes the people as the decolonisation process was taking place in Africa and in the Pacific where the colonies were populated with the indigenous peoples controlled by a minority of expatriates and settlers.
Each Territory of the United Nations list has a different recent history, therefore my comment will focus on the situation in New Caledonia, under French rules, in effect one of Europe’s last remaining colonies in the Pacific region. During the last four decades, the Territory’s population has increased with a big help from migrants that today claim to also constitute the “people” and should be granted the right to participate in the future referendum on self-determination, as any colonised people. In another way, the migrants claim to be granted a new status. They moved from their ancestors‘ land in France to a Territory of the UN list of Non Self-Governing Territories, therefore they became colonised people. This cannot be accepted.
Since France took over the main island in 1853, the Kanak people, the indigenous people of New Caledonia, never stopped the struggle against colonisation and the occupation of its country by a foreign force. The path to colonial settlement has been paved with uprisings, bloody battles, fraternal killings, forced relocation of people on “native reserves”, and segregation laws until 1946 when French citizenship was granted to all Kanaks.
But less than thirty years later, the call for Kanak independence was revived, and the French government reacted with new policies to open the territory to “a massive immigration of French citizens from metropolitan France and French Territories to counter the threat to the French presence in New Caledonia constituted by the nationalistic claim of the indigenous population which could eventually be supported by possible allies from ethnic communities of the Pacific” (French Prime minister Pierre Mesmer in a letter to his Minister for Overseas Departments and territories in July 1972). In 1974, the outcomes of such immigration policies are clear : from representing 51.9% of the total population in 1951, the Kanak dropped down to 40.8% of the total population (1974 census). European settlers and new migrants make 40%, while minorities made of former indentured workers originated from former European colonies (Ducth Indies, Indochina, India) or Japan and from other French Territories make up 20%.
In 1983, talks between the French government, the pro-Kanak independence parties and the settlers ended with the official recognition by the French government of the innate and active rights of the Kanak people to independence and the rights of “the victims of History” – those non-indigenous New Caledonians who were forced by one mean or another to settle in the Territory to take part in the self-determination election.
On December 2, 1986, New Caledonia was (re-)enlisted on the United Nations decolonisation list as a Non Self-Governing Territory within the meaning of the Charter (Resolution 41/41/A). In that Resolution the General Assembly does not precisely say who constitutes “the people.” But the administering power is reminded (of) Resolution 35/118 that calls on “States parties to take the necessary measures to discourage or prevent the systematic influx of outside immigrants and settlers into Territories under colonial domination, which disrupts the demographic compositions of those Territories and may constitute a major obstacle to the genuine exercise of the right to self-determination and independence by the people of those Territories.”
In 1998, France, the pro-independence parties and the settlers’ party signed the Noumea Accord initiating a decolonisation process that should lead to a referendum on self-determination sometime between 2014 and 2019. The Noumea Accord starts with a Preamble in which the indigenous Kanak people is recognised as a people distinct from the French people. Article 4 of the Preamble says “ Decolonisation is the way to rebuild a lasting social bond between the communities living in New Caledonia today, by enabling the Kanak people to establish new relations with France, reflecting the realities of our time.” But the immigration from metropolitan France and from French Overseas Territories and Departments never stopped.
In 2000, the settlers’ party started a political controversy pretending that the Noumea Accord defined the electorate body of voters to participate in the provincial elections, and therefore in the self-determination referendum, to include the migrants that settled in the Territory after 1998. On the contrary, the pro-independence parties and the French government said the accord limited the voters to those residing in New Caledonia ten years prior to 1998. In 2007, the French Parliament passed a law confirming the limitation of the electoral body.
The settlers’ party Rassemblement-UMP keeps claiming that 18,000 French citizens that settled in the Territory since should be granted the right to participate in the referendum on self-determination. Despite the French Parliament’s 2007 decision, the two elected members to the French National Assembly representing New Caledonia are still campaigning, pretending that the basic voting rights of French citizens are being violated.
When considering that these 18,000 French citizens are entrepreneurs or highly qualified employees of the private sector, one can easily understand how much they can already weigh as obstacles to a genuine exercise of the right to self-determination and independence by the people of the Territory. Therefore they cannot be considered as part of the people.
It is obvious that all people living in the Territory at the time of the self-determination referendum are not “concerned” by the future of the Territory in which they have neither family interests nor determined economic interests that tie them to the past and heighten their awareness in the future of the Territory.
In the Caribbean, the draft constitution adopted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the US Virgin Islands last year contains provisions which would recognise the native population which is comprised of mainly African descendents, and which was formally recognised by the US in the Treaty of Cession when the islands were sold in 1917 from one colonial power (Denmark) to the next (US). The constitutions of most of the British-administered territories in the Caribbean are perhaps the clearest in identifying “the people.” An historical examination of political and cultural identity in Caribbean non self-governing territories was published in a scholarly article in the 2009 edition of Caribbean Perspectives, a Journal of the Eastern Caribbean Centre of the University of the Virgin Islands, and should be featured in OTR shortly.
This question of who constitutes the people in non self-governing territories also has been fundamental in the self-determination process underway in French-administered Nouvelle-Calédonie (New Caledonia), a Melanisian non-independent country in the Pacific region. Analyst Sarimin J. Boengkih of Nouvelle-Calédonie (New Caledonia) provides an historical analysis of these often complex issues in that territory. The article, which follows, was originally written in follow-up to the conclusion of an Address delivered at the 2009 official commemoration of the 161st Anniversary of Emancipation Day in the former Danish West Indies by Governance Expert Dr. Carlyle Corbin.
____________________________________________________________________________
Who Constitutes “The People?" - The Case of Nouvelle-Calédonie (New Caledonia)
By Sarimin J. Boengkih
I wish to share some thoughts on the matter of who constitutes “the people”. Of course and from a general point of view, it seems that one may refer to the United Nations document, “The Right to Self-Determination, Implementation of United Nations Resolutions” (U.N. Document E/CN.4/Sub.2/405/Rev.1,), a study by Hector Gros Espiell, Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities appointed in 1974, especially paragraphs 42-45 C (Meaning of the expression “right of peoples under colonial and alien domination to self-determination”, pages 5 and 6).
If during the decolonisation era of the 1960s and 1970s, in every one’s mind there was no question about who constitutes the people as the decolonisation process was taking place in Africa and in the Pacific where the colonies were populated with the indigenous peoples controlled by a minority of expatriates and settlers.
Each Territory of the United Nations list has a different recent history, therefore my comment will focus on the situation in New Caledonia, under French rules, in effect one of Europe’s last remaining colonies in the Pacific region. During the last four decades, the Territory’s population has increased with a big help from migrants that today claim to also constitute the “people” and should be granted the right to participate in the future referendum on self-determination, as any colonised people. In another way, the migrants claim to be granted a new status. They moved from their ancestors‘ land in France to a Territory of the UN list of Non Self-Governing Territories, therefore they became colonised people. This cannot be accepted.
Since France took over the main island in 1853, the Kanak people, the indigenous people of New Caledonia, never stopped the struggle against colonisation and the occupation of its country by a foreign force. The path to colonial settlement has been paved with uprisings, bloody battles, fraternal killings, forced relocation of people on “native reserves”, and segregation laws until 1946 when French citizenship was granted to all Kanaks.
But less than thirty years later, the call for Kanak independence was revived, and the French government reacted with new policies to open the territory to “a massive immigration of French citizens from metropolitan France and French Territories to counter the threat to the French presence in New Caledonia constituted by the nationalistic claim of the indigenous population which could eventually be supported by possible allies from ethnic communities of the Pacific” (French Prime minister Pierre Mesmer in a letter to his Minister for Overseas Departments and territories in July 1972). In 1974, the outcomes of such immigration policies are clear : from representing 51.9% of the total population in 1951, the Kanak dropped down to 40.8% of the total population (1974 census). European settlers and new migrants make 40%, while minorities made of former indentured workers originated from former European colonies (Ducth Indies, Indochina, India) or Japan and from other French Territories make up 20%.
In 1983, talks between the French government, the pro-Kanak independence parties and the settlers ended with the official recognition by the French government of the innate and active rights of the Kanak people to independence and the rights of “the victims of History” – those non-indigenous New Caledonians who were forced by one mean or another to settle in the Territory to take part in the self-determination election.
On December 2, 1986, New Caledonia was (re-)enlisted on the United Nations decolonisation list as a Non Self-Governing Territory within the meaning of the Charter (Resolution 41/41/A). In that Resolution the General Assembly does not precisely say who constitutes “the people.” But the administering power is reminded (of) Resolution 35/118 that calls on “States parties to take the necessary measures to discourage or prevent the systematic influx of outside immigrants and settlers into Territories under colonial domination, which disrupts the demographic compositions of those Territories and may constitute a major obstacle to the genuine exercise of the right to self-determination and independence by the people of those Territories.”
In 1998, France, the pro-independence parties and the settlers’ party signed the Noumea Accord initiating a decolonisation process that should lead to a referendum on self-determination sometime between 2014 and 2019. The Noumea Accord starts with a Preamble in which the indigenous Kanak people is recognised as a people distinct from the French people. Article 4 of the Preamble says “ Decolonisation is the way to rebuild a lasting social bond between the communities living in New Caledonia today, by enabling the Kanak people to establish new relations with France, reflecting the realities of our time.” But the immigration from metropolitan France and from French Overseas Territories and Departments never stopped.
In 2000, the settlers’ party started a political controversy pretending that the Noumea Accord defined the electorate body of voters to participate in the provincial elections, and therefore in the self-determination referendum, to include the migrants that settled in the Territory after 1998. On the contrary, the pro-independence parties and the French government said the accord limited the voters to those residing in New Caledonia ten years prior to 1998. In 2007, the French Parliament passed a law confirming the limitation of the electoral body.
The settlers’ party Rassemblement-UMP keeps claiming that 18,000 French citizens that settled in the Territory since should be granted the right to participate in the referendum on self-determination. Despite the French Parliament’s 2007 decision, the two elected members to the French National Assembly representing New Caledonia are still campaigning, pretending that the basic voting rights of French citizens are being violated.
When considering that these 18,000 French citizens are entrepreneurs or highly qualified employees of the private sector, one can easily understand how much they can already weigh as obstacles to a genuine exercise of the right to self-determination and independence by the people of the Territory. Therefore they cannot be considered as part of the people.
It is obvious that all people living in the Territory at the time of the self-determination referendum are not “concerned” by the future of the Territory in which they have neither family interests nor determined economic interests that tie them to the past and heighten their awareness in the future of the Territory.
15 January 2010
Chamorro Self-Determination
(Marianas Variety)
By Ben Pangelinan
Over 3,600 years before the lost European Ferdinand Magellan ascended into our small island chain, 3,830 years before my grandmother was born and 3,887 years ago before I was born ---the Chamorro people sailed the oceans and lived on this land they called Guahan.
While we may assume that all was well, there was turmoil and fights among the natives, as territories were established, villages were staked out and boundaries were defended. Then in 1668 they came to settle, bringing their own social and religious systems, work, faith and institutions to make our heathen lives civilized and whole.
Some of the natives succumbed and converted. Maga lahis Hineti, Ayihi, So’on and Odo fought on the sides of the occupiers and were rewarded with title and status. Hurao, Ahgao, Hula, Chaifi, Mata’pang and Tolahi and many others resisted and fought these outsiders. They resisted and waged fierce battles to preserve our land, sea, and the fruits and bounties that were ours. They believed it was more important to live as we knew how and to serve our wants and needs as we saw fit. (I Manmanaina-ta: I Manmaga’lahi yan I manma’gas; Geran Chamoru yan Espanot 1668-1695. Ed Benavente 2007).
The resistance lasted for over 27 years and resulted in bloodshed. From the very beginning, the people strongly resisted and would not abandon their ancient customs or bow to the authority of the Spaniards. Governor de la Corta wrote in his Memoria “one does not know which to admire most, whether the tenacity of the Spaniards in conflicts with the elements against a cunning and treacherous people during no less than 20 years of resistance, or that of the natives pursuing such a cruel and prolonged war which could only end in their annihilation and ruin.”
The truth of these words, “annihilation and ruin” is reflected in the “reduccion” which sought to convert the natives. Beginning in 1668, marked by the killing of Pale Diego de San Vitores in 1672 and ending in 1698, it saw the reduction of the Chamorro people from the estimated 60,000 to 100,000 at the time of discovery to just 3,678, according to the 1710 census, a mere 12 years after the end of the war. (The Marianas Islands 1884-1887 Random Notes. Francisco Olice y Garcia. Translated and Annotated by Marjorie G. Driver. Second Edition 2006).
Insight to the determination of the Chamorros to defy the occupiers in the face of certain annihilation and ruin is most clearly articulated by Chief Hurao:
“The Europeans would have done better to remain in their own country. We have no need of their help to live happily. They take away from us the primitive simplicity in which we live. They dare to take away our liberty, which should be dearer to us than life itself. They try to persuade us that we will be happier, and some of us had been blinded into believing their words. But can we have such sentiments if we reflect that we have been covered with misery and illness ever since those foreigners have come to disturb our peace? For what purpose do they teach us except to make us adopt their customs, to subject us to their laws, and lose the precious liberty left to us by our ancestors?
We are stronger than we think! We can quickly free ourselves from these foreigners! We must regain our former freedom.” (Speech by Chief Hurao. Dated: 1671).
But heart and determination was not enough to overcome the resources and the advance weapons of the occupiers. For the next 200 plus years, the people lived under the control and domination of this outside metropolitan government. Then in 1898, as part of the spoils of the Spanish-American War, a new domination was begun. This time it was under the United States of America. While the Spanish used force, faith and bullets to impose their will, this new power was more beguiling using seduction and law to get their way.
An interesting fact of the event of this war, which placed Guam under the United States, was that it was declared after the passage of the Tellar amendment to ensure that the United States would not establish permanent control over Cuba following the cessation of hostilities with Spain. The amended resolution demanded the Spanish withdrawal and authorized the President to use as much military force as he thought necessary to help Cuba gain independence from Spain. Of the four territories taken by the United States because of the war, Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam, Puerto Rico and Guam continue to be under the administrative control of the United States. While the new occupier had a different approach towards the natives, they had one thing in common with the old—they imposed a government upon us, not of our own choosing. 1898 did not only bring a new occupying government over the people of Guam, it also brought a new occupant to Guam and that was my grandmother who was born on this island.
For the next four decades, the United States wielded its authority over the people, making decisions, which suited their needs and determined for us, the natives, what our needs were. Once again, the native leaders rose up to regain our rights, as a people in our own land..
Using reason and law, the weapons of the new occupiers, instead of sword and violence of the old, our leaders fought for our rights to govern ourselves and determine for ourselves what is best for our people. Once again, the occupier’s resources overwhelmed the meager resources of our people. We petitioned the Congress and even walked out of an institution they said gave us democracy and self-government when it was obvious they only did it to appease us. They continued to deny our right to self-determination and to our sisters in waiting—Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Philippines.
Once again, war came and the geopolitical events affecting independent states brought us a short era of foreign domination and occupation of a new power as Japan invaded Guam. Again, our people resisted and fought, while the United States left the Chamorros behind to deal with the invading enemy. The need for a base of operations to defeat the Japanese saw the return of the Americans, as she reclaimed her lost territory to serve as the launching point to end the war. As part of the structure of the new world order, the states of the world organized as a Union Nations dedicated to resolving future disputes in a peaceful manner and recognized the need to respect and honor the rights of those peoples liberated from domination and war.
The signatory states of the United Nations Charter freely agreed to obligate themselves and accept responsibility for the “administration of territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount … and to this end they would seek to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the people, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its people and their varying stages of advancement.” (Chapter X1, Article 73 (b). United Nations Charter).
At the signing of the United Nations Charter, nearly 100 nations were voluntarily placed on the list of non-self governing territories by the signatory states which held these places before World War II and entrusted to them the administration of the affairs to be governed according to the Charter. The United States as part of this event, accepted the obligation over Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Micronesia).
Since the establishment of the list, over 80 of the territories from the original list of non-self governing territories have been herded by their administrative authority through the process of self-determination, attaining the free expression of the people, their ultimate desire. Despite this progress, by 1960 the General Assembly believed that the pace of decolonization of the non-self governing territories, which still included Guam was too slow and adopted two landmark resolutions.
The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples marked the shift from the “principle of self determination for these territories” to “all peoples have the right to self-determination.” It further states that, “All people have the right to self-determination by virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development” (Resolution 1514(XV).
A component of that Declaration of Colonial People, Resolution 1514 set forth three ways in which these territories can attain a full measure of self-determination as envisioned in the Charter.The first option is Free association with an independent State as a result of the voluntarily choice expressed through an informed and democratic process. The second option is through Integration with an independent State based on complete equality between the peoples of the non-self governing territory and the independent State. And the third option was Independence. Whatever the option chosen by the people of the non-self governing territory, it must be the result of the freely expressed wishes of these peoples.
As of today, there remain 16 non-self governing territories from the original list of close to 100 who have yet to exercise self-determination and freely express their choice. Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, all administrated by the United States are part of the last remaining 16. There have been attempts by administrating authorities to redefine not only the process of self-determination and decolonization, but the status of self government as well. Decolonization is what happens when one exercises self-determination. It is direct democracy and affirmative action freely expressed by the people themselves, clearly a right inherent in the people of Guam and clearly remains unexercised to this date.
With the signing of the Treaty of Paris on April 11, 1899 between Spain and the United States, Guam’s status as a territory under the sovereignty of the United States was cemented in law with the ratification of the treaty. While we may not accept it, Guam and its people became the property of the United States and the governing of the people of Guam and their rights fell to the Congress. Article IX of the Treaty of Paris declared, “The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants… shall be determined by the Congress.”
The subsequent placement of Guam on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories by the United States effectively transferred the purview and process of determining the civil rights and political status for the people of Guam to the United Nations. The ratification and the acceptance of the United Nations Charters and Resolutions by the United States now governs the processes for granting the rights of the people of Guam to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development, in my opinion, confers upon the people of Guam the rights contained in the applicable United Nations process.
The petition for citizenship and the subsequent granting of such citizenship by the Organic Act is consistent with the responsibility of the United States as the administrating authority over Guam to “provide progressive development of their free political institutions” in no way can be defended as the free expression of the people of Guam. Acceptance of such incremental development and the improvement in such status is not the free exercise of choosing such status and most certainly not the will of the people. It is still a will imposed upon the people—no matter how generous, no matter how benevolent, no matter how good the administrating authority is. The true test of their goodness is when we decide on our own what we want for ourselves and they support it. Unfortunately, they have not been good.
When we talk about self-determination, one of the key elements of this exercise is the free and educated expression of the people’s right in determining their political status for themselves. As the administrating authority, it is the responsibility of the United States to fund the education process, so that the status option, whichever one is selected is not the status offered by those who have the most money to present their case.
An educated choice is the essential element in the exercise of self-determination and the people must be educated on the promise and the reality of each option to ensure a free choice.
Who are the people vested with the right of self-determination? It is clear that these people are the native inhabitants of a territory who are living under a political status or part of a political relationship with another state without their free expression to do so. These are the people to which the United Nations Charter speaks to as the colonial peoples of the non-self governing territories. Beginning with the Guam Legislature’s empanelling of the Political Status Commission in 1973, the struggle by the people of Guam to exercise their right to self-determination as recognized under the international law was initiated. A special Commission on the Political Status of Guam followed leading to Guam’s first political status plebiscite in 1976. The plebiscite was open to all the voters of Guam with a majority selecting the option of improved status quo.
In 1977, the federally sanctioned Constitutional Convention resulted in the draft of a constitution that was approved by the Congress but ultimately rejected by the people of Guam. The constitution was still subject to a status imposed upon the people, not of their own choosing. With a new Commission on Self-Determination in 1980, another status plebiscite, opened to all registered voters was approved. The plebiscite was held in 1982 with seven available status options. When none received a majority, a run off was held with the choice of commonwealth status eclipsing statehood by a three to one margin. For the next fifteen years, Congress and the President deferred any concrete action to approve the Guam Commonwealth Act.
The Commonwealth Act provided for Chamorro self-determination, mutual consent and immigration control, agreed to by the United States in the Covenant with the Northern Marianas. In 1997 during a congressional hearing before the House Resources Committee, it became clear that federal officials would not support these provisions in Guam’s Commonwealth Act.
With the continued inaction by the United States, the people of Guam and the leaders of Guam turn to the international basis of the right of the people of Guam to self-determination as embodied by the acceptance of the United States of the United Nations Charters and Resolutions which clearly outline the process for the decolonization of a people who remain under the list of non-self governing territories. This foray into accepting a constitution, drafting a constitution, voting on a constitution without the freely expressed wishes of the people as to the political status upon which this constitution will be used to govern, is what is missing.
From that failure, the direction has changed. It is now the policy of the people of Guam to seek first the expression of our right to self-determination through the freely exercised vote on a plebiscite for the statuses available to us under the United Nations articles and resolutions. No granting of any amount of internal self-governance without the people of Guam first freely voting on the political status that frames such self-governance can be interpreted as an expression and the fulfillment of the right of the people of Guam to self-determination.
We look forward to this continued effort, this continued quest of the people of Guam – the colonized people of Guam to exercise and make their fully educated choice on the options presented to us under the UN Charter and UN Resolution to fulfill the right of self-determination inherent in a people subjugated and dominated by administrating powers over the last four hundred years.
By Ben Pangelinan
Over 3,600 years before the lost European Ferdinand Magellan ascended into our small island chain, 3,830 years before my grandmother was born and 3,887 years ago before I was born ---the Chamorro people sailed the oceans and lived on this land they called Guahan.
While we may assume that all was well, there was turmoil and fights among the natives, as territories were established, villages were staked out and boundaries were defended. Then in 1668 they came to settle, bringing their own social and religious systems, work, faith and institutions to make our heathen lives civilized and whole.
Some of the natives succumbed and converted. Maga lahis Hineti, Ayihi, So’on and Odo fought on the sides of the occupiers and were rewarded with title and status. Hurao, Ahgao, Hula, Chaifi, Mata’pang and Tolahi and many others resisted and fought these outsiders. They resisted and waged fierce battles to preserve our land, sea, and the fruits and bounties that were ours. They believed it was more important to live as we knew how and to serve our wants and needs as we saw fit. (I Manmanaina-ta: I Manmaga’lahi yan I manma’gas; Geran Chamoru yan Espanot 1668-1695. Ed Benavente 2007).
The resistance lasted for over 27 years and resulted in bloodshed. From the very beginning, the people strongly resisted and would not abandon their ancient customs or bow to the authority of the Spaniards. Governor de la Corta wrote in his Memoria “one does not know which to admire most, whether the tenacity of the Spaniards in conflicts with the elements against a cunning and treacherous people during no less than 20 years of resistance, or that of the natives pursuing such a cruel and prolonged war which could only end in their annihilation and ruin.”
The truth of these words, “annihilation and ruin” is reflected in the “reduccion” which sought to convert the natives. Beginning in 1668, marked by the killing of Pale Diego de San Vitores in 1672 and ending in 1698, it saw the reduction of the Chamorro people from the estimated 60,000 to 100,000 at the time of discovery to just 3,678, according to the 1710 census, a mere 12 years after the end of the war. (The Marianas Islands 1884-1887 Random Notes. Francisco Olice y Garcia. Translated and Annotated by Marjorie G. Driver. Second Edition 2006).
Insight to the determination of the Chamorros to defy the occupiers in the face of certain annihilation and ruin is most clearly articulated by Chief Hurao:
“The Europeans would have done better to remain in their own country. We have no need of their help to live happily. They take away from us the primitive simplicity in which we live. They dare to take away our liberty, which should be dearer to us than life itself. They try to persuade us that we will be happier, and some of us had been blinded into believing their words. But can we have such sentiments if we reflect that we have been covered with misery and illness ever since those foreigners have come to disturb our peace? For what purpose do they teach us except to make us adopt their customs, to subject us to their laws, and lose the precious liberty left to us by our ancestors?
We are stronger than we think! We can quickly free ourselves from these foreigners! We must regain our former freedom.” (Speech by Chief Hurao. Dated: 1671).
But heart and determination was not enough to overcome the resources and the advance weapons of the occupiers. For the next 200 plus years, the people lived under the control and domination of this outside metropolitan government. Then in 1898, as part of the spoils of the Spanish-American War, a new domination was begun. This time it was under the United States of America. While the Spanish used force, faith and bullets to impose their will, this new power was more beguiling using seduction and law to get their way.
An interesting fact of the event of this war, which placed Guam under the United States, was that it was declared after the passage of the Tellar amendment to ensure that the United States would not establish permanent control over Cuba following the cessation of hostilities with Spain. The amended resolution demanded the Spanish withdrawal and authorized the President to use as much military force as he thought necessary to help Cuba gain independence from Spain. Of the four territories taken by the United States because of the war, Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam, Puerto Rico and Guam continue to be under the administrative control of the United States. While the new occupier had a different approach towards the natives, they had one thing in common with the old—they imposed a government upon us, not of our own choosing. 1898 did not only bring a new occupying government over the people of Guam, it also brought a new occupant to Guam and that was my grandmother who was born on this island.
For the next four decades, the United States wielded its authority over the people, making decisions, which suited their needs and determined for us, the natives, what our needs were. Once again, the native leaders rose up to regain our rights, as a people in our own land..
Using reason and law, the weapons of the new occupiers, instead of sword and violence of the old, our leaders fought for our rights to govern ourselves and determine for ourselves what is best for our people. Once again, the occupier’s resources overwhelmed the meager resources of our people. We petitioned the Congress and even walked out of an institution they said gave us democracy and self-government when it was obvious they only did it to appease us. They continued to deny our right to self-determination and to our sisters in waiting—Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Philippines.
Once again, war came and the geopolitical events affecting independent states brought us a short era of foreign domination and occupation of a new power as Japan invaded Guam. Again, our people resisted and fought, while the United States left the Chamorros behind to deal with the invading enemy. The need for a base of operations to defeat the Japanese saw the return of the Americans, as she reclaimed her lost territory to serve as the launching point to end the war. As part of the structure of the new world order, the states of the world organized as a Union Nations dedicated to resolving future disputes in a peaceful manner and recognized the need to respect and honor the rights of those peoples liberated from domination and war.
The signatory states of the United Nations Charter freely agreed to obligate themselves and accept responsibility for the “administration of territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount … and to this end they would seek to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the people, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its people and their varying stages of advancement.” (Chapter X1, Article 73 (b). United Nations Charter).
At the signing of the United Nations Charter, nearly 100 nations were voluntarily placed on the list of non-self governing territories by the signatory states which held these places before World War II and entrusted to them the administration of the affairs to be governed according to the Charter. The United States as part of this event, accepted the obligation over Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Micronesia).
Since the establishment of the list, over 80 of the territories from the original list of non-self governing territories have been herded by their administrative authority through the process of self-determination, attaining the free expression of the people, their ultimate desire. Despite this progress, by 1960 the General Assembly believed that the pace of decolonization of the non-self governing territories, which still included Guam was too slow and adopted two landmark resolutions.
The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples marked the shift from the “principle of self determination for these territories” to “all peoples have the right to self-determination.” It further states that, “All people have the right to self-determination by virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development” (Resolution 1514(XV).
A component of that Declaration of Colonial People, Resolution 1514 set forth three ways in which these territories can attain a full measure of self-determination as envisioned in the Charter.The first option is Free association with an independent State as a result of the voluntarily choice expressed through an informed and democratic process. The second option is through Integration with an independent State based on complete equality between the peoples of the non-self governing territory and the independent State. And the third option was Independence. Whatever the option chosen by the people of the non-self governing territory, it must be the result of the freely expressed wishes of these peoples.
As of today, there remain 16 non-self governing territories from the original list of close to 100 who have yet to exercise self-determination and freely express their choice. Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, all administrated by the United States are part of the last remaining 16. There have been attempts by administrating authorities to redefine not only the process of self-determination and decolonization, but the status of self government as well. Decolonization is what happens when one exercises self-determination. It is direct democracy and affirmative action freely expressed by the people themselves, clearly a right inherent in the people of Guam and clearly remains unexercised to this date.
With the signing of the Treaty of Paris on April 11, 1899 between Spain and the United States, Guam’s status as a territory under the sovereignty of the United States was cemented in law with the ratification of the treaty. While we may not accept it, Guam and its people became the property of the United States and the governing of the people of Guam and their rights fell to the Congress. Article IX of the Treaty of Paris declared, “The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants… shall be determined by the Congress.”
The subsequent placement of Guam on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories by the United States effectively transferred the purview and process of determining the civil rights and political status for the people of Guam to the United Nations. The ratification and the acceptance of the United Nations Charters and Resolutions by the United States now governs the processes for granting the rights of the people of Guam to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development, in my opinion, confers upon the people of Guam the rights contained in the applicable United Nations process.
The petition for citizenship and the subsequent granting of such citizenship by the Organic Act is consistent with the responsibility of the United States as the administrating authority over Guam to “provide progressive development of their free political institutions” in no way can be defended as the free expression of the people of Guam. Acceptance of such incremental development and the improvement in such status is not the free exercise of choosing such status and most certainly not the will of the people. It is still a will imposed upon the people—no matter how generous, no matter how benevolent, no matter how good the administrating authority is. The true test of their goodness is when we decide on our own what we want for ourselves and they support it. Unfortunately, they have not been good.
When we talk about self-determination, one of the key elements of this exercise is the free and educated expression of the people’s right in determining their political status for themselves. As the administrating authority, it is the responsibility of the United States to fund the education process, so that the status option, whichever one is selected is not the status offered by those who have the most money to present their case.
An educated choice is the essential element in the exercise of self-determination and the people must be educated on the promise and the reality of each option to ensure a free choice.
Who are the people vested with the right of self-determination? It is clear that these people are the native inhabitants of a territory who are living under a political status or part of a political relationship with another state without their free expression to do so. These are the people to which the United Nations Charter speaks to as the colonial peoples of the non-self governing territories. Beginning with the Guam Legislature’s empanelling of the Political Status Commission in 1973, the struggle by the people of Guam to exercise their right to self-determination as recognized under the international law was initiated. A special Commission on the Political Status of Guam followed leading to Guam’s first political status plebiscite in 1976. The plebiscite was open to all the voters of Guam with a majority selecting the option of improved status quo.
In 1977, the federally sanctioned Constitutional Convention resulted in the draft of a constitution that was approved by the Congress but ultimately rejected by the people of Guam. The constitution was still subject to a status imposed upon the people, not of their own choosing. With a new Commission on Self-Determination in 1980, another status plebiscite, opened to all registered voters was approved. The plebiscite was held in 1982 with seven available status options. When none received a majority, a run off was held with the choice of commonwealth status eclipsing statehood by a three to one margin. For the next fifteen years, Congress and the President deferred any concrete action to approve the Guam Commonwealth Act.
The Commonwealth Act provided for Chamorro self-determination, mutual consent and immigration control, agreed to by the United States in the Covenant with the Northern Marianas. In 1997 during a congressional hearing before the House Resources Committee, it became clear that federal officials would not support these provisions in Guam’s Commonwealth Act.
With the continued inaction by the United States, the people of Guam and the leaders of Guam turn to the international basis of the right of the people of Guam to self-determination as embodied by the acceptance of the United States of the United Nations Charters and Resolutions which clearly outline the process for the decolonization of a people who remain under the list of non-self governing territories. This foray into accepting a constitution, drafting a constitution, voting on a constitution without the freely expressed wishes of the people as to the political status upon which this constitution will be used to govern, is what is missing.
From that failure, the direction has changed. It is now the policy of the people of Guam to seek first the expression of our right to self-determination through the freely exercised vote on a plebiscite for the statuses available to us under the United Nations articles and resolutions. No granting of any amount of internal self-governance without the people of Guam first freely voting on the political status that frames such self-governance can be interpreted as an expression and the fulfillment of the right of the people of Guam to self-determination.
We look forward to this continued effort, this continued quest of the people of Guam – the colonized people of Guam to exercise and make their fully educated choice on the options presented to us under the UN Charter and UN Resolution to fulfill the right of self-determination inherent in a people subjugated and dominated by administrating powers over the last four hundred years.
14 January 2010
Noumea takes control of education
The article New Caledonia Congress Endorses Further Autonomy originally published by Oceania Flash raised considerable interest in terms of devolution of power from the cosmopole to the overseas territories. An excellent analysis of this transfer of power from France to New Caledonia, consistent with the Noumea Accord, has been written by premier Pacific expert Nic Maclellan. The analysis has been made available to OTR with permission of the author.
By Nic Maclellan
Islands Business
In a massive shift of staffing and financial resources, the local government in New Caledonia will take control of secondary education from France in 2012. On November 30, members of New Caledonia’s Congress voted unanimously to accept the transfer of key powers from Paris to Noumea, including the regulation of maritime and domestic air traffic and—most importantly—control of secondary and private primary education.
In 2006, New Caledonia gained authority over government-run primary schools. But the decision to take on the secondary system means a doubling of the Pacific nation’s budget, with thousands of new staff coming under local authority. With 43,000 students in 180 schools, the number of teachers under Noumea’s control will leap to 4,500 (more than three times the current number). If the local government was to pay all the bills, the education budget would be 46 billion French Pacific francs (A$626 million), so sustainable and ongoing funding has been at the centre of negotiations with Paris for months.
Noumea Accord
The education reforms are part of the ongoing transfer of powers from Paris to Noumea under the Noumea Accord. The accord, signed in May 1998, set out a twenty-year transition towards a referendum on self-determination. Under the agreement, powers currently held by the French State are being transferred to New Caledonia in stages, supported by ongoing funding from France. Unlike France’s autonomy statute for French Polynesia, these powers cannot revert to Paris once transferred. There needs to be a 3/5 majority in New Caledonia’s Congress to approve the transfer, and all powers must be transferred by 2014, except for the key elements of nationhood—justice, public order, defence, finance and currency.
The transfer of these five remaining “sovereign powers” will be decided in a referendum on self-determination. According to the Noumea Accord, this vote on New Caledonia’s political status will be held between 2014 and 2018 and will focus on “the transfer of sovereign powers to New Caledonia, accession to an international status of full responsibility and transformation from citizenship to nationality.”
In the first government established under the Noumea Accord between 1999 and 2004, very little was done to address the transfer of powers: the government was dominated by the anti-independence Rassemblement UMP party, which continues to see New Caledonia as an integral part of the French republic. But after the 2004 local elections, the incoming government led by the Avenir Ensemble (Future Together) party began to negotiate the transfer of a series of powers.
Rewriting the Colonial Curriculum
The transfer of primary education provides an example of the challenge facing New Caledonia as it takes on responsibility for secondary education. Between 2002 and 2006, teachers, parents and a range of educational experts had to debate major changes to the education curriculum. In subjects like history and geography, there was a need to completely rewrite school textbooks, to reflect New Caledonia’s place as a Melanesian nation in the South Pacific, rather than a distant suburb of Paris!
There was extensive debate over whether to make Kanak vernacular languages compulsory for primary students (a proposal eventually abandoned because of concerns over the cost of teacher training and the availability of texts for the 28 Kanak languages). Teachers’ unions had to be persuaded to change the rules so non-qualified personnel could teach in the classroom, allowing older members of the indigenous Kanak community to help young school children learn their languages, history and culture.
Over the next two years, a similar process will be undertaken for secondary schools, with education coming under Noumea’s control from 1 January 2012. At present, 30 percent of students, mainly Kanak, drop out or are pushed out of school without obtaining any qualifications, so localisation of curriculum and teaching is vital.
For the FLNKS representatives in Congress, speaking in support of the reforms, the French colonial education system had soured successive generations of young people away from a joy of learning: “How many Kanak parents continue to feel resentment towards schools that so often bullied or rejected them? How many young people today still feel so uneasy in our schools, that they leave them with a deep hatred of the system? How else can we explain the regular violent attacks on school buildings and teachers? There is a fundamental problem: what can we do so that New Caledonians of all cultures are proud of their schools?”
According to New Caledonia’s President Philippe Gomes: “The process we’re undertaking must feed into a truly New Caledonian education system. That’s the reason we’re taking two years to implement the changes. In 2010, we will undertake an audit of our education system, to be followed by a great debate across the territory about education. Then in 2011 we’ll develop legislation for the school programme. Our aim is to end up with a more efficient education system that is better suited to our country.”
For months, New Caledonia’s government has been negotiating with the French authorities to guarantee the ongoing funding which will make the transfer possible. France currently funds teachers’ salaries and this has enormous budgetary implications if Noumea has to pay the bills in future years.
Rassemblement UMP leader Pierre Frogier, who serves as one of New Caledonia representatives in the French National Assembly, argued the change should only occur with guaranteed French funding: “Concerning secondary education, we must be assured that the French State will support us in a reasonable manner, to allow New Caledonia to ensure that the quality of its education system is at least as good as currently exists. This especially involves the free provision of staffing and the financing of two new high schools at Mont-Dore and Pouembout, which we have been waiting for many years.”
In a compromise to gain support from anti-independence politicians—worried that education standards will fall—Kanak leaders accepted that France should retain control of some aspects of education policy. Paris has retained authority over teacher qualification, issuing diplomas and approving the final school curriculum.
More powers to come
There’s more changes to come. Under the latest decision, control of maritime affairs in New Caledonia’s territorial waters will take effect on January 1, 2011 and control of domestic air transport and airport police in January 2013 (however the international airport at Tontouta will remain under French control).
By December 2011, the congress must decide on the transfer of other areas, including civil and commercial law, civil security and control of key statutory bodies including the land mobilisation and development office Agence pour le développement rural et l’aménagement foncier (ADRAF) and the Agence pour le développement de la culture Kanak (ADCK), which runs cultural programs and the Tjibaou Cultural Centre. Before 2014, Noumea must appeal to Paris for authority over tertiary education, television and radio and the financial governance of local councils.
While conservative members of the government of New Caledonia see this process as a shift to greater local autonomy within the French Republic, the FLNKS independence movement sees the changes as a vital step on the path to decolonisation. Gerard Regnier from the Union Calédonienne party states: “For us in FLNKS, the transfer of powers must be well organised and the timetable must be maintained. You must remember that the position of FLNKS is that all powers must be transferred before 2014, except of course the sovereign powers.”
By Nic Maclellan
Islands Business
In a massive shift of staffing and financial resources, the local government in New Caledonia will take control of secondary education from France in 2012. On November 30, members of New Caledonia’s Congress voted unanimously to accept the transfer of key powers from Paris to Noumea, including the regulation of maritime and domestic air traffic and—most importantly—control of secondary and private primary education.
In 2006, New Caledonia gained authority over government-run primary schools. But the decision to take on the secondary system means a doubling of the Pacific nation’s budget, with thousands of new staff coming under local authority. With 43,000 students in 180 schools, the number of teachers under Noumea’s control will leap to 4,500 (more than three times the current number). If the local government was to pay all the bills, the education budget would be 46 billion French Pacific francs (A$626 million), so sustainable and ongoing funding has been at the centre of negotiations with Paris for months.
Noumea Accord
The education reforms are part of the ongoing transfer of powers from Paris to Noumea under the Noumea Accord. The accord, signed in May 1998, set out a twenty-year transition towards a referendum on self-determination. Under the agreement, powers currently held by the French State are being transferred to New Caledonia in stages, supported by ongoing funding from France. Unlike France’s autonomy statute for French Polynesia, these powers cannot revert to Paris once transferred. There needs to be a 3/5 majority in New Caledonia’s Congress to approve the transfer, and all powers must be transferred by 2014, except for the key elements of nationhood—justice, public order, defence, finance and currency.
The transfer of these five remaining “sovereign powers” will be decided in a referendum on self-determination. According to the Noumea Accord, this vote on New Caledonia’s political status will be held between 2014 and 2018 and will focus on “the transfer of sovereign powers to New Caledonia, accession to an international status of full responsibility and transformation from citizenship to nationality.”
In the first government established under the Noumea Accord between 1999 and 2004, very little was done to address the transfer of powers: the government was dominated by the anti-independence Rassemblement UMP party, which continues to see New Caledonia as an integral part of the French republic. But after the 2004 local elections, the incoming government led by the Avenir Ensemble (Future Together) party began to negotiate the transfer of a series of powers.
Rewriting the Colonial Curriculum
The transfer of primary education provides an example of the challenge facing New Caledonia as it takes on responsibility for secondary education. Between 2002 and 2006, teachers, parents and a range of educational experts had to debate major changes to the education curriculum. In subjects like history and geography, there was a need to completely rewrite school textbooks, to reflect New Caledonia’s place as a Melanesian nation in the South Pacific, rather than a distant suburb of Paris!
There was extensive debate over whether to make Kanak vernacular languages compulsory for primary students (a proposal eventually abandoned because of concerns over the cost of teacher training and the availability of texts for the 28 Kanak languages). Teachers’ unions had to be persuaded to change the rules so non-qualified personnel could teach in the classroom, allowing older members of the indigenous Kanak community to help young school children learn their languages, history and culture.
Over the next two years, a similar process will be undertaken for secondary schools, with education coming under Noumea’s control from 1 January 2012. At present, 30 percent of students, mainly Kanak, drop out or are pushed out of school without obtaining any qualifications, so localisation of curriculum and teaching is vital.
For the FLNKS representatives in Congress, speaking in support of the reforms, the French colonial education system had soured successive generations of young people away from a joy of learning: “How many Kanak parents continue to feel resentment towards schools that so often bullied or rejected them? How many young people today still feel so uneasy in our schools, that they leave them with a deep hatred of the system? How else can we explain the regular violent attacks on school buildings and teachers? There is a fundamental problem: what can we do so that New Caledonians of all cultures are proud of their schools?”
According to New Caledonia’s President Philippe Gomes: “The process we’re undertaking must feed into a truly New Caledonian education system. That’s the reason we’re taking two years to implement the changes. In 2010, we will undertake an audit of our education system, to be followed by a great debate across the territory about education. Then in 2011 we’ll develop legislation for the school programme. Our aim is to end up with a more efficient education system that is better suited to our country.”
For months, New Caledonia’s government has been negotiating with the French authorities to guarantee the ongoing funding which will make the transfer possible. France currently funds teachers’ salaries and this has enormous budgetary implications if Noumea has to pay the bills in future years.
Rassemblement UMP leader Pierre Frogier, who serves as one of New Caledonia representatives in the French National Assembly, argued the change should only occur with guaranteed French funding: “Concerning secondary education, we must be assured that the French State will support us in a reasonable manner, to allow New Caledonia to ensure that the quality of its education system is at least as good as currently exists. This especially involves the free provision of staffing and the financing of two new high schools at Mont-Dore and Pouembout, which we have been waiting for many years.”
In a compromise to gain support from anti-independence politicians—worried that education standards will fall—Kanak leaders accepted that France should retain control of some aspects of education policy. Paris has retained authority over teacher qualification, issuing diplomas and approving the final school curriculum.
More powers to come
There’s more changes to come. Under the latest decision, control of maritime affairs in New Caledonia’s territorial waters will take effect on January 1, 2011 and control of domestic air transport and airport police in January 2013 (however the international airport at Tontouta will remain under French control).
By December 2011, the congress must decide on the transfer of other areas, including civil and commercial law, civil security and control of key statutory bodies including the land mobilisation and development office Agence pour le développement rural et l’aménagement foncier (ADRAF) and the Agence pour le développement de la culture Kanak (ADCK), which runs cultural programs and the Tjibaou Cultural Centre. Before 2014, Noumea must appeal to Paris for authority over tertiary education, television and radio and the financial governance of local councils.
While conservative members of the government of New Caledonia see this process as a shift to greater local autonomy within the French Republic, the FLNKS independence movement sees the changes as a vital step on the path to decolonisation. Gerard Regnier from the Union Calédonienne party states: “For us in FLNKS, the transfer of powers must be well organised and the timetable must be maintained. You must remember that the position of FLNKS is that all powers must be transferred before 2014, except of course the sovereign powers.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)